Official New Logo - Confirmed

[royboy2]

You reckon?

Hello Disney's the Lion King

Shouldn't it be roaring or at least looking a tiny bit angry? Looks like it's just woken up.

It Has

 

[Chazz Michaels]

So when do we think Adeliade will be sued for plagiarising their logo?

I don't think the Ravens in the US will be happy when they see it.

I mean, it's bad enough they used an ugly logo, but they COPIED an ugly logo?

 

[-CG-]

So when do we think Adeliade will be sued for plagiarising their logo?

I don't think the Ravens in the US will be happy when they see it.

I mean, it's bad enough they used an ugly logo, but they COPIED an ugly logo?

We hardly copied it. Yes you can spot similarities, such as they're both bird heads with a similar design facing to the right, but other than that they're quite different in my opinion.

 

[WALL-e]

Collingwoods new logo, chosen for familiarity

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

We hardly copied it. Yes you can spot similarities, such as they're both bird heads with a similar design facing to the right, but other than that they're quite different in my opinion.

Pretty clear where their 'inspiration' came from. I'm a Graphic Designer, I can generally spot a copy when I see one.

Illustrator makes editing vector images quite easy. Even in that small resolution you can see where they've made subtle changes to 'differentiate' the logo.

Collingwoods new logo, chosen for familiarity

Would be funny if it wasn't predictable.

Better off using the logo from a Dentist office.

 

[-CG-]

I stumbled across our heritage shield logo a couple of days ago and thought that it could've provided some inspiration for a logo.

I quite like the crow on it however, if they're mainly going for a jumper thing I don't think it could've worked.

 

[johnnypanther]

I think it grows on you and i rather like it now - it certainly looks fiercer.

Not a proper representative sample, but the few young kids i know really like it better.

 

[arrowman]

I think it grows on you and i rather like it now - it certainly looks fiercer.

I don't know that I'll ever "like" it but I suppose I can deal with it except for my major issues with it:

1. I'm afraid it's going to be used on a really crap away jumper.
We seem to have a trend where clubs are keen to have strong, traditional home jumpers and the most ridiculous non-footy-like, designed-by-a-marketing-guru, soft looking away jumpers produced solely for "looks" and saleability.

I await the 2010 away jumper more in fear than hope.

2. It is the Baltimore Ravens logo reworked - there can be no arguing that.
And I don't see why our proud club (or any club) should be taking on reworked versions of other clubs' logos.

Not a proper representative sample, but the few young kids i know really like it better.

Well, that would be the target demographic

 

[Riggy1]

2. It is the Boston Ravens logo

dont you mean Baltimore

or is there a Boston Ravens that I have no idea about.

 

[arrowman]

dont you mean Baltimore

or is there a Boston Ravens that I have no idea about.

There - you see the confusion this logo is causing!!!??

Thanks, I'll correct that.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

2. It is the Baltimore Ravens logo reworked - there can be no arguing that.
And I don't see why our proud club (or any club) should be taking on reworked versions of other clubs' logos.

THANK YOU.

I wasn't trying to flame when I posted that. It's not like Adelaide the club designed and made it. They would have paid a design studio to do it, of course unaware the Baltimore Ravens had the same logo.

So Adelaide would have initially bore the brunt of any legal issues, but it then would have been palmed off to the design studio.

Either way, there is still a chance something could come of this, because it's quite clearly the Ravens logo with SUBTLE differences.

 

[Hondo]

THANK YOU.

I wasn't trying to flame when I posted that. It's not like Adelaide the club designed and made it. They would have paid a design studio to do it, of course unaware the Baltimore Ravens had the same logo.

So Adelaide would have initially bore the brunt of any legal issues, but it then would have been palmed off to the design studio.

Either way, there is still a chance something could come of this, because it's quite clearly the Ravens logo with SUBTLE differences.

The trend these days is for bird logos to show the head only. Hawthorn & the Philadelphia Eagles come to mind.

The Eagles one has the beak on the left, otherwise (allowing for colour schemes) it's equally reminiscent of ours. Also refer to the Seattle Seahawks and compare it to the West Coast Eagles.

