...

[dcs]

...

[gingerbreadmann]

If USC can sue South Carolina, then this high school can sue that high school. My question is who cares? The original artist posted a tutorial online showing how to make this logo. You'd think he wanted other people to use it!!!

As long as the second school didn't pay a ton and expect a very original logo in return, I don't think anyone needs to get their panties in a bunch. If they did pay a ton, they should be pissed. Any kid in their school coulda watched that tutorial and made it for them for free!

The tutorial is actually about how to create vector images "Soaring Vectors" was the title, I think. Von Glitschka has all kinds of great tutorials on his website. He obviously doesn't want people to copy and use his logos (that he already made for other clients).

If you notice in one of the earlier posts I mentioned the school that designed the VVHS logo pulled their website off the Internet since I questioned them. That was just since a few days ago. That logo is on their basketball court, uniforms, letterheads, etc., so if they have to get rid of it, someone is going to be in deep trouble.

And no one wants to mention the comparison pictures I put up. Some people say the images don't look close enough alike, but no one says why. Throw me a bone; this is fun. lol

EDIT: I should add there are some details I'm not sharing in case this does go to court. This thread may even have to get deleted eventually. I checked with Mr. Glitschka to make sure, but I haven't heard back from him.

Who even cares? Two meaningless, distant high schools with semi-similar logos, and the original had a tutorial on how it was created. Millions of high schools or even colleges are direct rips of higher-up teams and there are many cases of two much more similar logos in a more high-profile position, and the way you are talking about this you make it seem like you uncovered O.J. 2.0. I don't get all of this hullabaloo, why should anyone, possibly outside of dumb school officials who could decide to waste many resources pursuing this, I have no idea why anyone should give a damn.

[Blitz]

I think the law states that if there's >30% similarity, it's a case of infringement. How they go about determining that number, though, I have no idea.

Put me in the camp that says they're way too similar for it to be a coincidence.

I think it goes the other way actually... I think you have to change 33% (1/3) of the key components to avoid a copyright infringment suit. So for something like this all they had to change was the scew of the outside profile and the head and they are home free. Kind of a low blow, but what do you do?

[DelayedPenalty]

I think the law states that if there's >30% similarity, it's a case of infringement. How they go about determining that number, though, I have no idea.

Put me in the camp that says they're way too similar for it to be a coincidence.

I think it goes the other way actually... I think you have to change 33% (1/3) of the key components to avoid a copyright infringment suit. So for something like this all they had to change was the scew of the outside profile and the head and they are home free. Kind of a low blow, but what do you do?

It's already been established that there is no X% rule, copyright infringement is infringement regarless of what percentage is ripped off. How do you prove what percentage of design is copied anyways?

Anywho, I say 1) Who cares if your logo looks like another logo? As GBM already said.

2) If you're dumb enough to post a tutorial of how you got to the end result online, then someone is bound to try it and get to a *gasp* similar result!

3) As I mentioned in the cardinal/blue jay high school design thread; there are only so many ways to draw a bird. At some point, whether by mistake or intentional, you're going to get logos that look similar. I personally can see similarities between the two logos, and there are elements that are certainly influenced by the original, but I think the new one is different enough (and much worse honestly).

[quantum]

I think the law states that if there's >30% similarity, it's a case of infringement. How they go about determining that number, though, I have no idea.

Put me in the camp that says they're way too similar for it to be a coincidence.

I think it goes the other way actually... I think you have to change 33% (1/3) of the key components to avoid a copyright infringment suit. So for something like this all they had to change was the scew of the outside profile and the head and they are home free. Kind of a low blow, but what do you do?

It's already been established that there is no X% rule, copyright infringement is infringement regarless of what percentage is ripped off. How do you prove what percentage of design is copied anyways?

Anywho, I say 1) Who cares if your logo looks like another logo? As GBM already said.

2) If you're dumb enough to post a tutorial of how you got to the end result online, then someone is bound to try it and get to a *gasp* similar result!

3) As I mentioned in the cardinal/blue jay high school design thread; there are only so many ways to draw a bird. At some point, whether by mistake or intentional, you're going to get logos that look similar. I personally can see similarities between the two logos, and there are elements that are certainly influenced by the original, but I think the new one is different enough (and much worse honestly).

Another point is although the original logo owner is required to defend their property, what monetary gain would they get? I think only the lawyers would gain from one HS suing another.

[dcs]

...

[dcs]

...

