9 ms·

Oh, I see you helped yourselves to my Secure Chat logo - http://dribbble.com/shots/479881-Secure-Chat http://dribbble.com/shots/479881-Secure-Chat http://logo

Oh, I see you helped yourselves to my Secure Chat logo - http://dribbble.com/shots/479881-Secure-Chat http://dribbble.com/shots/479881-Secure-Chat http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/165288 http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/165288 https://www.google.ca/search?q=secure+chat+logo https://www.google.ca/search?q=secure+chat+logo - first page hit too Not cool at all, "cool guys around the world". -- (edit) Regardless of whether this was copied, over-inspired or independently conceived (but let's be realistic here), the generally accepted rule of the game is that the first to the finish line gets to keep the logo. I don't make my living with logo design, but I did kill a week of sketching, refining and re-balancing on this one and I do happen to like it a lot. For what it's worth, I wrote a P2P VPN system in the past (called Hamachi) and I am involved in p2p and crypto domains in general. So I expect you to extend some professional courtesy, change the logo and close this matter in an amicable matter.

gohrt 13y ago
Both your logos might look nicer if the avatar moved up and to the left to make the chat bubble look more like a chat bubble.
- Craigpd 13y ago
  Then it would not look like a keyhole. :(
sehrope 13y ago
Very nice logo by the way. Took a second glance to see the speech bubble at the top but once you do it's beautiful.
talles 13y ago
Maybe it was just a coincidence..? Nice logo by the way.
praisewhitey 13y ago
On your second link someone posted "it's funny...i came up with the exact same mark a few months back and presented it to a client. Almost uncanny how close it was to this." Perhaps the person who made the logo for this project had the same idea as this commenter.
- rossy 13y ago
  Maybe he was "the first to the finish line." It all goes to show how silly this is. If there was two finished projects with such similar logos, that would be a real problem.
Daiz 13y ago
Honestly, I don't see the concept being so unique and original that someone else couldn't have come up with it independently, and frankly the Tox logo has a much nicer balance (in the Tox logo, the person/keyhole works much better, whereas in yours it doesn't really work as a "keyhole" in my opinion) than the versions you linked. EDIT: The logo was originally made in /gd/ (4chan's graphic design board), and since the board is archived I managed to track down the thread it was made in. Here's a somewhat different version that people were playing around with at first (which also featured a lock, a speech bubble and a keyhole doubling as a person): https://archive.foolz.us/gd/thread/86081/#86375 https://archive.foolz.us/gd/thread/86081/#86375 Then someone thought about moving the speech bubble to the keyring here: https://archive.foolz.us/gd/thread/86081/#87186 https://archive.foolz.us/gd/thread/86081/#87186 And then after some iteration they got to the current version: https://archive.foolz.us/gd/thread/86081/#87235 https://archive.foolz.us/gd/thread/86081/#87235
- tptacek 13y ago
  Strong disagree. That was a clever logo and one I hadn't seen before.
  - pairofslacks 13y ago
    Whether or not you "strongly disagree" doesn't change the fact that it was created independently by other people as well, evidenced by the third comment in one of the links latitude posted (http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/165288 http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/165288) and in archived threads where multiple people came to the current design on 4chan's /gd/ that Daiz posted.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I'm not invested in this issue enough to argue about it. I look at a lot of systems like this and was struck by the novelty of the logo, is why I commented. Take that for whatever you think it's worth.
      - 13y ago
Plexion 13y ago
I think this is a matter of coincidence. The lock and chat bubble leads itself to a familiar look. I'm pretty sure you aren't the first person to think of such a concept, and neither are we. Besides, the icon was made by an anonymous person so it's not really like we can blame anyone.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  Besides, the icon was made by an anonymous person so it's not really like we can blame anyone. Isn't that convenient?
  - salad 13y ago
    It's kind of how 4chan works. I'm not sure exactly what you're implying.
  - unknownian 13y ago
    Because we made this project just to violate copyright. Sure thing.
    - ceol 13y ago
      I think their point was that the person who made the icon is anonymous, so it's harder to blame and therefor benefits you. Not that you had that goal in mind to begin with.
