Can route marker Signs from Wikipedia be used on commercially sold maps?

[Brian556]

I am currently making a Orlando Metro Highways and major streets only map. It would be 8.5x11, laminated. I am making it for myself as a project, but am looking into to selling it commercially. I feel that this product would be useful to many visitors.

I discovered the need for this type of map when visiting Orlando. I realized that it is not practical to use your phone while driving to look at Google Maps, and that paper maps are way too big, and show all residential streets when you only need to know the highways and major streets to get around town.
Also, everybody else's maps are really lousy concerning numbered roads. Many show hidden or deleted designations that just confuse people.

Can route marker signs from Wikipedia be used on this map if I sell it commercially?
How about other signs such as Airport and Library Symbols from other sites? Some are copyrighted if the image is hand made by an individual, right? Can I be safe by getting these from the MUTCD online?

[oscar]

In the U.S., just about everything is copyrighted from the moment of creation, even if there is no copyright marking or registration. The biggest exception to that is works created by the Federal Government. That might help you with the MUTCD, except to the extent it includes private, copyrighted content not created by a Federal employee.

Wikipedia Commons' terms of use are a complicated mess (and I'm not sure I'm even pointing to the right TOS), They indicate there might be multiple licenses covering individual images, which you'd need to look up for each image to see if there's one you can live with. The biggest potential gotcha is that some licenses may require that not only the images shown on Wikipedia, but also "derivative works" using them, be freely available for reuse by others. That could kill the commercial value of the maps you want to create. There may also be requirements that you credit individual content creators for use of their images. Your publisher might be able to help you, or at least tell you it doesn't want to mess with these questions to publish something including Wikipedia content.

While I'm a lawyer (retired, with an inactive license that doesn't allow me to practice law unless I reactivate the license), I have no expertise in copyright except for some exposure as a former Federal employee to the copyright exception for Federal Government works.

[Brian556]

Thanks. I'll probably just create each one from scratch by tracing.

[briantroutman]

Go ahead and use the shields on Wikipedia.

The concerns Oscar mentioned apply to items that are shared through the various Creative Commons licenses. But none of that applies to route markers because they are already in the public domain.*

Just to be sure of the copyright status of any image on Wikipedia, you can click on the route marker image to bring up the info page for that file. In the lower right corner, you'll see information about the image's copyright status–public domain.



You're free to use anything in the public domain personally, privately, or publicly–including creating derivative works and selling it commercially.

* Technically, AASHTO holds a trademark–not a copyright–on the Interstate shield, but that is to prevent state DOTs and private toll road operators from slapping Interstate shields on roads which AASHTO hasn't approved for the Interstate System. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of cartographers and publishers have been using the Interstate shield on maps, brochures, and advertisements for half a century with no legal challenge.

[txstateends]

Also TV stations and newspapers use the images to illustrate stories/articles (even more now since they were created and uploaded for Wikipedia).

[Scott5114]

It is a sitewide policy that anything created to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons must be able to be used commercially, so categorically, you can use anything on that site. There are some images uploaded to the English Wikipedia that are used under "fair use", but common sense should tell you that you can't use them–they're usually things like logos, excerpts of commercial works like screenshots of TV and movies or album covers, etc.

All of the route marker signs on Wikipedia were created by roadgeeks for the use of other roadgeeks, so the creator is probably completely fine with it. In fact, most of the Florida route markers were created by NE2.

[US71]

Thanks. I'll probably just create each one from scratch by tracing.

Have you tried downloading from the Shield Generator?

[Max Rockatansky]

Isn't the Interstate Shield the only design that has a trademark actually active on it currently?

[briantroutman]

Isn't the Interstate Shield the only design that has a trademark actually active on it currently?

The Interstate shield is at least the only shield on which AASHTO holds a trademark. Considering how many company logos, shirt designs, etc. rip off the shield and its colors, sometimes almost perfectly with FHWA type, AASHTO is clearly not attempting to curb its use for non-highway-marking purposes. In fact, they likely had legal grounds to force PennDOT to take down I-99 shields, but rather than fight that battle, they just approved the designation after the fact.

