<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
I believe it is fine to use the official (!) logos. Dropbox has a
paragraph that essentially describes our function:<br>
<br>
You may only use the Dropbox name and logo in your app to
identify or direct a user to a Dropbox integration or functionality.
For example, you may use a Dropbox logo and "Save to Dropbox" text
on a button to prompt a user to save a file to Dropbox.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.dropbox.com/developers/reference/branding-guide">https://www.dropbox.com/developers/reference/branding-guide</a><br>
<br>
For facebook I couldn't find something that clear, for obvious
reasons their documentation mostly talks about websites, sharing and
linking to organization facebook pages. But the following also seems
very close:<br>
<br>
<span class="guideline__leadoff"
data-reactid=".0.2.$=1$assetsf-logo.0.1.0.0.1.2.0.1.$1.0"> Do
only use the "f" logo to refer to:<br>
[...]<br>
</span> - Your product’s integration with Facebook, such as "For
use with Facebook"<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.facebookbrand.com/assets/f-logo">https://en.facebookbrand.com/assets/f-logo</a><br>
<br>
I would just always use the official logo, if provided, and assume
it's fine as we direct users to their services in good faith. All
the docs I have seen are very clear, that they do not want any
alterations of their logos or self-creations, that look similar to
their logo - so using something that looks like the logo but isn't
really is a bad idea.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/05/18 14:04, Gilles Caulier
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHFG6sHTH=BB6P9kC9JhKcHS+Wbpf9Wh_twMK5aoeXacc2Cwjg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">In all case, if the icons are problematic from the
right viewpoint, we can always drop the icons and replace it by
the generic "internet" one from Oxygen or another set. there is
not technical issue to process these changes.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Gilles</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2018-05-11 12:34 GMT+02:00 Maik
Qualmann <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:metzpinguin@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">metzpinguin@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">If I look
through the icons here under openSUSE, I find some in
choqok, breeze <br>
or oxygen5. Are these icons also problematic? If I
understand the guidelines <br>
correctly, they must not be changed in appearance. We could
change that. I was <br>
recently porting Dropbox to new API and read the guidelines
and I think the <br>
use of Dropbox icons is okay. Dropbox has activated the
digiKam uploader <br>
without complaint. Which solution do you think would be the
right one?<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Maik<br>
</font></span>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
Am Donnerstag, 10. Mai 2018, 13:39:44 CEST schrieb
Fabian Vogt:<br>
> Hi,<br>
> <br>
> Am Donnerstag, 10. Mai 2018, 13:05:12 CEST schrieb
Gilles Caulier:<br>
> > In fact the icons are exactly the same than
kipi-plugins, which is already<br>
> > packaged.<br>
> <br>
> Yes, but it has the exact same issue. We just
weren't aware of it before the<br>
> move made us look at the icons.<br>
> <br>
> > The icons are not the same than trademarked
one, of course. There are just<br>
> > an imitation with severals differences, as i
can see.<br>
> <br>
> That's actually worse.<br>
> <br>
> Let me quote the Facebook brand guidelines:<br>
> <br>
> "Don’t modify Facebook brand assets in any way"<br>
> "Don't use trademarks, names, domain names, logos
or other content that<br>
> imitates or could be confused with Facebook"<br>
> "Don't use any icons, images or trademarks to
represent Facebook other than<br>
> what is found on this resource center"<br>
> <br>
> (<a
href="https://en.facebookbrand.com/guidelines/brand"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.facebookbrand.com/<wbr>guidelines/brand</a>,
"Don'ts" section)<br>
> <br>
> I would expect the guidelines for the other logos
to be the same.<br>
> <br>
> Cheers,<br>
> Fabian<br>
> <br>
> > Gilles Caulier<br>
> > <br>
> > 2018-05-10 10:51 GMT+02:00 Luca Beltrame <<a
href="mailto:lbeltrame@kde.org" moz-do-not-send="true">lbeltrame@kde.org</a>>:<br>
> > > Hello,<br>
> > > <br>
> > > when digikam deprecated the software
collection and merged the data in<br>
> > > the<br>
> > > main repository, I noticed, while
packaging git snapshots for openSUSE,<br>
> > > that<br>
> > > there are a number of potential
trademarked icons in the repository<br>
> > > (core/<br>
> > > data/icons):<br>
> > > <br>
> > > - dropbox<br>
> > > - facebook<br>
> > > - flickr<br>
> > > - gdrive<br>
> > > - imageshack<br>
> > > <br>
> > > and others.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > Were those icons put there in accordance
to the trademark guidelines of<br>
> > > the<br>
> > > respective services? Otherwise, at least
the most conscious<br>
> > > distributions<br>
> > > won't be able to distribute digikam due
to possible trademark usage<br>
> > > violations.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > --<br>
> > > Luca Beltrame - KDE Forums team<br>
> > > KDE Science supporter<br>
> > > GPG key ID: A29D259B<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>