Joomla! Discussion Forums

I just stumbled across this website: http://www.globalgiving.com/index.html

and noticed that the Joomla! winning logo is eerily similar to its logo. Any relation or is it just by chance?

wow - very similar

I'm sure it's coincedence, but I think that's a fairly major issue for our new logo.  what came second?

We are aware fo the accidental similarity and have taken professional legal advice on this. That advice is that there is no problem with our logo. There are after all only so many ways to draw a curve etc

Brian

advice is only advice (I'm sure it would be possible to find a lawyer who would throw his hands up in horror.)

I think it's too similar and we shouldn't be seen to lift a charity's logo.  In no way is this a slur on whoever developed the winning logo - I just think it's an unfortunate coincedence

LMAO.
Square-shouldered, round-shouldered, multi-coloured or whatever... it's the same logo. Just goes to show... there ain't no such thing as "original ideas". Bad luck for the joomla! logo designer, though. Somebody got there before him! And I loved that logo...
John Mc

agree.  Brian I don't see how we can use it.  It's already in use.

no no no... those are "L"s and Joomla's logo is made with "J"s, so it's cool 

I voted for the Fish, now I know why

hmmm....     

As previously noted by Brian, we have been given advice that the use of the logo is acceptable.

This is legal advice from a trademark expert.

To bad.. but there exists so many logo's today.. impossible to know if to know that it allready has been done before.. I really liked the idea and exceution of the logo.

Sorry, the similarity is indeed there BUT, based on the variation on color and shape, there couldn't possibly be a legal issue in accepting this logo. Not to mention it's a logo for a software solution not a charity...

Let's stop wasting time nit picking the details we don't have any control over and focus on making this CMS all it can be.

Joomla! will be using this logo as previously stated by at least two team members so far anyway.

Lets get back to killin bugs and improving on the core...

@vashnaar.

Law is a bit more analogue than binary.  For every lawyer who says you've got a case, there will be others that say you don't. 

Fine, let's use the logo.  And if we get caught in some stupid legal battle that bleeds funds that we can't afford what the heck.  I'm not nitpicking and to be honest I'd rather the community got back to doing what it used to do rather well but I'm stating a view and I'd expect other community members to respect that.

I've also spoken to globalgiving btw.  Something I'm perfectly entitled to do, and if they've not got a case then there's no harm done is there?

What is that old saying? "Looking for trouble..."

We actually have a legal team that represents us, and they are very highly respected throughout the technology industry (as well as the open source world). I'd prefer we leave discussions like that up to the qualified individuals, as opposed to non-attorneys taking matters into their own hands *cough*

well that's fine Spacemonkey.  And if their advice in this instance is sound then there is no harm done in my speaking to globalgiving is there.

I'm sure you wouldn't want any ambiguity over the logo at this early stage.  Nor do I. 

So don't patronise me.  I reported what I felt to be an uncomfortable similarilty to a charity who are currently using the logo - don't have to be a lawyer to do that. 

should take something for that nasty cough btw

I've just received a PM from a core DEV on this that I am not able to reply to because replying is blocked

Brian, if you've got an issue either post it here or proablby better take it up elsewhere - PM me with a route and I'll mail you back

NOBODY has asked me what I said to globalgiving and I resent the insinuation that I'm meddling in something only lawyers should deal with.  So Brian I want to speak to you. 


I have no way of replying to the PM that I was sent.  I'm not posting the PM here because I do respect copyright and ownership, Brian if you wanted it to be private then I will respect that.  However,  I am infuriated that you feel you can PM me and not accept a reply.  Give me a route to communicate with you.

I would not label contacting the charity as "looking for trouble". It is the straight-forward, honest way of approaching the issue. However, I would rather leave the contacting to the core development team and their representatives and I would document the response (in case a green light is given and then withdrawn). One would be looking for trouble if the issue is igonred. I also do not think this nit-picking.

I suppose my sense of humor confuses the point. In order to avoid confusion I will be more direct, and please understand that I am not attempting to patronize or humiliate anyone.

1) I'm a core developer too, and have communicated to you here in the forums in public. There is nothing to hide.
2) Are you an attorney? If not, then you should send your questions and comments to one, instead of attempting some sort of vigilante-style self made research right?

Or, to be put even more clearly: With your approach, we should search the internet for every possible ambiguous scenario regarding the logo, and the initiate contact with each and every one of them.

