OpenID Logo

[ydnar]

I own the logo.

The plan is to transfer the trademark/copyright/whatever to Six Apart (or
some OpenID.org) so it can be CC licensed or similar. Something like Jon
Hicks did with the Firefox logo.

We honestly haven't fully discussed the trademark/licensing issues around
the OpenID branding.

My feelings on it fall somewhere between complete and total Public 
Domaining of the thing, but somewhere short of giving spammers and 
phishers something to tie their boats to. I'm also a wee bit protective of 
the lines. The logo is an evolution of something I've had for a while, and 
I'm not terribly keen on seeing it mangled.

Then again, a logo is just a logo, and all good ones (or recognized ones, 
rather) eventually get repurposed, parodied, recolored, photocopied, 
redrawn, reinterpreted and otherwise mangled. I'm not going to get upset 
about it.

Now having a badge that signifies some form of OpenID "certification" is 
something entirely different. That particular badging/nomenclature can and 
should be (c)/TM so someone (us) can nail someone for using it on a site 
with a crap implementation (for instance).

That said, here are PDF, PNG, GIF and SWF versions of the logo, including 
color, whitespace, reverse and monochrome treatments:

http://akiba.shaderlab.com/openid/

(don't use anything named *base or *old)


Cheers,
y



On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, M. David Peterson wrote:

> All excellent points... Lets see what becomes of it as I think youre 
> definitely spot on: it would be nice to be able to really nail the logo in a 
> way that a lot of people feel they have a bit of control and say over what 
> they use to help visitors to their site gain an immediatte "We support 
> OpenID" understanding without causing that same user to initially question 
> "is that OpenID???" and be forced to "try and see" before they know for 
> sure. Probably a bit extreme but not unfathonable.
> 
> It seems that the logical next step in promotion of a project such as this 
> to the masses is to focus on that immediatte recognition factor that is 
> key... a lot of really good software never reaches anywhere close to its 
> potential because the project developers neglected this one very important 
> element: how to we get users to first use this to then simply come to expect 
> a site of worth to support it. The best of the breed will literally convince 
> the end users that if a company (or in this case blog, wiki, website, 
> etc...) does not offer support then you are simply risking too much to 
> choose other alternative that simply do not come close to the "real thing".
> 
> Brad, have you put much thought into this stage of the project and/or do you 
> know someone in whom has made a career of accomplishing the "ideal" 
> mentioned above for His/Her clients? Not trying to jump in and volunteer 
> (although I will certainly do my part) as this person is definitely not me. 
> But it would seem that this person, whomever it might be, is "close by" to 
> one of us and as such could easily be tapped to help promote what is the 
> obvious "Killer App" of the first half of 2005.
> 
> On 6/29/05, Dro Kulix <dro at drocore.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Branding consistency is something I completely forgot to mention, though
> > I was thinking about it when I asked the questions.
> > 
> > In any case, what I meant by "childish" was simply in reference to other
> > entities who keep such a tight stranglehold on their branding strategies
> > that make even reasonable changes out of the question. For example, I
> > don't generally keep the ugly (in some circumstances, anyway) yellow and
> > blue W3C validator logos on my sites. I would have reinterpreted the
> > buttons in a striking vector monochrome, but W3C's logo policy forbids
> > it. It's something I wouldn't even bother to contest, because W3C has
> > such momentum that if I asked about it, some mail processing underling
> > would just categorically tell me "no" and then, just for spite, link me
> > to the policy I've already read. So I simply use text links for the
> > validators, which don't even display the logo and thus don't affect
> > W3C's brand, for better or worse.
> > 
> > I also wouldn't have asked if I figured the OI logo was just going to be
> > public domain outright. And I even think it's fair to exercise a
> > certain degree of control over a mark of identity. But this is a mark
> > of identity for an open, public, legally unencumbered protocol, where
> > the homepage very explicitly says "Nobody should own this. Nobody's
> > planning on making any money from this." So even a complete
> > bastardization of the symbol morally reflects upon "nobody", save the
> > modifier of the logo, right? (I know that's not pragmatically true, but
> > still.) At any rate, hopefully control over the logo (which I like in
> > its default situation but which seems a little out of place even in the
> > form of the icons used on the LifeWiki, for example) is at least somehow
> > parallel in openness to the protocol itself, at least somehow open to
> > artistic reinterpretation, even if that reinterpretation must be subject
> > to review.
> > 
> > Anyway, that's just philosophy, and I got curious.
> > 
> > Thanks -- PSM
> > 
> > > Not that I have any idea what Brad's feelings are on his logo it
> > should be
> > > pointed out theres a difference between childish intellectual property
> > > paradigms and branding consistency; if rules are put into place the
> > latter
> > > should never be confused with an individuals behavior having childish
> > > tendencies and instead someone who is concerned that one person's
> > subtle
> > > changes do not necessarily equate to another's and as such allowing a
> > > broad
> > > creative license in these matters can cause a TON of problems
> > especially
> > > when somebody somewhere along the way decides that they just dont like
> > > this
> > > or that or whatever else, start from scratch, and begin using this new
> > > logo
> > > with the idea that this is part of the creative right's given to them
> > as
> > > part of the "license".
> > >
> > > Not that I am trying to create comotion or suggest your ideas have no
> > > merit.
> > > They do for sure and I agree that changing the base color scheme can
> > be
> > > really helpful when it comes to site color coordination, etc.. But it
> > > seems
> > > that there should then be a series of color schemes submitted by
> > whomever
> > > has interest, changing nothing else, of which Brad and those in whom
> > he
> > > chooses to help in the decision process can select those in which they
> > > feel
> > > agree with the "spirit" of the original logo design and call them
> > official
> > > with the requirement that you can select any of the approved graphics
> > to
> > > help match your site design but please leave things as is. If you
> > think a
> > > new design is important then create one and submit it to Brad for
> > > consideration. Again, not that I know Brad or any of these guys beyond
> > > watching them develop this project at a pace I have NEVER witnessed
> > before
> > > now. So please don't take what I am suggesting and attach it to them.
> > But
> > > this is an area I do have a considerable amount of professional
> > experience
> > > in so I felt it was worth at least expressing my professional opinions
> > in
> > > this area to be dealt with as the project developers see fit.
> > >
> > > Cheers :)
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>