|
Post by hermanhessian on Mar 27, 2007 17:50:38 GMT 1
How do we know an image of the lion from the old badge hasnt been used? as it would already been a similar size and colour? And frankly, this coming from someone who has only just signed up and the first thing they post is slamming the new badge or person / people who created the badge speaks volumes. Wind up. i'm not "slamming" anything, fella - the similarity in the two images is undeniable, and i just think it's a bit sad that if this is being sold to you all as some fantastic all singing all dancing piece of work by a top designer who's consulted all manner of experts that it is actually no more than an edit of a bit of clipart if you're happy with that, fair play to you - ain't my club after all
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Mar 27, 2007 18:04:32 GMT 1
its definitely the same picture and i can see why the original poster has created a new name still not sure its the same pic ? and does it matter ? i think thats the question
|
|
|
Post by Shrews and Royals on Mar 27, 2007 18:20:42 GMT 1
I think that this could be a problem - really needs sorting straight away as certain companies have very deep pockets and that would not be something to get wrapped up in.
Stunning situation for Town to be in, potentially let down by a number of parties. It doesn't matter they have registered it if there has been an error in the searches it can be challenged.
|
|
handsoffmeadowenjoyment
Guest
|
Post by handsoffmeadowenjoyment on Mar 27, 2007 18:24:58 GMT 1
I think that it will only matter if:
a) we have paid a lot of money to the designer(s) for something that the club could have done themselves.
b) it turns out that anyone can put that Lion on a shirt,badge,scarf etc and not infringe copyright.
|
|
|
Post by Cringe on Mar 27, 2007 20:57:54 GMT 1
This is the most cringeworthy episode I have seen at any professional club. This 'logo' could in effect be used for the next 50 years, and its basis is on a dodgy bit of clipart. Mr Wellbeloved has talked up all the patent and copyright attorneys and the designer - they have all pulled the wool over your eyes. This is an absolute joke, clipart logo, pah. Despite all the harumph, the professional club now looks more amatuer than ever. For a club with Championship aspirations, I cant imagine a Wolves, Sunderland or WBA adopting a clipart logo passed off as an original. Head should roll.......
|
|
|
Post by Carlisle Rule on Mar 27, 2007 21:29:19 GMT 1
coming from the same mboard as the op, i can confirm it him a mighty erm 5 seconds of googling to find that image images.google.com/images?q=lion%20clipartis this worse than southampton's statue? that was expensive and looked crap, and your badge looks alright but the guys done it on the cheap. Like said, 10 minutes on paint shop pro or a freeview vector drawing program and I'd have done you better
|
|
|
Post by SheffieldShrew on Mar 27, 2007 21:29:50 GMT 1
Did we really expect the designer to go off to the zoo and draw a lion?
Not sure what the fuss is about, the badge looks great and these are exciting times. Some people aren't happy unless they're whinging.
Btw, what a concidence that a fan of another club happened to be on this messageboard and that he remembered seeing that picture somewhere...
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 27, 2007 22:17:58 GMT 1
I would imagine the elements that make the design copyrighted are the colours, name and date, when used together. Anyone can walk around with a picture of a lion on their chest but they are going to look like a bit of a prat. Any picture is always going to be open source in a sense - the red rose of England Rugby is just a rose - what makes it copyrighted is the wording
|
|
|
Post by guest on Mar 27, 2007 22:27:20 GMT 1
The rose is copyright, as is anything that is created. The Rugby Union with the rose is a trademark. Though I am S Wellbeloved has checked all this out...
|
|
|
Post by Liono on Mar 27, 2007 22:31:37 GMT 1
It is rather rubbish, but more importantly does anyone know how far it is from Grimsby to Bury?
