Is my logo original enough? A Quandary
As we all know, I am a Biochemistry senior. I mention this because this fact necessitates me being an amateur graphic designer. By amateur, I mean that I have no formal training. Therefore, the what I know has been gleaned from what I could find out about topics like vertical rhythm, grid systems, CSS, and improving my Photoshop skills. But I digress. “Design” is a side hobby, meant to present in the best possible light my extensive project in writing my own website from scratch using Apache, PHP, and mySQL.
That said, recently I ran into quite a quandary with regard to my newest logo. Here’s the deal. Dan Cederholm is a rockstar designer with CSS chops so righteous that he’s written more than one book on the topic. I’ve read his site as a helpful resource for years, back to and before his faux columns method in 2004. My confidence in his work inspired me to invest in his Stockholm icons this past October 3, 2006. You will see that they are used in the top header of this website, as visual cues enhancing the text.
It all sounds good so far, right? Far from it. Here’s the problem. My recent logo overhaul, which I so happily talked about recently, uses curly braces in much the same way Dan’s icon does. Visit SimpleBits to see what I mean. I recently sent my URL to Dan, saying essentially: “Hey, I used your Stockholm icons; thanks they were great!” I then took another look at his site and my stomach sank: “my logo design looks a lot like his.” Feeling not-great, I followed up on my first message to Dan, saying, “My logo looks a bit like yours. Is it too close for comfort?” I haven’t yet heard back, but I am feeling very uncertain about this situation.
I remember my thought process in assembling this latest icon, and I know I did not consciously think of Dan’s brilliant original use of the curly braces to frame his logo. I know I’ve used square brackets in past attempts at the logo (one of which was on my profile on waferbaby, but the version of waferbaby is long gone). Legally, however, even unconscious copying is infringement (replace program with logo):
… unconscious copying can constitute infringement just as if you were looking at the program when you wrote yours, the more exposure you have to an existing computer program, the more care you need to take when writing a similar program.
So I am on shaky ground with my logo. Furthermore, I am unsure whether my icon usage (the icons I purchased) falls within the acceptable category. That is, the license for the Stockholm Icons reads:
The icons may be used by the licensee in any personal or commercial projects (royalty-free). They may not be resold or redistributed. For example: packaged in an application where they could be downloaded for free, such as an open-source project or other application where the icons are bundled along with other files.
The only places I have seen these purchased icons used are the content management systems of websites, which are, by definition, password protected and therefore inaccessible by the general online population. This prevents the icons from accidentally being redistributed. My usage puts them in a very public, unprotected, environment.
Returning to the logo, Greg Storey just linked Mr. Cederholm’s documentation of a pirated version of his logo that another company was trying to sell as their own.
The good side to all of this: I’m not trying to sell any of this work, I do not make money from tumbledry, and I am just a biochem student. I’d like to know what you all think about any similarities between logos: too much, too coincidental? Am I diluting Mr. Cederholm’s mark with my own?
Signed,
Troubled in Minnesota.
Comments
Justin Gehring
I always thought that the logo was designed to simulate a dryer using ascii text… Maybe that’s just me, but it would seem that the other people are simply making a logo that is brandable.
That said, I would say: you were copying if you put a dryer inside of curly brackets… But because the brackets are actually the side walls of your dryer, and because I think the side walls are very important (I don’t think your logo holds up with just an O), I would say it was a need… not a copy.
{O} is Tumbledry. I don’t think they can take that from you.
Second rule of thumb: Unless someone complains that it looks like something else (and that someone is someone other than you), don’t mention it… Otherwise, your almost admitting guilt.
Alexander Micek
Really good point about the dryer simulation, Justin. I think what you’re saying is mine is intended to be a schematic representation of an object (a tumble dryer). So, the distinction between an actual figure in the center (SimpleBit’s cube) versus the stark/geometric shape that mine has in the center (a circle) is important.
Tumble dryers seem to range from being framed in a very square manner to having their forms softened. The latter lends itself to the curly braces I used - {o} -, the former lends itself to square brackets - [o]. I like the curvy braces.
I see what you are saying about not making a mountain out of a molehill, but I just felt that contacting Dan was the right thing to do, even if it might have been a waste of his time. I hope it all turns out alright.
Justin Gehring
If thats the way you feel… But realize, that would be like me asking you everytime I put a horizontal line on my webpage, because I felt that your horizontal lines looked nice, so I decided to have a few of my own…
Mezzoblue has a good article on this and ‘deriviative’ works that might be worth checking out.
Oh: as far as the icons go… The key there (legally) is not to be distributing them as your own, namely selling them in a package or something of that nature… Because your just using them on the site, they are under your copyright as a site, which you in turn, have the ok to use. So as long as no body breaks your copyright(s) by just taking your sites content, everyone’s fine. (I believe)
Alexander Micek
Well, you’d have to thank Khoi Vinh’s subtraction for the horizontal line niceties, but I get your point. :) I think I overreacted after I took the time to thank Mr. Cederholm for his wonderful icons, and then realized the similarity.
Also, thanks for your thoughts on the icons; you have more licensing experience than myself, so it’s good to hear it sounds like that part is OK.
Richard +1
i have 2 answers for you alex. (i think you already know, but i should mention that i’m a graphic design major first)
1) your logo is plenty different from the other one in my opinion, and for your purposes there is no need to worry as far as legal terms and such. there is no such thing as creating something soley based on your own ideas, everything you do is either consiously or subconciously influenced by an infinite amount of things you have been exposed to in your life. the best you can hope to do is to take those ideas and do something to make it your own. this is pretty much exactly what you did.
2) you are doing this for fun, and for your own self satisfaction. if you don’t feel 100% like this was your creation, just make another one, it’s not like you have some sort of deadline or some manager/professor pushing his opinions on you.
anyways, it’s a very good logo as far as i’m concerned. It is simple and memorable, the forms are purposeful and the composition is very cohesive and balanced. It is definitely better than 90% of the stuff my classmates come up with :\
Dan Cederholm +3
Don’t sweat it, dude! Your logo is plenty unique. I don’t claim ownership on all brackets :)
And the icon usage is fine as well. They’re meant for public web sites just like yours — just not to be bundled into free, downloadable applications. You’re displaying the images on a web site, but not distributing the GIF files as a free package. That’s the difference.
Keep tumblin’ :D
Dan McKeown
First of all, thank you Dan Cederholm for taking the time to write a quick comment on the best kept secret on the internet. Secondly, I think the phrase “keep tumblin’” is fantastic and I might use it in converstation in the near future. Third, well, I like the logo and Richard is absolutely right, this is your site that you are doing for fun with no deadlines that are set besides the ones that you set yourself. You can do what you want here and the logo works great.
Nils
I will second the opinion that “keep tumblin’ ” is a great phrase and should somehow be incorporated into the content of this website.
I will also second what Richard wrote about how everything you do is tinged by your experiences and exposure to other ideas, things, people, etc. For example, pretty much everyone gleans their inspirations and breakthroughs from some kind of contact with me. I don’t demand royalties for it, well, not yet anyways.
Alexander Micek
Dan Cederholm—thanks for stopping by to clear up the issue; I really appreciate it! I think your catch phrase may catch on.
Also, thank you to everyone else for their really great responses: I’m glad I opened this issue up to community discussion! Y’all are the best.