<p>That's taking it a bit far, especially for big names like those. I personally don't agree with this either, sounds like LEGO should step in there and use their copyright laywers unless some action against this unofficial logo idea. </p>

<p>If the logo is as close to the actual one on the site/catalogs/etc... and you're not allowed to, for some reason or another, get that logo, it makes sense to me. </p><p>Otherwise (if the official logo has not yet been revealed/does not exist/can be used legally on this site) then I agree with Jeyo. </p>

<p>Wikipedia uses self-made logos all the time, as long as they properly reflect the article in question. The Mixels logo I put together using Photoshop, stripping the background from another image and restoring borders and colour to the logo, thus under US Fair Use Copyright law, it's not the official copyrighted logo, and is an adaptation of the original work. Under US Fair Use Copyright law, the LEGO Simpsons logo is considered an official copyrighted work by both the LEGO Group and FOX Entertainment due to the usage of copyrighted official works. With the logos, they do not misrepresent, tarnish, or mislead the viewer when looking at the subject matter on the article. It properly identifies the article content when a viewer enters the page, catching the reader's attention and assuring them they have reached the page they are looking for, which is the entire point of an infobox on any wiki. Being the fact that the logo is, legally under copyright law, considered official, I think it would be rather pointless to remove them, as it would be removing good content from the article. </p>

<p>We aren't Wikipedia, and I'd oppose it even if we were. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Jeyo wrote: We aren't Wikipedia, and I'd oppose it even if we were. </p> </i></div>
<p>Okay, but we are a website under an organization hosted by a US company, thus US law still applies to this. As US law would identify these logos as official copyrighted works, they're acceptable on the wiki under Fair Use. Additionally, with the Minecraft Logo, it's identical to that of the logo used in official releases such as instructions by the LEGO Group sans a 30px difference between the LEGO and Minecraft logos at 11k px full-width, which at 200px width in an infobox is unnoticeable. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>ToaMeiko wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Jeyo wrote: We aren't Wikipedia, and I'd oppose it even if we were. </p> </i></div>
<p>Okay, but we are a website under an organization hosted by a US company, thus US law still applies to this. As US law would identify these logos as official copyrighted works, they're acceptable on the wiki under Fair Use. Additionally, with the Minecraft Logo, it's identical to that of the logo used in official releases such as instructions by the LEGO Group sans a 30px difference between the LEGO and Minecraft logos at 11k px full-width, which at 200px width in an infobox is unnoticeable. </p> </div> <p>The individual logos may be recognized, but put together they make something different; unofficial. And it doesn't feel right to use unofficial logos, no matter how close they are to what LEGO might make. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Jeyo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>ToaMeiko wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Jeyo wrote: We aren't Wikipedia, and I'd oppose it even if we were. </p> </i></div>
<p>Okay, but we are a website under an organization hosted by a US company, thus US law still applies to this. As US law would identify these logos as official copyrighted works, they're acceptable on the wiki under Fair Use. Additionally, with the Minecraft Logo, it's identical to that of the logo used in official releases such as instructions by the LEGO Group sans a 30px difference between the LEGO and Minecraft logos at 11k px full-width, which at 200px width in an infobox is unnoticeable. </p> </div> <p>The individual logos may be recognized, but put together they make something different; unofficial. And it doesn't feel right to use unofficial logos, no matter how close they are to what LEGO might make. </p> </div> <p>Okay, then how about you go find a PDF with the logos on it, take the official logos out of it, and upload the file that's an exact duplicate to the one that's already uploaded. Why remove something that positively contributes to the article? If it does end up being a drastic difference when LEGO releases it (which it won't, because they can't alter a work that has been copyrighted by another group and then publish it under their own Intellectual Property, thus being a violation of copyright law), then the file can be uploaded with a new version. The most that can legally change is if it's a recolourization or if they use a different logo that is copyrighted by the property holder (so in The Simpsons' case, FOX Entertainment), but I'd doubt they'd do that, since the logo I uploaded uses the current Simpsons logo. For now, leave the files in its place. </p>

<p>I'd do that, had I not stopped editing this wiki. You;re welcome to, though; shouldn't be that difficult. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Jeyo wrote: I'd do that, had I not stopped editing this wiki. You;re welcome to, though; shouldn't be that difficult. </p> </i></div>
<p>I'm not sure I understand. You "stopped editing this wiki", yet you are still an active administrator and have the ability to remove the image from the article, but can't re-add it to the article? I can add it back, it's just that what you said doesn't seem to make sense. </p>

<p>Can't say I'm a fan of self-made logos either, to me it should either be from an official source (box art, official shop site, etc) or not at all. </p>