It's the fact that they are both purple that makes them seem alike.

Given that there's so many sporting teams around the world using a finite group of "mascots" there is bound to be similarities here and there.

Similarly with guernsey designs and colour schemes. No one team can lay claim to own a certain logo, colour scheme, etc. To say that no-one at the AFC checked out NFL.com and looked up the Baltimore Ravens is a huge leap.

 

[arrowman]

THANK YOU.

I wasn't trying to flame when I posted that. It's not like Adelaide the club designed and made it.

No, but they approved it, and adopted it.

They would have paid a design studio to do it, of course unaware the Baltimore Ravens had the same logo.

I find it impossible to believe that noone involved in the creation of this logo, from either the design studio or the club, was unaware of the similarities. It took about a nanosecond for BigFooty denizens to notice.

In fact, I think it is most likely that the logo was in fact deliberately derived from the Baltimore logo. Coincidence is not plausible. So therefore:

So Adelaide would have initially bore the brunt of any legal issues, but it then would have been palmed off to the design studio.

Either way, there is still a chance something could come of this, because it's quite clearly the Ravens logo with SUBTLE differences.

The bush lawyer in me says that the club would not be able to simply palm the issue off on the deisgn studio. The club accepted and adopted the logo, and it is not credible to claim that they were unaware of the similarities.

All of which is moot, IMHO because - or more precisely, it is evidence that: The club would not have adopted this logo without ensuring the legal field was clear. Either with approval from Baltimore, or based on some legal view that Baltimore's ownership of the logo does not extend to the Australian jurisdiction.

 

[kickavic]

Interestingly, the roos, cats and hawks are the only vic clubs to freshen their logos any time recently

 

[macca23]

You have to laugh at Collingwood's magpie.

It looks like birds do when they have just been startled, and just before they crap themselves and fly away!!

 

[arrowman]

dont ask me
it's BigFooty which has the ban
im just telling him, ...

Oh, I understand that. My question was not directed at you in particular, it was just an existential outburst.

 

[arrowman]

You have to laugh at Collingwood's magpie.

It looks like birds do when they have just been startled, and just before they crap themselves and fly away!!

Yes, it is a bit "WTF?", isn't it!

Or, you could look at it in terms of animal body language - averting the gaze to avoid making eye contact with the superior beast.

(Collingwood supporters feel free to make reference to recent finals results here )

 

[Hondo]

All of which is moot, IMHO because - or more precisely, it is evidence that: The club would not have adopted this logo without ensuring the legal field was clear. Either with approval from Baltimore, or based on some legal view that Baltimore's ownership of the logo does not extend to the Australian jurisdiction.

It's very difficult to trademark images of animals or numbers or letters of the alphabet

You need to include all the related text to get a trade-mark they are happy is unique. You could almost have 2 identical logos but so long as you have different team names in different fonts it would be very hard for the other party to claim a breach of trademark.

A company I worked for tried to trademark a version of the letter "C" on it's own and it was disallowed on the basis that a letter of the alphabet cannout be "owned". Similar for an image of a bird.

It's even harder when you have 2 legal jurisdictions to deal with.

Besides all that, there's enough differences in the 2 logos IMO that there would be no legal issues to worry about.

 

[Hondo]

Check out the West Adelalaide FC (SANFL) logo v Minnesota Timberwolves (NBA).

 

[afc1991]

I agree with Hondo, it's a bird head, same profile. We've copied the spikey parts and similarites end there really.

Like arrowman, I kida feel the club would have seen the baltimore logo, and maybe even asked if it could be based on that. However I'd be astonished if any legal issues came out of this, the bird has totally been redrawn.

 

[arrowman]

...Similarly with guernsey designs and colour schemes. No one team can lay claim to own a certain logo, colour scheme, etc. To say that no-one at the AFC checked out NFL.com and looked up the Baltimore Ravens is a huge leap.

I think you'll find that the AFL (and NFL, and EPL, and...) all have trademark (or whatever) protection for their logos etc. The question would be whether that protection extends to another jurisdiction (country).

Manchester United (for example) have probably tardemarked their logo in every country on earth, plus the moons of Jupiter. I wonder if the Baltimore Ravens (or the NFL) have bothered to go that far.