[speedy]

I think you need to chill out a bit dcs. It isn't your logo, you didn't have a thing to do with creating it. So what's the point of starting a thread to gather peoples thoughts, and then bashing them and telling them they're wrong (basically) when they don't agree. I'm leaving my opinion out of this but I can honestly say this thread is a Milo/Patsox argument away from being the most obnoxious thread in sometime.

[oldschoolvikings]

Wow. Annoying.

I feel like saying that I've never seen two less similar logos just so dcs can go off on how blind I am.

A high School using a less than original logo?? Stop the presses.

[meetthemets]

The scheme is not original, no. But the concept and execution is unquestionably original, which can't be said for the other logo. A perfect example is the beak. If you take off the "nostril" part on the original and the shading, the beak shapes would be identical. I'm having a hard time believing some people can't see this.

I could find a ton of bird logos that are similar. My point was that there are a lot of birds that have similar looks. Again, the original bird presented here is very well done but hardly anything ground breaking, logo wise. The two logos presented are indeed similar but nothing that I would call a direct ripoff, at least not any more similar than any of the other birds out in the sports world. Like I said before, you would have a hard time convincing a judge with your argument.

[dcs]

...

[oldschoolvikings]

To chill out, don't I have to be wound up in the first place?

I think what a lot of us are reacting to is you certainly seem "wound up"... strangely so. But when someone asks you why you care so much (which you obviously do... contacting schools?... talking about lawsuits?), just fall back on this vague "I thought you would all find this interesting". Seriously... be honest... why are you in such a lather over this?

[gingerbreadmann]

If you don't have any idea why anyone should "give a damn," it's because you're thinking about it from your point of view. I'd imagine the people that had their work copied would care, along with any party that paid for said logo (that's potentially having their "image" stolen). With that being said, forgive me for posting a logo situation that I found interesting on a logo forum. Apparently no one does care for there to be three pages of discussion. And for the record, OJ 2.0 already happened last year. I don't know why people feel the need to make disrespectful comments like that, especially on the Internet.

Well, I don't really know where to start here. I will take it bit by bit.

If you don't have any idea why anyone should "give a damn," it's because you're thinking about it from your point of view. I'd imagine the people that had their work copied would care, along with any party that paid for said logo (that's potentially having their "image" stolen).

You are exactly right here. I didn't design either logo, I don't live within 2000 miles of either high school, nor will I ever encounter or care about either school in my lifetime. Neither, I can safely assume, will 99.9% of members here. First of all, you don't know that the originators give two :censored:s about some other school using a logo similar to their own. All you are doing is speculating, and that is fine, except the proportion to which you are taking this is a little outrageous in my opinion. Maybe they are pissed, and maybe they couldn't care less and can think of better ways to spend their time and limited school funds than pursuing a court case against an unknown high school a hundred-plus miles away over an athletics logo they probably aren't making very much off of anyway. So, from that perspective, I don't know why this is a big deal.

With that being said, forgive me for posting a logo situation that I found interesting on a logo forum. Apparently no one does care for there to be three pages of discussion.

Of course you can post it. There is a very good chance that it is a rip. However, of the three pages you cite, 18 posts of them are you trying to prove that this is a big deal or disagreeing with other people, 5 are by one guy posting the whole darn tutorial, and most of the rest are by 2 or 3 people discussing the situation. But what I'm trying to say is, this really is nothing special. High school athletics are mainly irrelevant, but even so, probably about 40% of high school athletics logos are direct copies of a logo of a higher professional or collegiate tram, and you don't have a thread for every one of those. This isn't even a rip of a pro team, or even a direct rip. It's just obvious influence, and there is even a tutorial of how it is made which should lessen any surprise that the logo was copied.

And for the record, OJ 2.0 already happened last year. I don't know why people feel the need to make disrespectful comments like that, especially on the Internet.

I just had to chuckle a little bit at that last part.

Also, I'm not trying to be disrespectful. You are obviously taking this way too seriously and overreacting to my comment. This is not a prominent situation, nor is it even really a situation. But you are acting like you have just uncovered the big trial of the year. Well, it's not, and I still have no idea why I should care about the similar logos of two distant, meaningless high schools. But, my main point is that it is just silly that you are here bragging about "insider information" in case this goes to court or how this thread may need to be deleted. It's just silly. That's it. Don't take it, or me, too seriously. I don't even know why I am responding, or why this is even being discussed.

