OpenID Logo

[Dro Kulix]

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 :)
>