On Friday 27 July 2007 20:39:34 Benjamin Esham wrote:
The problem with this idea is the "Commons brand" you mention: compared to the number of people who are familiar with Wikipedia, there are not all that many who know what Commons is, and I'm worried that we won't be doing our branding any good by having two (competing) logos. Imagine how odd it would be if you saw a page with numerous references to Commons with one icon, but when you actually visited Commons you started to see a completely different icon.
Stop stop stop! I am _not_ talking about replacing the official Logo of Commons you can see in the left of the Commons web site. I am not talking replacing the official brand. I am talking about a serious inofficial "Commons community and supporter icon" that anybody can use without formal agreement. Everyone that thinks he and his own innitative keep the spirit of our project may use it if he or she likes. So how about a cartoonish flower icon?
I can only recommend reading a bit about Tux: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tux This is an ideal example of a strong community driven icon. There is no doubt many people abuse it but overall the benefit of this free icon outwheights this by far.
But if a new logo becomes the commonly-used one, wouldn't it be prudent for the Foundation to copyright that one as well?
They simply can't do it even if they wanted. CC-BY and friends cannot be revoked.
Aren't all of these logos copyrighted in the first place because we want to be able to control their use?
Sure. Aren't wikis dangerous cause anybody can write bullshit into them?
As Commons becomes more and more well-known, IMO it's important that we have one, consistent, WMF-controlled logo (and visual identity in general).
I particular dislike any corporate identity bullshit. I like usability and clear consistent design of web pages, printed works and other stuff but not more. I am not talking about replacing the Commons Logo for offical authorized activities.
However I am realistic: I know that we simply have no chance convincing the Foundation on the current logos, because simply there are unauthorized people that try to speak on their behalf. Although I dont like the approach of the Foundation I acknowledge that they are acting with the best ideals.
Arnomane