nash61

Anyone know where this logo was stolen from?

Recommended Posts

There's no way this tiger is original, given the team's current state of branding. Anyone know where it's stolen from?

RDPR5YX.jpg

Current team logo:
gensfqyqpt4df3w7ktf5zc0sy.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man, that looks sooooo familiar, but for the life of me I cannot find a team. It's not the Detroit Tigers, the Bengals, the Tiger-Cats, Amur Khabarovsk, Wests... I'm stumped. Do you know the name of the team that is using this logo? It might be able to help. EDIT: Nevermind you posted the current logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something tells me I've seen that tiger on dribbble before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems I've seen that on here as an LSU concept. Now who did it or what thread it was..... good luck.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where is the line on too close vs. Different enough to get away with things like this? I'm certainly no expert, but this strikes me as similar enough to be "stolen" if they didn't get the creator's approval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where is the line on too close vs. Different enough to get away with things like this? I'm certainly no expert, but this strikes me as similar enough to be "stolen" if they didn't get the creator's approval.

I don't know exactly where that line might be. But I know they didn't come anywhere near close enough to crossing it. I'd send a cease and desist immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no line.

If you start from somebody else's work, there is no amount of changes where it magically becomes your work. It will always belong to the original designer.

The only way to make a design your own is to start from scratch.

That's a stolen design. Stolen and then altered, but stolen nonetheless. Slavo should reach out to the team and either get credit (and compensation) or get them to stop using it. It's his work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no line.

If you start from somebody else's work, there is no amount of changes where it magically becomes your work. It will always belong to the original designer.

The only way to make a design your own is to start from scratch.

GIFS-No-way.gif

There's a big difference between making minor tweaks to a complex logo and starting with a logo as a "jumping off point" that has zero presence in the final product. The latter is a common practice in design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no line.

If you start from somebody else's work, there is no amount of changes where it magically becomes your work. It will always belong to the original designer.

The only way to make a design your own is to start from scratch.

GIFS-No-way.gif

There's a big difference between making minor tweaks to a complex logo and starting with a logo as a "jumping off point" that has zero presence in the final product. The latter is a common practice in design.

So basically it's ok to be obviously influenced by another work, as long as what you produce is its own creation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearly all art is influenced at some level by what came before. "Obviously influenced" to the point where an observer can see it? I don't know. Ask Vanilla Ice about that one.

But that's not what happened here. You can't start with somebody else's work and make it yours by changing the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no line.

If you start from somebody else's work, there is no amount of changes where it magically becomes your work. It will always belong to the original designer.

The only way to make a design your own is to start from scratch.

GIFS-No-way.gif

There's a big difference between making minor tweaks to a complex logo and starting with a logo as a "jumping off point" that has zero presence in the final product. The latter is a common practice in design.

It may be common but that's not an accepted practice.

What do you mean by "jumping off point?" Do you mean being inspired by many different logos, artwork and photos and creating your own design from scratch? Or do you mean having a logo, tracing over certain parts of it, manipulating those until you have something you think is "new?"

Because only one of those is accepted practice...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I see it if a piece of work is not copyrighted or trade marked and it is put over the internet to be admired unfortunatley unscrupulous individuals will steal it and alter it. Thats the risk any designer takes if they have no patent on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Internet has made design theft a giant market. Urban outfitters is known to straight rip stuff off and print it and sell it in their stores. The took my brothers shirt verbatim and just sold it.

Funny thing is, we've approached them about licensing.

Morality is fickle when anonymity is assumed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no line.

If you start from somebody else's work, there is no amount of changes where it magically becomes your work. It will always belong to the original designer.

The only way to make a design your own is to start from scratch.

GIFS-No-way.gif

There's a big difference between making minor tweaks to a complex logo and starting with a logo as a "jumping off point" that has zero presence in the final product. The latter is a common practice in design.

It may be common but that's not an accepted practice.

What do you mean by "jumping off point?" Do you mean being inspired by many different logos, artwork and photos and creating your own design from scratch? Or do you mean having a logo, tracing over certain parts of it, manipulating those until you have something you think is "new?"

Because only one of those is accepted practice...

We shouldn't pretend that there's a bright line between (on the one hand) "being inspired" by an existing work and starting from scratch, and (on the other hand) starting from an existing work and then changing it to the point where it's a new work.
Consider the NBA's logo. Its creator Alan Siegel had been part of the team that created the Major League Baseball logo in 1969. In the NBA logo he intended to make something that looked similar; so he utilised the same design concept: a white silouhette of a player flanked by blue and red fields.

Did he "start from scratch", based on "inspiration" from the Major League Baseball logo? Or did he essentially take the Major League Baseball logo and just alter the baseball player to a basketball player? The answer is that there's no answer, because no true boundary exists between these two acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no line.

If you start from somebody else's work, there is no amount of changes where it magically becomes your work. It will always belong to the original designer.

The only way to make a design your own is to start from scratch.

GIFS-No-way.gif

There's a big difference between making minor tweaks to a complex logo and starting with a logo as a "jumping off point" that has zero presence in the final product. The latter is a common practice in design.

It may be common but that's not an accepted practice.