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Mar 27, 2007 22:34:23 GMT 1
98 miles
|
|
|
Post by monkeechicken on Mar 27, 2007 22:36:46 GMT 1
a more important question is why would anyone go to either?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2007 22:51:41 GMT 1
Is it me or do people think this looks like its been partly ripped off a millwall badge? scratch that, hopefully it'll grow on me
|
|
|
Post by hermanhessian on Mar 27, 2007 22:52:44 GMT 1
Btw, what a concidence that a fan of another club happened to be on this messageboard and that he remembered seeing that picture somewhere... you miss the point - there was no coincidence - i saw your "new badge" on line, remembered having seen the same image used elsewhere and deliberately registered on here to make a point of letting you know - no element of coincidence involved whatsoever i reiterate, i just think that it's a bit sad when STFC go to the trouble of putting together a press release in excess of two thousand words to justify the implementation of the new piece of artwork only to find that it's be thrown together in five minutes by someone who's nicked it (open source or otherwise) off the internet - if you think that sort of creative input does your club and it's forthcoming "exciting times" justice, then fair enough - for my part, if my own bunch of no-mark losers were similarly fobbed off with a piece of hastily cobbled together e, i wouldn't be best pleased....
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Mar 27, 2007 23:24:07 GMT 1
somewhere someone spent hours drawing that lion and may hold the copyright to it now for all we know town may have done a deal with that chap if they havent, they might need to pretty quick
|
|
|
Post by monkeechicken on Mar 27, 2007 23:33:49 GMT 1
Btw, what a concidence that a fan of another club happened to be on this messageboard and that he remembered seeing that picture somewhere... you miss the point - there was no coincidence - i saw your "new badge" on line, remembered having seen the same image used elsewhere and deliberately registered on here to make a point of letting you know - no element of coincidence involved whatsoever i reiterate, i just think that it's a bit sad when STFC go to the trouble of putting together a press release in excess of two thousand words to justify the implementation of the new piece of artwork only to find that it's be thrown together in five minutes by someone who's nicked it (open source or otherwise) off the internet - if you think that sort of creative input does your club and it's forthcoming "exciting times" justice, then fair enough - for my part, if my own bunch of no-mark losers were similarly fobbed off with a piece of hastily cobbled together e, i wouldn't be best pleased.... I am still not sure they are all that similar if you really look. plenty of details are different as i have listed earlier. one image is a colour representation of a lions head, the other is a generally two tone picture of a lions head. Lions do look similar to one another , thats how we know what they are. Surely plagiarism is a pretty serious allegation isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Carter on Mar 27, 2007 23:47:00 GMT 1
I liked the badge... and think to produce a new badge with the rights that it will produce is a good move....but I'm am a bit concerned that it is ripped off a piece of clip art!!! And I think that is undeniable...
Perhaps this needs to be checked out...
Good effort though...
|
|
Dan Impartial webdesigner
Guest
|
Post by Dan Impartial webdesigner on Mar 27, 2007 23:50:35 GMT 1
I'm afraid he's right. I just scaled it down slightly, made the image slightly transparent and hovered them over each other (in Fireworks) and I'm afraid the glove fits.
Not only is this the most lazy peice of 'artwork' I've ever seen, it's a blatent copyright infringement. This needs to be brought to the club's attention.
On the other hand, it doesn't look that bad as a logo - although a bit too similar to Chelski's.
|
|
|
Post by hermanhessian on Mar 27, 2007 23:50:45 GMT 1
i don't think plagiarism is the issue - it's clearly an image that is in the public domain and freely useable by all and sundry, i'm not so sure that it's appropriate when put forward as the "fantastic new logo of a professional football club, all singing, all dancing with marketing, franchising and corporate ID whistles and bells attached" that's all.
i know it may be tricky to grasp the ins and outs of the image's construction, but believe me, there is a standard filter in photoshop that will apply that sort of colouration (the "finished" blue and yellow version) to a four colour image (the play school "original") at the click of a mouse (i've used it on photo's of my cats to make an "andy warhol" style picture of them for my step-daughters bedroom) - it simply does not do justice to something by which the club have set such great store, and i think they may have been at best mislead and at worst ripped off, that's all....
however, on a lighter note, well done for spanking rochdale - lancastrian teams getting a good hiding always brings a rosey hue to my cheeks...
|
|
|
Post by Shrews and Royals on Mar 28, 2007 8:08:55 GMT 1
With reference to images in the public domain. Many are there with a stipend for non-commercial use which is why it would be helpful for Town just to check things thoroughly.