A search of a few toll road organizations reveals that most do not hold an active trademark on route shields, though many have ancillary trademarks for slogans and the like.

The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority had trademarked both the arrow-through-hat and current Mass Pike shields, though both records are shown to have lapsed.

Of those I searched, New Jersey Turnpike Authority holds by far the most trademarks–numerous duplicate registrations of the NJ Turnpike and GSP shields and names to cover a variety of non-highway-related uses. Scanning down the list: t-shirts, beach towels, non-metal and non-leather key chains, coffee mugs, lapel pins, decorative magnets... They also have trademarks for the purposes of "highway management and maintenance services" . I recall a news item in which the NJTA sued an NJ expat (I believe in Florida) for using a restaurant logo which resembled the GSP shield. So they seem to be far and way the most litigious.

[bulldog1979]

A company in Michigan holds a trademark registration on the M-22 marker and has been using that to fight other people's uses of other state highway markers on merchandise. Most notably, they tried to sue someone for using the M-119 marker on merchandise to promote the "Tunnel of Trees". Our state AG filed a brief reconfirming that the markers are public domain, but that's only related to copyright, not trademarks. I haven't looked in a while to see if the trademark on M-22 has ever been canceled or lapsed yet.

[Max Rockatansky]

A company in Michigan holds a trademark registration on the M-22 marker and has been using that to fight other people's uses of other state highway markers on merchandise. Most notably, they tried to sue someone for using the M-119 marker on merchandise to promote the "Tunnel of Trees". Our state AG filed a brief reconfirming that the markers are public domain, but that's only related to copyright, not trademarks. I haven't looked in a while to see if the trademark on M-22 has ever been canceled or lapsed yet.

Those are the guys who are peddling those M22 stickers all over Ebay?  That's one of the few trunk lines that has a huge following among the locals.  My brother-in law has a cabin on M22, I've been trying to find him a used sign for years.  I got him and my sister an M37 last year for Christmas, it was about as close as I got.  Makes me wonder if that has something to do with why I never see M22 come onto the after market via scrap when I've found all the surrounding routes.

[cpzilliacus]

A company in Michigan holds a trademark registration on the M-22 marker and has been using that to fight other people's uses of other state highway markers on merchandise. Most notably, they tried to sue someone for using the M-119 marker on merchandise to promote the "Tunnel of Trees". Our state AG filed a brief reconfirming that the markers are public domain, but that's only related to copyright, not trademarks. I haven't looked in a while to see if the trademark on M-22 has ever been canceled or lapsed yet.

I don't think that a generic state highway marker can be copyrighted or trademarked, as they are (almost by definition) in the  public domain (though I suppose a commercialized variant can be trademarked, like the Phillips 66 sign or the Allied Van Lines former U.S. 1 logo).

[bulldog1979]

A company in Michigan holds a trademark registration on the M-22 marker and has been using that to fight other people's uses of other state highway markers on merchandise. Most notably, they tried to sue someone for using the M-119 marker on merchandise to promote the "Tunnel of Trees". Our state AG filed a brief reconfirming that the markers are public domain, but that's only related to copyright, not trademarks. I haven't looked in a while to see if the trademark on M-22 has ever been canceled or lapsed yet.

I don't think that a generic state highway marker can be copyrighted or trademarked, as they are (almost by definition) in the  public domain (though I suppose a commercialized variant can be trademarked, like the Phillips 66 sign or the Allied Van Lines former U.S. 1 logo).

Public domain is a status regarding copyright, not trademark. The script Coca-Cola logo is public domain, however it is under trademark. As for "M22", I just checked, and both the highway name, sans hyphen, and the highway marker are under separate active trademark registrations. The marker itself can't be under copyright because any such protection is explicitly disclaimed under the Michigan Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, but the company has succeeded in convincing the US Patent and Trademark Office to issue the registration. The registration is limited to "Retail store services featuring clothing, sporting goods, and novelty items", so using the marker on a map or displaying the marker in a Wikipedia article (or similar context) should not trigger any protections. There is a separate registration on just the name for use on wines.