How many swooshes and swirls are out there today? Hundreds! Maybe more......And there are plenty of "M" logos as well. Maybe not cheesy yellow, maybe not arched, and maybe not that big, oh, that's implementation/execution. I don't think anyone, well, I will speak for myself, I AM NOT defending anyone in hopes of a returned favor and the accusation of such a thing is quite offensive. I am always watching, not only here, EVERYWHERE! And trust me, I do not take rips lightly! I applauded your intention of making the ch aware of the "possibility" of infringement, however, in the end, even in a court of law, that is something that would need to be determined before it can be labeled as such. And as designers on this forum, I think we offered our "opinions" in the matter, just as you did, and the ch made his selection based on his own opinion.
My point exactly. Enough said. Then there should be absolutely no more bickering on ripping or designers that were not aware of a logo they came up with on their own (how can this be measured, it can't because no one really knows except the designer). Well, at least on this forum since it's obvious DP has supporters of these kind of issues. Why because according to you... even if it comes out looking like it's close twin? So, how about the contest, let me find it... http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=239495. I noticed that you also took part in that contest, too. Do you remember this one? Why is it you feel the need to defend this individual here and not the one on that thread? Or did you? Do you think Lucy was wrong? How about the CH in his/her decision to re-open his/her contest for new submissions? If they did they wouldn't have re-opened up the contest, instead they would've done like the CH here. And I'm not saying that the design was ripped because, again, I don't know, nor do you or anyone else. Sometimes we can come up with a logo on our own and think no one else has it, until someone else or you (the designer) comes across it through commercial, mail, etc. And instead of just pulling it, some don't. Rather, money is involved and then, some leave it in the hands of the CH. And that alone is saying, do you want or mind the risk of possible copyright infringement? Will you take your chances? That alone says a lot about any one person's character. But that's not the issue. Just like one person found it to be alike another will too and another and another...who else will? How about this someone make a smaller version of the McDonald's "M", incase it in a bordered circle and make is slightly thinner. Would they be clear of "possible" copyright infringement? Being that... You are absolutely right. So, with that said we should not be concerned about what others say regarding possible ripping or like logos. We shouldn't even raise awareness on the issue. If it's not in court then keep designing, really it all boils down to what any one CH wants. But you have to wonder, when it was made aware to the CH and everyone else of a like logo even the CH stated and asked... Very interesting because they know what they saw. And they weren't going "crazy" (as P stated) either. But it appears the CH allowed the supporters opinion to change his/her mind, rather than going with his/her first mind. Maybe s/he should've got the opinion of an attorney on copyright infringement versus from the designer. Unless, the designer is an attorney on this issue? Because someone just might have struck the lotto unbeknowingly at this time. And to STD response: Is this what you did? But if you read the page about the purpose of the site you would've found this bit of pertinent information: So, this "Q" is a well-known brand logo and second it was only intended to be used for presentations, given the permission of the copyright owner. There might be some sort of deal worked out where the owners of the logos are being paid in some fashion. Anyway, enough said. Y'all are going to continue to do what you all are going to do, whatever that may be. Just added my last two more cents.
Alright well I didn't understand half of that.. but stop accusing people and creating a negative impact on the forum. Thanks.
Hey, I will rebuttle this, because I think it's a great discussion. I think it's something that every forum really needs to pay ALOT of attention to. I am not sure that this thread is the appropriate one, so an admin can determine that. I am away from my home pc at the moment, so, I can't really focus or lookup anything, but, I will be back here tomorrow.
I just wanted to state that I wasn't accusing STD of copyright infringement at all. I am well aware that sometimes when, as designers, we design things, they end up being close or almost completely exact to something else already designed. As far as the site I linked to, it in facts shows logos from companies. So that logo I linked to is in fact a companies logo. Not that I think Quality First will even see this logo but I was just concerned that the "Q" in the logo was similiar enough that it should be brought to the attention of the CH and if they wanted to could probably send a C & D to Questio but I'm no attorney, so...
First: Just because I have an opinion, doesn't mean it's right. You may very well be in the correct. And just the doubt alone is reason enough to bring it to the forefront. In the contest you quoted, I believe in that case the images were practically identical. Lucy Mango was absolutely correct in her handling of the situation. I also commend Raghav for doing the right thing thereafter. And I also tip my hat to the CH for continuing with the contest afterwards. But, I think these 2 situations are different.