[Patsfan99]

um, I agree with the above 100%... I have been wondering the whole time why you have such a hard on for this whole situation and why you seem to have approached it as nothing less than a crusade to get someone to feel wronged about how similar (or not) these two relatively meaningless logos are... when you didn't design either, who cares?

[oddball]

First of all, as a designer, if you're going to give online tutorials, then you should expect to see work similar to yours; after all you taught them how to do it. So I don't understand the hubub about the similarities of these logos. If you're teaching a style and a person learns it then it's going to look similar. Also, as was pointed out, how many freaking ways can you originally draw a bird of prey attacking that hasn't been done. There is nothing original out there, it's all been done before, it's just reinterpreted. I could probably have done a bird of prey and designed it the same way, and I would've never known about the tutorial, why? Because there's only so many ways to design something that looks good. I loved the statement, "Look at the anchor points at how they're the same" or something like that. I give him an A+++ for that point of observation. *rolls eyes* Of course they're the same, because putting the anchor points someplace else would make it look like crap! It gets annoying that any time two logos that feature the same animal pop up, someone screams, "Stolen!" To explain it to all the non-designers out there, I'll use a perfect example. How many ways can you design a tire to work effectively? One. If it's not circular, then it's not effective. Two tires isn't ripping off, it's just the most effective way to do it. A bird of prey swooping down and ready to grab it's lunch, is the most effective way to show a bird of prey. Now why all tigers, lions, and feline mascots have to be posing angrily for the camera (Jacksonville) or lazily swiping at the camera (LSU) I have no idea, but I've noticed that trend. It's about as annoying as the steroid-angry minor league mascots.

[pcgd]

First of all, as a designer, if you're going to give online tutorials, then you should expect to see work similar to yours; after all you taught them how to do it. So I don't understand the hubub about the similarities of these logos. If you're teaching a style and a person learns it then it's going to look similar. Also, as was pointed out, how many freaking ways can you originally draw a bird of prey attacking that hasn't been done. There is nothing original out there, it's all been done before, it's just reinterpreted. I could probably have done a bird of prey and designed it the same way, and I would've never known about the tutorial, why? Because there's only so many ways to design something that looks good. I loved the statement, "Look at the anchor points at how they're the same" or something like that. I give him an A+++ for that point of observation. *rolls eyes* Of course they're the same, because putting the anchor points someplace else would make it look like crap! It gets annoying that any time two logos that feature the same animal pop up, someone screams, "Stolen!" To explain it to all the non-designers out there, I'll use a perfect example. How many ways can you design a tire to work effectively? One. If it's not circular, then it's not effective. Two tires isn't ripping off, it's just the most effective way to do it. A bird of prey swooping down and ready to grab it's lunch, is the most effective way to show a bird of prey. Now why all tigers, lions, and feline mascots have to be posing angrily for the camera (Jacksonville) or lazily swiping at the camera (LSU) I have no idea, but I've noticed that trend. It's about as annoying as the steroid-angry minor league mascots.

You're tires arguement doesn't fit. Two tires is like designing two teams with Eagles as mascots. But once you put tread on them, technology inside, etc. and then someone makes a tread that is largely the same as the original, plus with the similar technologies, then you have problems.

And that's what's here.

I don't understand how every time someone posts a logo on here someone chimes in with "Looks like ________" but in this case everyone's like "who cares?"

To explain for the "non-designers", Von Glitschka isn't some random dude, he's a pretty well known designer/illustrator in the design community. If this was Todd Radom or Joe Bosack everyone would be up in arms...

[rams80]

You're tires arguement doesn't fit. Two tires is like designing two teams with Eagles as mascots. But once you put tread on them, technology inside, etc. and then someone makes a tread that is largely the same as the original, plus with the similar technologies, then you have problems. Cheap, generic, probably foreign, knockoffs that everyone can use, and are completely legal because no patents have technically been violated.

And that's what's here.

I don't understand how every time someone posts a logo on here someone chimes in with "Looks like ________" but in this case everyone's like "who cares?"

To explain for the "non-designers", Von Glitschka isn't some random dude, he's a pretty well known designer/illustrator in the design community. If this was Todd Radom or Joe Bosack everyone would be up in arms...

FYP.

Most of us disagree because honestly, a substantial amount of work within the alleged "rip off" does indeed differ from the "original" logo. I doubt intellectual property extends to "all works remotely similar to the original logo." If it did, I only assume we would see legal action until the end of time, as teams and organizations tried to get a lockdown on their particular animal or symbol.

