Chicago 2016 Needs New Logo

[Tannerman]

When I read this story in the paper this morning my first thought was, "Chicago skyline in flames? What are they celebrating the Great Chicago Fire?"

Actually, the orange in the skyline was designed to represent the Chicago Fire. Per the description when the original logo was announced:

The flame, in the shape of Chicago?s skyline, represents the way our enduring city rose from the ashes of the Chicago Fire. The blue base of the torch symbolizes Lake Michigan and its stretching shoreline. Merging into a vibrant green, the body of the torch is a reflection of Chicago's lush parks and our commitment to the environment.

[powersurge]

The logo:

The Chicago Tribune story: Olympic logo torched

All I see is a city sitting on top of a stalagmite.

All I see is a hand sticking up a middle finger.

[FiddySicks]

The logo:

The Chicago Tribune story: Olympic logo torched

Thats a terriffic logo. Its about a million times better than the NYC 2012 logo.

[Viper]

I realize that what I am about to say will lay bare my inner geek for all to see, but what the hell...

The logo kind of looks like Cloud City to me.

[tommytimp]

But-but-but:

And:

So is it just the bid logo that can't use the torch? Or did they change the rules?

[EatSleepJeep]

Bid logo can't but the actual awarded city can use the imagery.

[Draft Dodger]

I was taught that it was stalactites, because they hang down.

yes, seriously

[DDR]

Like somebody said, they have the games logo ready now if they're awarded them. And I think they have a good shot. Chicago has the infrastructure for it and has a well planned out construction design for new facilities. In 2016, a US city should be just about due for an Olympics, and this would "make up" for taking the games away from Chicago way back when.

[mfoster]

So if I'm say, the NFL... and I'm accepting bids for expansion teams, I don't want you to include elements in the logo you submit with your bid that might include anything suggesting it's for a football team. Stupid, why should the bid logo be different than the logo for the final product? Put it on the table from the get-go.

I think I know where this comes from. We know the IOC is hard-core serious about protecting their trademarks, and rightly so. They don't want a bid city profiting from selling items with their logo, though frankly I think they've gone too far in assuming that every stylized torch is *their* torch (further evidenced with the lack of consistent enforcement visa-vis New York's bid logo). Still, shouldn't it be possible to resolve this, either by the IOC allowing limited use (perhaps no item sales), or changing their bid rules to allow for final product imagery?

Marc

[powersurge]

But-but-but:

And:

So is it just the bid logo that can't use the torch? Or did they change the rules?

If I remember correctly, the original Atlanta bid logo was much different from the one that was eventually used during the games.

I think Mfoster hit it on the head with why the IOC strictly forbids any iconic Olympic imagery being used in the bidding city logo designs. Its pretty smart actually, because bidding cities make a lot of money trying to sell merchandise for the bid, none of which goes to the IOC. So why let them use the copyrighted imagery if it won't benefit the committee?

[Tannerman]

If I remember correctly, the original Atlanta bid logo was much different from the one that was eventually used during the games.

You are correct.

Atlanta's original bid logo was this:

There have been other cases of the flame being used in the bid logo, however. Albertville's 1992 Winter Olympics bid logo was:

When they won the games, it was eventually tweaked to look like this:

From what I've read in the Chicago Tribune, it seems that maybe the rules have been modified over the years. Here's an excerpt:

Chicago has been subject to those rules since February, when the IOC executive board decided they applied to a city as soon as it expressed interest in bidding. But the Chicago bid committee was not told to change the city's logo until this week.

The IOC's bid rules state that logos "shall not contain the Olympic symbol, the Olympic motto, the Olympic flag, any other Olympic-related imagery (e.g. flame, torch, medal, etc.), slogan, designation or other indicia or the distorted version thereof or a design confusingly similar thereto."

"Logos change in various phases of the bid process," Chicago 2016 spokesman Michael Kontos said. "We are going to abide by the rules of this phase of the process, as we have abided by the rules of the previous phases."

"Several weeks ago we did seek clarification whether the logo in its current fashion would be seen as out of sync with the rules going forward. We received clarification this week." Chicago has begun the process of developing a new logo to convey its Olympic vision and concept, according to Kontos.

[powersurge]

If I remember correctly, the original Atlanta bid logo was much different from the one that was eventually used during the games.

You are correct.

Atlanta's original bid logo was this:

There have been other cases of the flame being used in the bid logo, however. Albertville's 1992 Winter Olympics bid logo was:

When they won the games, it was eventually tweaked to look like this:

From what I've read in the Chicago Tribune, it seems that maybe the rules have been modified over the years. Here's an excerpt:

Chicago has been subject to those rules since February, when the IOC executive board decided they applied to a city as soon as it expressed interest in bidding. But the Chicago bid committee was not told to change the city's logo until this week.

The IOC's bid rules state that logos "shall not contain the Olympic symbol, the Olympic motto, the Olympic flag, any other Olympic-related imagery (e.g. flame, torch, medal, etc.), slogan, designation or other indicia or the distorted version thereof or a design confusingly similar thereto."

"Logos change in various phases of the bid process," Chicago 2016 spokesman Michael Kontos said. "We are going to abide by the rules of this phase of the process, as we have abided by the rules of the previous phases."

"Several weeks ago we did seek clarification whether the logo in its current fashion would be seen as out of sync with the rules going forward. We received clarification this week." Chicago has begun the process of developing a new logo to convey its Olympic vision and concept, according to Kontos.

I think the Albertville logo was allowed because the flame wasn't as apparent as the Chicago flame for example. I think it is obviously a flame but I'm not on the IOC. You could make a case (although not a very strong one) that the red flame like design could have been referencing other things like a sail.... .....or....a tree?

[Cianfrocco]

If the IOC is so concerned about the use of their images, does anyone know why Chinese Taipei was allowed to use the Olympic rings on their World Baseball Classic Jerseys? A country that has never hosted the Olympics playing in a non-Olympic event seems like a bigger issue than a city using their logos for a host bid.

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/Search/De...amp;id=57000425

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/Search/De...amp;id=56984380

[Slickster]

Chinese Taipei always uses that logo for international competition, Olympic or otherwise.