This will only ensure that we will never have a new logo, and that our legal teams (that represent us pro bono, by the way) spend all their time following up with maybe/kinda/sorta legal issues that may or may not be legitimate issues in the first place...

Instead of contacting the core, and giving us the chance to put real attorneys on the issue, you are taking matters into your own hands. Do you not see how that is "looking for trouble"?

It has everything to do with common sense, and that is it - no insults intended, or arrogance inferred. I am not a lawyer, and want the opportunity to have the lawyers that are offering to support us and guide us the chance to deal with potential issues.

If you are not a lawyer, please, please let us get a lawyer to look into these issues, is that too much to ask?

Apologies I hadnt realise I had switched off recieving private messages.

I've swithced them on now - or i would do if i can find out how. Still looking

Found it

Brian

Ok Brian

mail me at iain@brilliantliving.co.uk

I'm taking this off forum because I think it's more appropriate to deal with it offline.  OK with that?

Of course which is why you now have my private email address

Brian

I've followed this thread for some time, and it's really picking up troubler..
I can't agree with above selected quotes, sorry. I am also not a lawyer, and I really love every minute I don't need one! So I guess my approach would have been the same: just ask the other guys if they'd mind, no harm in asking, right? You can still seek legal advice if they say they do mind..

So far, some Core devs had indeed replied, but all that was said was "it's ok to use it, we have asked legal advice", which means
a/ there was no need to contact you because you were aware of the issue (which means there IS an issue, somewhere..!), and
b/ian couldn't know he doesn't need to worry and take matters into his own hands, as no-one ever stated here that lawyers were indeed dealing with this and people needn't worry anymore... just that they had said it was ok to use it.

I think it's unfortunate to see such similarity, to see such an unconfortable discussion resulting from lack of clearer communication (as "our lawyers have examined both, it is ok, we are using it, the other party has been advised, period".. for example..), to not have known about this before the poll (would this logo still have been in the top 5?), and now to see people unsure about this logo because of MS Office and this one here.. end result? The community, the devs, and the lawyers are wasting time which could be better used. Well..

Actually there can be harm in asking which i've explained fully privately to ian.

I agree that in an ideal world we would not need lawyers. Sadly we do not live in an ideal world. And the great thing for Joomla is that we have free access to some of the best lawyers in the world in this field (Eben Moglen and his team at the Software Freedom Law Centre)

So if we say we have taken advice etc then please leave it at that.

Brian

Hey if Quark can get away with their new logo which is to a T like the Scottish Art council logo http://news.com.com/2061-10798_3-5879073.html I think a little resemblance to other logos may be fine, if not it will get changed if needed.

First of all it is not THAT similar!
I see this problem as a storm in a glass of water and what bothers me most, all of my respected PT Preceding Speakers did not bother to think about urquharttownson's deserved pride. The logo is piece of good work and most of Community likes it! urquharttownson deserves praise not slander!

                             

Typography is different
Shapes are different (squares vs. curves)
Colors are different
and distributed in different manner (2 vs. 4)

The idea represented by both logos is different:

GlobalGiving logo represents organisation which joins TWO sides (these who do have money an those who need them), hence TWO colors...

Joomla! logo on the other hand represents community of VARIOUS individuals working together, hence VARIOUS colors...

There are so many logos used and much more designed... finding similar design is only a matter of time...
starting from this one which unites 2 of 5 voted projects with similarity similar to shown above:


to finish with this one:
which is a template available on this Russian webpage http://customize.ru/templates_logo4.html

I am quite sure that contestants were not inspired by either of above - some designs are just mind-imposing.

I am sure that I have seen design much more similar to the bird logo, or some icons similar to Concept one. This does not mean that authors were not original thinkers or worse did steal something. This simply means that it is really hard to design something that does not resemble something else especially when it is a logo.

math:
Let us assume that logo is unique when it does not look exactly the same as other one when they both are size of 16 px by 16 px in 8 colors (more than enough when you look at this conversation), but we can easily exclude rotations[4], flips[2] inverts[2], different backgrounds (lets say that backround is 1/4 of logo), etc. which gives less than 8^12 = 68 719 476 736 possible designs. Only now we have something like 6 446 131 400 people on the planet which gives less than 11 original designs per person per lifetime (if you forget all the brilliant people that passed away and do not give a chance to your descendants )