Samuel Klein writes:

I can't see any reason why project logos cannot be PD, and personally love the idea of massively collaborative projects having PD logos -- that makes sense to me.

Without offering judgment as to the question of whether the Meta-Wiki logo *in particular* shouldn't be public-domain, I will note that there are certainly reasons one may choose not to have a public-domain logo for a massively collaborative project that is not itself public- domain -- that instead is propagated under a free license. Having the logo available for broader (but sometimes proprietary or closed) usage may confuse those who look to the logo as a signal that the associated software is free.

More than simply copyright issues, for trademark reasons it makes sense to ensure that others who do not support the proejct don't have any trademark claim against a widely used logo, but again, one very sensible trademark scheme for the logos of a massively collaborative site is to allow people to do anything they want with said logos, aside from fraud; which is usually against social and legal norms without the help of trademark law.

I disagree as to how sensible this "trademark scheme for the logos" is, for at least four reasons. First, enforcement of a fraud claim is at least an order of magnitude more difficult than enforcement of a trademark-infringement claim. (It may even be two orders of magnitude more difficult.) Second, persuading people that they're infringing your trademark and need to stop is socially rather easier than persuading people that they're committing fraud. Third, there are positive dimensions of having a strong, enforced trademarked logo associated with a free-culture project -- if you believe that the freely generated content should be reusable commercially as well as non-commercially, and if you've developed a positive brand/identity, commercially entities may invest in the development of free projects in order to co-brand with you. Fourth, as noted above, restrictions on use of logos beyond the project in question help communicate to the public that the associated content (or software, or whatever) is free as in freedom.

With all this said, I'm not suggesting that Meta-Wiki needs a trademarked logo. (The Foundation is pursuing a trademark strategy that focuses on only a few of the logos associated with trademarks, and I see no immediate need to trademark any logo for Meta-Wiki.) But I think there is a strong argument for a freely licensed logo (GFDL or CC-BY-SA, for example), because that reinforces the community's ability to ensure that the logo is not used in a misrepresentative way.

--Mike Godwin General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation