Daniel Arnold wrote:
How about creating a "community" icon? An
icon that can be used by anyone
who likes, supports, reuses, whatever the project?
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. The only way to ease confusion here would be to have the community
icon be a derivative of the normal icon, but that sends us back to square
one since we can't create derivative works like that.
So let us create a cute Wikimedia Commons community
logo and then we'll
see which logo wins, and which logo makes a stronger and more living
Commons brand: The current restriced one or the free one.
But if a new logo becomes the commonly-used one, wouldn't it be prudent for
the Foundation to copyright that one as well? Aren't all of these logos
copyrighted in the first place because we want to be able to control their
use? 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).
Regards,
--
Benjamin D. Esham
E-mail/Jabber: bdesham(a)gmail.com | AIM bdesham128 | PGP D676BB9A
"He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he some-
times wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it."
— Douglas Adams, /The Hitchhiker's Guide/