Re: GNOME Logo Branding Guidelines Concerns

["Luis Villa" <luis tieguy org>]

On 10/25/06, Luis Villa <luis tieguy org> wrote:
> On 10/25/06, Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 18:04 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > I disagree with you that we need to have plain black to protect the
> > > brand - I think there's more value in allowing good variations of the
> > > foot to develop.
> >
> > I'm not saying it needs to be black. I am saying that having a globe or
> > flag as a fill for the foot is probably distorting it too much. Other
> > colors are definitely OK - though we probably want to recommend our
> > brand colors. I suspect a gradient is probably OK too. But I'm not a
> > lawyer or designer, so I'm happy as long as we do whatever we do with
> > open eyes, and as long as our guidelines are clear.
>
> (IANALY)
>
> On variety/colors:
> The legal key is that the design be clearly related to the Foot;
> that's really all that matters, once we've established the existence
> of the basic mark, and assuming we continue to use something very
> close to it for the 'primary' logo in the software and the web page.
> (We wouldn't want to make a habit of using a variation of it as 'the'
> primary logo in the about box, or in the header of the web page, for
> example, but irregularly using something like the old pumpkin foot
> would not likely be a problem.)
>
> We could of course decide as a matter of branding/marketing policy
> that we don't want variations, but I'd scream bloody fucking murder
> about that as a policy choice, for reasons Dave has already made
> fairly clear. :)

And of course we'd need approval; not to restrict their
style/design/nature, but to restrict what they are applied to.

Luis (still wanting to abandon the mark registration, but that is
tangential to Mairin's excellent work)