[oddball]

First of all, as a designer, if you're going to give online tutorials, then you should expect to see work similar to yours; after all you taught them how to do it. So I don't understand the hubub about the similarities of these logos. If you're teaching a style and a person learns it then it's going to look similar. Also, as was pointed out, how many freaking ways can you originally draw a bird of prey attacking that hasn't been done. There is nothing original out there, it's all been done before, it's just reinterpreted. I could probably have done a bird of prey and designed it the same way, and I would've never known about the tutorial, why? Because there's only so many ways to design something that looks good. I loved the statement, "Look at the anchor points at how they're the same" or something like that. I give him an A+++ for that point of observation. *rolls eyes* Of course they're the same, because putting the anchor points someplace else would make it look like crap! It gets annoying that any time two logos that feature the same animal pop up, someone screams, "Stolen!" To explain it to all the non-designers out there, I'll use a perfect example. How many ways can you design a tire to work effectively? One. If it's not circular, then it's not effective. Two tires isn't ripping off, it's just the most effective way to do it. A bird of prey swooping down and ready to grab it's lunch, is the most effective way to show a bird of prey. Now why all tigers, lions, and feline mascots have to be posing angrily for the camera (Jacksonville) or lazily swiping at the camera (LSU) I have no idea, but I've noticed that trend. It's about as annoying as the steroid-angry minor league mascots.

You're tires arguement doesn't fit. Two tires is like designing two teams with Eagles as mascots. But once you put tread on them, technology inside, etc. and then someone makes a tread that is largely the same as the original, plus with the similar technologies, then you have problems.

And that's what's here.

I don't understand how every time someone posts a logo on here someone chimes in with "Looks like ________" but in this case everyone's like "who cares?"

To explain for the "non-designers", Von Glitschka isn't some random dude, he's a pretty well known designer/illustrator in the design community. If this was Todd Radom or Joe Bosack everyone would be up in arms...

But then again, if he's going to teach online then there will be people who can reproduce or produce similar work, there's the problem. Maybe my tire explination doesn't quite work, but if there's only one way or a certain amount of ways to make things work (aka look good) then why would you try and produce something (aka different anchor points or style) that looks like crap? If a certain way of designing an eagle works and there's no other better way and you've been asked to design and eagle, wouldn't you look for the best way or best tutorial out there to design and eagle? What frustrates me is that every time two logos of the same animal look the same someone comes on here and talks about ripping off someone else's logo. That would be like someone listening to a heavy metal band and saying they sounded like Black Sabbath, Metallica, or Led Zepplin. Really? Maybe it's because those are some of the best influences and you learn to play music by playing their music and so their style will stay with you subconsciously, maybe give the second designer a break as he may have learned from the illustrations and is just applying them properly.

[Sterling84]

I'm pretty shocked at some of the commentary in this thread. The circular logic on display is frightening.

If I (generously) post an online tutorial to one of my works, I would ABSOLUTELY expect the end result to be many copies of said work in existence....but as references. But I would not in a million years, expect that people would then feel entitled to use that work as their own. That's a huge cognitive leap. And I would really not expect members of this community to use that same logic as an excuse. It's like blaming a rape victim for wearing a hot outfit.

Those logos are obviously too similar. One is clearly derived from the other. A "derivative" work is the sole right of the creator of the original work. As a designer or design-fan, that should offend across the board.

The legal reasoning surrounding this or any other issue is completely incorrect. If I ever have the time I think this site needs a resource as to what the laws really are on the subject.

I will tell you guys one thing though. Forget everything you think you know about copyright. There is only one thing you need to do. As soon as your work is finished, register it with the US Copyright Office. They have moved the process online. It takes a few minutes and $35. There is no excuse not to do so. And putting watermarks on your stuff or mailing it to yourself is useless.

If you take that step, you will be allowed to sue for statutory damages in the event of infringement. Statutory damages include the right to sue for your court costs, as well as PER INSTANCE damages ranging from a few hundred dollars to six figure sums. And please don't pervert my meaning and let visions of multi-million dollar settlements dance in your heads because somebody somewhere appropriated your work for a fantasy logo. That's not the point. The point is that in a case of real infringment where someone means to profit from your work without compensating you, you'll have the requisite leverage (the threat of REALLY big fines) to get satisfaction.

*Without that registration with the USCO, you cannot sue at all. You'll have to register after the fact to even take the second legal step (Cease and Desist is the first step; does not require registration but also means nothing) Without the registration filing having PRE-dated the infringement itself, you can only sue for ACTUAL damages (monies the infringing party has earned from your work and/or what you would have charged to create it) and you may NOT sue for your court costs or attorneys fees.