 

[Hondo]

I think you'll find that the AFL (and NFL, and EPL, and...) all have trademark (or whatever) protection for their logos etc. The question would be whether that protection extends to another jurisdiction (country).

Manchester United (for example) have probably tardemarked their logo in every country on earth, plus the moons of Jupiter. I wonder if the Baltimore Ravens (or the NFL) have bothered to go that far.

I agree where the logo includes everything - mascot, team name, colour scheme.

I meant where a team somewhere is the "Ravens" and has a bird head as it's logo it can't claim sole rights to either "Ravens" or a bird head image, or even a (say) purple and black colour scheme.

It's the whole thing put together which is the "logo" and that's where ours and the Ravens, taken in entirety including team name, are different enough for legal purposes IMO.

If you searched on all the teams that are called the "Tigers" around the world you would find many that are the same I reckon.

 

[arrowman]

OK, bush lawyer argument

It's very difficult to trademark images of animals or numbers or letters of the alphabet.

You need to include all the related text to get a trade-mark they are happy is unique. You could almost have 2 identical logos but so long as you have different team names in different fonts it would be very hard for the other party to claim a breach of trademark.

Yes, true.

A company I worked for tried to trademark a version of the letter "C" on it's own and it was disallowed on the basis that a letter of the alphabet cannout be "owned". Similar for an image of a bird.

I disagree. This is not a (lifelike) "image of a bird" - it is a particular stylised image, it is a unique design.

If I drew a picture like that and used it (without distinguishing text) as a logo, and you copied, I could nail you for copyright and IMHO I could register it also as a trademark. Because it is not an "image of a bird", it is a unique design.

It's even harder when you have 2 legal jurisdictions to deal with.

Indeed. Which is probably one of the reasons Westies can get away with using the Timberwolves logo.

Besides all that, there's enough differences in the 2 logos IMO that there would be no legal issues to worry about.

For all that, you may be right. I just think that the bird is such a significant part of the logo that the associated text doesn't save you. And nor would making minor changes to the bird protect you from copyright infringement, at the least.

But that's just IMHO. And trusting that the club has worked this all out.

 

[Hondo]

If I drew a picture like that and used it (without distinguishing text) as a logo, and you copied, I could nail you for copyright and IMHO I could register it also as a trademark. Because it is not an "image of a bird", it is a unique design.

Bush lawyer response

Copyright = yes probably. I think you would need the two images to be close enough to identical rather than reminiscent of. If I draw a face who's to say a face you drew wouldn't look very similar. Have you breached my copyright? Copyright isn't enough legal protection in this case though, as I understand copyright laws. I think they are more directed at words / text (songs, articles, books). Not really 100% sure though how it applies to drawings.

Trademark = doubtful they would let a company "own" an image of an animal on it's own. Add some fancy text, a league logo, etc and then you are probably OK.

As I understand the system it's designed to stop companies deliberately trying to pass themselves off as being the company that they "stole" the logo from. I don't think it's designed to stop other companies in completely unrelated areas doing their own take on a bird or a tiger, for example.

We aren't trying to pretend we are the Baltimore Ravens. We just both happen to have a black bird as our mascot.

 

[arrowman]

A company I worked for tried to trademark a version of the letter "C" on it's own and it was disallowed on the basis that a letter of the alphabet cannout be "owned". Similar for an image of a bird.

True, but (just because I'm a pedantic and argumentative sod ) a particular unique design (not just a font) based on the letter "C" could be (would be) subject to copyright protection as a design / work of art.

As I understand it, the difference is

Copyright = the unique work is protected from copying, or from use as part of any derivative work (subject to some exceptions).

Trademark = similar protection but also has a commercial flavour in that you can't produce (trademark) something which is not an exact copy (and therefore does not breach copyright), but is close enough that a reasonable person might confuse the two.

But that's just me running off at the keyboard. Even if there aren't any legal issues (and I'm sure there aren't) I just don't like the idea that our Club's logo is a "me too". I know there's lots of "tigers" around the world and all that, but did we have to choose to be so deliberately derivative?

I'll stop now