That is what I was saying.
Fair Use in the US does not just cover not for profits. It includes anyone's use that is for education, news reporting, parody, comparative advertising, or any truthful representation of a copyright or trademark. That last part covers what the OP was asking about. He went to that university, he is allowed to use images of the university and the university's logo to represent himself as a student from that university. Same thing with the company he worked for.
Yes, some of what you were saying was correct. But your advice leads to incorrect conclusions because you have an overinclusive definition of fair use.
For one thing,
nothing in the fair use doctrine protects infringement of a copyright just because it is a "truthful representation of a copyright or trademark." In fact, that's probably a better definition of simple infringement than fair use!
There is something akin to what you're saying (but more limited than how you describe it) in trademark law, but the definition of fair use for trademark purposes is different than it is for copyright purposes. See
a summary of fair use and nominative use in trademark if you're curious. This body of law would probably apply* to using the university logo, but not to using a photo of a building on campus (unless the building itself is a trademark).
But, back to copyright... as CanadaRAM stated in his second post, copyright fair use is based on a multi-factor test. The defense may or may not apply in a given situation depending on:
- the purpose and character of your use
- the nature of the copyrighted work
- the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Just because the purpose and character of your use is educational, parodic, etc. does not mean that you automatically win. You also have to look at the other three factors. This is not a brightline test; all four factors are weighed by the judge. This means that it's rarely clear whether or not you can successfully assert fair use in a given situation without either (1) consulting with an attorney who has expertise in intellectual property issues or (2) going to court and seeing what happens. Both are expensive, so it's much better to be cautious than to just blithely assume fair use applies.
* When I say "this body of law would apply" I mean that you would have to examine the use under trademark law, not that the fair use or nominative use defenses would necessarily apply. After all, most trademark infringement is, in fact, an accurate representation of the trademark at issue.