The bottom line is that in this case, the actual damages are virtually nil and the cost to file the lawsuit would far outweigh those potential damages.

The law is far less concerned with mythical percentages and far more concerned with substantial similarity and that the artist in question respected themselves enough, and took their work seriously enough, to protect it from its inception. If you do those things, the Feds have your back in a big way. If not, you're viewed as something of a revisionist whiner and had better be willing to fight "the good fight" because the principle of the matter is all you'll have left.

First of all, as a designer, if you're going to give online tutorials, then you should expect to see work similar to yours; after all you taught them how to do it. So I don't understand the hubub about the similarities of these logos. If you're teaching a style and a person learns it then it's going to look similar. Also, as was pointed out, how many freaking ways can you originally draw a bird of prey attacking that hasn't been done. There is nothing original out there, it's all been done before, it's just reinterpreted. I could probably have done a bird of prey and designed it the same way, and I would've never known about the tutorial, why? Because there's only so many ways to design something that looks good. I loved the statement, "Look at the anchor points at how they're the same" or something like that. I give him an A+++ for that point of observation. *rolls eyes* Of course they're the same, because putting the anchor points someplace else would make it look like crap! It gets annoying that any time two logos that feature the same animal pop up, someone screams, "Stolen!" To explain it to all the non-designers out there, I'll use a perfect example. How many ways can you design a tire to work effectively? One. If it's not circular, then it's not effective. Two tires isn't ripping off, it's just the most effective way to do it. A bird of prey swooping down and ready to grab it's lunch, is the most effective way to show a bird of prey. Now why all tigers, lions, and feline mascots have to be posing angrily for the camera (Jacksonville) or lazily swiping at the camera (LSU) I have no idea, but I've noticed that trend. It's about as annoying as the steroid-angry minor league mascots.

You're tires arguement doesn't fit. Two tires is like designing two teams with Eagles as mascots. But once you put tread on them, technology inside, etc. and then someone makes a tread that is largely the same as the original, plus with the similar technologies, then you have problems.

And that's what's here.

I don't understand how every time someone posts a logo on here someone chimes in with "Looks like ________" but in this case everyone's like "who cares?"

To explain for the "non-designers", Von Glitschka isn't some random dude, he's a pretty well known designer/illustrator in the design community. If this was Todd Radom or Joe Bosack everyone would be up in arms...

But then again, if he's going to teach online then there will be people who can reproduce or produce similar work, there's the problem. Maybe my tire explination doesn't quite work, but if there's only one way or a certain amount of ways to make things work (aka look good) then why would you try and produce something (aka different anchor points or style) that looks like crap? If a certain way of designing an eagle works and there's no other better way and you've been asked to design and eagle, wouldn't you look for the best way or best tutorial out there to design and eagle? What frustrates me is that every time two logos of the same animal look the same someone comes on here and talks about ripping off someone else's logo. That would be like someone listening to a heavy metal band and saying they sounded like Black Sabbath, Metallica, or Led Zepplin. Really? Maybe it's because those are some of the best influences and you learn to play music by playing their music and so their style will stay with you subconsciously, maybe give the second designer a break as he may have learned from the illustrations and is just applying them properly.

[Sterling84]

I should have been a little more clear. I got fired up for a minute.

A Cease and Desist is not "useless" and it is a viable step 1. But only if you've registered in advance of the infringement. If so, the C&D acts as a sort of time stamp as to when you were aware of the infringement and legally made the infringing party aware.

Conceivably, if you've registered the work in advance, and IF it goes to court and IF you win.....any profits made (or "instances" of infringement if you will) that occur after the C&D could be viewed by the judge as "willful"...meaning they infringer knew it was stolen and continued using it anyway.

The extreme range in awardable statutory damages (between $750 - $150,000 per instance) is in place to distinguish in part between accidental and willful infringement. The maximum will only be applied in willful infringement cases.

While ignorance of the law is no excuse, knowingly profiting from another's work is a bigger offense and hence, punishable by bigger damages.

So, a Cease and Desist letter is not useless in the sense I made it sound like. It is important. But without the registration it's a pretty hollow step.

And as for who here would even sue? The school or the artist? Usually a work is flat rate sold to the client and it is the client's job to enforce the copyright. But I don't know any specifics of this case....and I'm certainly not a lawyer. And this doesn't even take into account the differences between copyright and trademark.