Talk:KTVN

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KTVN. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please figure out for sure whether or not the KTVN logo is licensed??

The KTVN terms of use states that “All content included in or made available through the Service, and the functionality of the Service, including the text, logos, designs, icons, software, scripts, source code, graphics, photos, images, likenesses, domain names, interactive features and the like, and the trade secrets, trademarks, trade names, service marks, and copyrights contained therein, are owned by KTVN or its content suppliers and are proprietary and protected by U.S. and other applicable intellectual property law. No express or implied rights are conferred on you to use such content. The compilation of all content through the Service is the exclusive intellectual property of KTVN and protected by U.S. and other applicable copyright law. Except as explicitly permitted by these Terms or the functionality of the Service”; judging off of that, I would think that the KTVN logo is copyrighted and that someone needs to put a non-free rationale tag rather than a CC-BY-SA tag.

If someone can please substantiate the Creative Commons license, then great. Otherwise, there needs to be a non-free rationale, rather than a Creative Commons tag. I also think that someone should remove the file from Commons if it is indeed copyrighted. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:E97E:DDFF:D30:80CC (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]