On 10/25/06, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/25/06, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 18:04 +0200, Dave Neary wrote: > > [snip] > > > I disagree with you that we need to have plain black to protect the > > > brand - I think there's more value in allowing good variations of the > > > foot to develop. > > > > I'm not saying it needs to be black. I am saying that having a globe or > > flag as a fill for the foot is probably distorting it too much. Other > > colors are definitely OK - though we probably want to recommend our > > brand colors. I suspect a gradient is probably OK too. But I'm not a > > lawyer or designer, so I'm happy as long as we do whatever we do with > > open eyes, and as long as our guidelines are clear. > > (IANALY) > > On variety/colors: > The legal key is that the design be clearly related to the Foot; > that's really all that matters, once we've established the existence > of the basic mark, and assuming we continue to use something very > close to it for the 'primary' logo in the software and the web page. > (We wouldn't want to make a habit of using a variation of it as 'the' > primary logo in the about box, or in the header of the web page, for > example, but irregularly using something like the old pumpkin foot > would not likely be a problem.) > > We could of course decide as a matter of branding/marketing policy > that we don't want variations, but I'd scream bloody fucking murder > about that as a policy choice, for reasons Dave has already made > fairly clear. :)
And of course we'd need approval; not to restrict their style/design/nature, but to restrict what they are applied to. Luis (still wanting to abandon the mark registration, but that is tangential to Mairin's excellent work) -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
