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