...

[Gothamite]

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.

Bears repeating.

If you don't own the original logo, there is no amount of changes you can make to it in order for you to own it. It's never yours.

[Sterling84]

Exactly.

I was trying to say the same thing with my derivation comment. It's another way of saying the same thing. Only the original artist allowed to derive other things from that material.

There is lots of room for inspiration and stylistic similarity in the world...but you simply can't take any part verbatim. Vanilla Ice was brought down for stealing.....what? 6-7 NOTES from Bowie because they were verbatim.

I think that is where the confusion about percentages frequently come in. How much do I have to change it, so that it isn't verbatim anymore? Simple. Don't start your project with anyone else's as the basis. You can lay out twelve other logos you admire...draw yours by hand and start from scratch and I promise you won't have a problem. There is always evidence of copying. It's like freakin' CSI if you know what to look for. There is no reverse-engineering of one logo to another that works or is legal.

I've seen two different logos, designed by two designers in different cities for different projects......be conceptually identical and yet be legal (and in terms of originality completely different) and above board.

And that's a distinction that continues to be lost on this forum sometimes. Nobody is arguing, that it's not difficult to draw a bird in a manner that hasn't been drawn before. It sure is. But if you honor the process; respect yourself as an artist and in turn respect the other artist; do the work yourself...no one will have an issue with similar color choices or pose of the creature. Copying, tracing, short-cutting, modifying is the problem. And the notion that you CAN start by tracing, so long as you change it XX% is a sad, dangerous and misinformed one.

Bears repeating.

If you don't own the original logo, there is no amount of changes you can make to it in order for you to own it. It's never yours.

[Sec19Row53]

Sterling84 - Thanks for your thoughts on this. I think you bring a clarity that this thread was sorely missing.

[Jigga]

I love when Sterling84 posts. Dude, you make some of the most clear, straightforward, and iron clad points.

[TNT44]

The only similarities are:

1) colors (black with silver outline)

2) the beak (which is similar to the Eagles logo)

3) the two layers of feathers on the wings

4) the stance (which isn't exactly original as demonstrated)

I'm going to say that this isn't really a rip off, but one may have been an inspiration for another. I doodle birds a lot, and they often have many of the same characteristics as both of these logos, especially the wings and the lowercase b shaped eyes.