As such, stating accurately that software is written in the Python programming language, that it is compatible with the Python programming language, or that it contains the Python programming language, is always allowed. In those cases, you may use the word “Python” or the unaltered logos to indicate this, without our prior approval. This is true both for non-commercial and commercial uses.
I wanted to put the “python powered” logo at the bottom of the web page and set the Python logo as the favicon. I would just want to indicate that the project was written in Python, because I want to promote the language which has helped me a lot, and because I read somewhere that PSF would appreciate that.
Now a forum member got me thinking. What does the “python powered” logo truly mean? Would somebody draw the conclusion that there is a partnership or endorsement?
If the logo is ambiguous, I think it would be good if PSF made a logo which is tailored to cases like mine. “Written in Python”, maybe with a small footnote. If there were a logo like that, I would choose that one.
Can I use this logo like I described, is it better to just use words, or is it best to just drop the reference altogether?
As for the use of the Python powered logo, again IANAL and this is not legal advice, and nor do I speak on behalf of the PSF, but right below it, the page states
In general, we want the logo to be used as widely as possible to indicate use of Python or suitability for Python. However, please ask first when using a derived version of the logo or when in doubt.
As this use case, indicating that the web backend is written in Python, seems pretty explicitly what was intended by the logo, it would seem this use is perfectly consistent with what is intended by it. However, it is certainly better safe than sorry and clarification on this point wouldn’t hurt.
If you mean setting the favicon of your website to the Python logo, I would certainly at the very least seek permission from the PSF on this point, and maybe think twice about it for your own sake. This would tend to imply not only an association with Python, but could represent your site as being an official Python/PSF website itself, given it is using their logo as yours. This could create confusion for readers over whether your website itself is affiliated, endorsed or owned by Python/the PSF, takes advantage of the PSF’s goodwill, implies endorsement of its contents and, to your own detriment, doesn’t create a unique visual identity for your own site for readers to associate with it.
Therefore, this is not legal advice, but I’d suggest rethinking this part of it and using your own unique logo—assuming I’m interpreting what you’re suggesting correctly.
The “Python powered” logo is not trademarked by the PSF, but the wordmark “Python” is, so you can use it on project pages where you use Python as one of the components driving the project without asking the PSF. For other uses, please ask the PSF Trademark Committee.
(I am co-chair of the PSF Trademark Committee; contact us if you have more questions or want to get approval for your use).
As a disclaimer, I am not a licensed attorney and this is not legal advice, but at least under US law, the Python logo and logotype both are integral parts of the “Python powered” graphic, and the the “powered” text is in the PSF’s distinctive trade dress (font, style and color), so it would seem to be equally eligible for trademark protection aside from statutory damages (in fact, the PSF disclaiming it could weaken the protection of the multiple marks it incorporates) so it is unclear how much practical difference any distinction makes in this case.
The PSF also holds the copyright to the design, so it would also be protected by such (subject to the license under which it was released, if any—could you clarify if the logos are released under the PSF license as far as copyright is concerned, or if not under what license? I couldn’t find that explicitly stated.)
The concerning element for me was that the user proposed using the Python logo for the favicon of their site, which would seem rather problematic from multiple angles (consumer confusion, appropriation of goodwill, etc), but that would ultimately be a matter for you and your counsel to decide, of course.
Ah, sorry for the confusion, I was thinking of the old “Python powered” logo.
For the new one, which does include the logo device, we own the trademark to the logo device and the wordmark, and can probably claim the trademark to the entire logo as well, but we don’t have this registered. Still, due to the “Python powered” logo using the logo device and wordmark, the same TM policy applies.
The PSF does own all IP rights to the logo, which was designed by Tim Parkin, who then transferred all rights to the PSF in 2007.
Use of the logo as favicon for a website is often problematic given the tiny size of favicons. We don’t encourage people to use the logo that way, but usually also don’t sanction it, provided the website content focuses on Python. We do, in case the logo is used a favicon for websites which don’t have this focus.
Thanks! The detailed clarifications are appreciated.
I’m assuming here you intend to use “sanction” in its meaning of “proscribe”, as in this context in English, “sanction” (an auto-antonym) would more typically be used to mean “endorse”, which I’m guessing is not what you intend
I am referring to applying actions which help stop ongoing violations, e.g. asking for removal of the logo, sending a C&D letter, all the way up to getting lawyers and courts involved, if necessary.
Luckily, most case can be dealt with with a simple email.
Understood, thanks; I just wanted to make sure, since at least in the context of that particular phrasing, in most English usage I’m familiar with, the typical meaning of “sanction” would actually be the opposite of what I believed you likely intended (yes, English can be very actively contradictory at times).