What do you mean by "jumping off point?" Do you mean being inspired by many different logos, artwork and photos and creating your own design from scratch? Or do you mean having a logo, tracing over certain parts of it, manipulating those until you have something you think is "new?"

Because only one of those is accepted practice...

We shouldn't pretend that there's a bright line between (on the one hand) "being inspired" by an existing work and starting from scratch, and (on the other hand) starting from an existing work and then changing it to the point where it's a new work.
Consider the NBA's logo. Its creator Alan Siegel had been part of the team that created the Major League Baseball logo in 1969. In the NBA logo he intended to make something that looked similar; so he utilised the same design concept: a white silouhette of a player flanked by blue and red fields.

Did he "start from scratch", based on "inspiration" from the Major League Baseball logo? Or did he essentially take the Major League Baseball logo and just alter the baseball player to a basketball player? The answer is that there's no answer, because no true boundary exists between these two acts.

You can't start with an existing work and change it to the point where it's a new work. Nope. Never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no line.

If you start from somebody else's work, there is no amount of changes where it magically becomes your work. It will always belong to the original designer.

The only way to make a design your own is to start from scratch.

GIFS-No-way.gif

There's a big difference between making minor tweaks to a complex logo and starting with a logo as a "jumping off point" that has zero presence in the final product. The latter is a common practice in design.

It may be common but that's not an accepted practice.

What do you mean by "jumping off point?" Do you mean being inspired by many different logos, artwork and photos and creating your own design from scratch? Or do you mean having a logo, tracing over certain parts of it, manipulating those until you have something you think is "new?"

Because only one of those is accepted practice...

We shouldn't pretend that there's a bright line between (on the one hand) "being inspired" by an existing work and starting from scratch, and (on the other hand) starting from an existing work and then changing it to the point where it's a new work.
Consider the NBA's logo. Its creator Alan Siegel had been part of the team that created the Major League Baseball logo in 1969. In the NBA logo he intended to make something that looked similar; so he utilised the same design concept: a white silouhette of a player flanked by blue and red fields.

Did he "start from scratch", based on "inspiration" from the Major League Baseball logo? Or did he essentially take the Major League Baseball logo and just alter the baseball player to a basketball player? The answer is that there's no answer, because no true boundary exists between these two acts.

You can't start with an existing work and change it to the point where it's a new work. Nope. Never.

And yet, this is precisely what happened with the NBA logo. So to argue that this can "never" be just denies reality.

This argument also flies in the face of logic. An existing work can be described by any number of parameters. If one starts with that work and then changes enough parameters, it becomes a new work.

The important point is that this is indistinguishable (both artistically and ethically) from starting with a blank sheet and creating from scratch based upon influence by an existing work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had no idea that gif would be quoted so many times when I posted it :lol:

I think this debate is less about morality and more about methodology. My method is research->freehand->Photoshop->Illustrator, but whether I use an element of a logo as a base that gets phased out five waves before the finish or if I draw a logo by hand after carefully studying five different logos is irrelevant. What's important is to not "create" logos like the stolen tiger in this thread.

I commonly use major elements of other logos as a conceptual space-filler until I can eliminate those elements by designing something original to fill that space, which could evolve a dozen times over. This is a classic "like the steak; hate the slaughter" situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There a vast difference between inspiration (modeling one creation in the vein of another) and alteration (taking an existing creation and tweaking it). The former may involve a parallel development of the design (that is, you are aiming for a similar finish line, but you still begin at the starting line), but the latter results in a circular development (starting at the finish line and looking to move the line elsewhere).

It's also important to note that it is impossible for for an artist to steal from himself. That's the biggest notch against from cesarano's MLB/NBA example. Sure, the NBA wanted a logo like the MLB... so what did they do? They went out and hired the same artist to design them a similar logo. They did not go about it themselves or hire a different artist to make a flagrantly derivative mark...

Which, in this case, is the problem with the original post. If the team wanted a design similar to Slavo's tiger, they could have hired Slavo to design for them a similar logo. And I'm sure if you asked the team, they would cry about money and budgets and imaginary rules about IP theft... But really, whether it was intentional (hint, at some level, it was) or not, it boils down to the team spitting in the artist's face; "We love your work, which is why we're going to borrow the design and change it to the point where we think we can skate free of any legal ramifications of using your work."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There a vast difference between inspiration (modeling one creation in the vein of another) and alteration (taking an existing creation and tweaking it). The former may involve a parallel development of the design (that is, you are aiming for a similar finish line, but you still begin at the starting line), but the latter results in a circular development (starting at the finish line and looking to move the line elsewhere).

It's also important to note that it is impossible for for an artist to steal from himself. That's the biggest notch against from cesarano's MLB/NBA example. Sure, the NBA wanted a logo like the MLB... so what did they do? They went out and hired the same artist to design them a similar logo. They did not go about it themselves or hire a different artist to make a flagrantly derivative mark.

I don't think that Alan Siegel himself was the creator of the Major League Baseball logo. He was part of Jerry Dior's team when Dior designed it. And, of course, he he did not own any rights to the logo. So he was really in a position no different to that of any other designer when he chose to use Dior's logo as the basis for the NBA's logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.