The last thing STFC needs is hassle.
If it is all checked, I'm suprised that SW hasn't been on quickly to make sure that everyone is reassured as he did by pasting early the prepared press release on the Shrews Trust thread to clarify.
|
|
|
Post by Blue 44 on Mar 28, 2007 8:16:05 GMT 1
"originality is the art of concealing your sources" (and that is not an original quote) By that standard the logo is not original &its not just the lion In have seen a circle like that one before and even the date on a gravestone somewhere BUT despite all that its quite a good logo though I too would like the Floreat Salopia on it too
|
|
|
Post by garlic bread on Mar 28, 2007 8:40:41 GMT 1
Whoever designed that original lion owns the copyright in it, whether they've put it on the internet or not. If they've assigned those rights to someone else (e.g. the playgroup), then that purchaser now owns the rights in the original lion logo.
Unless the club has secured rights to use that original drawing (by way of licence or assignment or whatever), then the STFC logo appears to infringe the copyright in that original drawing - the STFC logo clearly copies a "substantial part" of that original drawing, regardless of whether the club has changed the colours and tweaked it slightly.
The owner of the rights in the original drawing, whoever that now is, could therefore seek damages from STFC, seek profits, try to get an injunction to stop STFC using it, or whatever.
Hopefully, the club has sorted that out already, and made sure they have rights to use the original drawing. Even so, it still seems a tad embarrassing.
Also worrying is the reference to the filing of the trade mark. I've had a look on the free online UK and Community trade mark registers. The only STFC logo I can see is the old early 90s Shrew squiggle. And even if the club has filed a trade mark application, it doesn't necessarily follow that the registration will be successful. Slight jumping of the gun, methinks.
Still, I must point out this is me being picky legally - I would still say fair play to the club for actually starting to sort out their branding and considering how to exploit the STFC brand more effectively. Well done to Steve and all for that.
|
|
|
Post by bristolloggerheads on Mar 28, 2007 8:55:59 GMT 1
I think it would have looked better without the STFC.
|
|
|
Post by STFCTrueBlue on Mar 28, 2007 9:15:38 GMT 1
i like it at least it doesn't look like the lion is involved in road maintenace. like Chelsea's
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on Mar 28, 2007 9:15:46 GMT 1
Why does no one ever trust the club on issues like this. This logo was designed by someone who knows how to design logos and knows about the copyright that surrounds it. Cant we just trust the designer and the club that this has been covered and not expect incompetency at every turn. You may say Shrewsbury has a history of this, but i haven’t seen it since Steve over.
As someone said earlier, did you actually expect someone to go out and actually draw a lion! Ive done logo's before and used significantly changed googled images as a base. It isnt about that, its about whether it looks good or not and whether it will improve the image of Shrewsbury Town, and i think it does.
|
|
|
Post by DulwichShrew on Mar 28, 2007 9:21:33 GMT 1
Why does no one ever trust the club on issues like this. This logo was designed by someone who knows how to design logos and knows about the copyright that surrounds it. Cant we just trust the designer and the club that this has been covered and not expect incompetency at every turn. You may say Shrewsbury has a history of this, but i haven’t seen it since Steve over. As someone said earlier, did you actually expect someone to go out and actually draw a lion! Ive done logo's before and used significantly changed googled images as a base. It isnt about that, its about whether it looks good or not and whether it will improve the image of Shrewsbury Town, and i think it does. well said
|
|
|
Post by NickXII on Mar 28, 2007 9:24:16 GMT 1
PUB TEAM
|
|
|
Post by David Guest on Mar 28, 2007 9:30:35 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by town fan on Mar 28, 2007 9:35:25 GMT 1
that lion is gonna haunt us aint it!
|
|
|
Post by PLT on Mar 28, 2007 9:47:47 GMT 1
|
|