      - unknownian 13y ago
        I understand that. It's still a ridiculous claim.
- siddboots 13y ago
  If you don't know the identity of the person who created your logo, how can you be sure that they didn't steal it?
  - 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
chacham15 13y ago
Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with this company/person. Is it possible that they simply had a similar idea? It doesnt appear that they lifted the logo as is. Look at the person in their logo; it looks quite different (it doesnt stop at the shoulders like yours does). Other things are also slightly different. These differences lead me to believe that they at least made their logo by hand. Now if it was inspired by yours i dont know. To be fair, that google link does NOT show me your logo anywhere on the page. Furthermore, I tend to go with the principle of Hanlon's razor[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
unknownian 13y ago
We definitely did not steal. People were making mockups for weeks.
- 3825 13y ago
  It is OK. However if you are making a community project you should definitely change your logo to be distinctive of existing projects. Please fix. The original project expressed their desire to be visually distinct and it would be very nice of you to respect their wishes. This will remove the unnecessary distraction for you. Note that this is not without precedent. Mozilla renamed Firebird to Firefox because of the community's opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Firefox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Firefox
  - salad 13y ago
    What existing projects?
    - 3825 13y ago
      The project that Latitude[1] was talking about. I am not saying you are legally obligated to do something (IANAL). I am just saying it is common courtesy. Trust me. The logo does not make or break your program. https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=latitude https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=latitude
      - Daiz 13y ago
        As far as we know, said project only exists in latitude's mind, and the only public information about it is that he may or may not still have plans for a "secure chat" program. I'd be hard-pressed to call that an "existing project", since for all practical purposes, it isn't.
        latitude 13y ago
        You are asserting a made-up argument. Having an active public project behind a logo is not a necessary condition for not re-purposing the logo for another project. This particular concept just happens to be taken. Every good logo is trivial in retrospect, it's finding a strong concept that's a bitch. I looked at /gd/ thread and virtually all of it revolves around shaping a keyhole this way or that way. Then suddenly someone says - "Here, done". Turning an empty space into a chat bubble requires a step up, it's an altogether stronger and more complex concept. It is possible that another person came up with it independently, but also consider that with all the variety of secure messaging apps no one had thought of it before 2012. It's not an easy concept to stumble upon. (edit) This is getting meta. It is plenty obvious that Tox fellas think they are in the clear and it's OK to recycle an existing logo. I think that it's not. That's hard to reconcile.
salad 13y ago
Your logo is not very good. You're upset because someone had the same idea as you, and they did it better. That's understandable, but not a reason for them to change it.
jessaustin 13y ago
An hour in, a complaint about icon-plagiarism-via-anonymous-bikeshedding-session is still the top comment on HN for a software project with ambitious technical goals. That in itself is a strong argument for doing one's own work and creating original icons. Assuming for the sake of discussion that Tox is or could be a technically superior solution, do they really want that obscured by this sort of extraneous bullshit? EDIT: and now I remember where I've heard that name before, as well: http://testrun.org/tox http://testrun.org/tox Perhaps a rebranding effort is in order? That sort of work seems to be right up /g/'s alley? Google is your friend!
- eps 13y ago
  Agreed. Though it's a Litmus test of how willing they are to cut corners. Imagine having this discussion if it were Linux kernel.
- Craigpd 13y ago
  TOX is just the project name. The product name is yet to be decided. This is still a pretty heavy argument about it on the 4Chan threads.
  - IDEAS_GUY 13y ago
    >This is still a pretty heavy argument about it on the 4Chan threads. The only reason that occurs is because all the non-technical lurkers want a way to contribute.
    - Craigpd 13y ago
      Maybe they should do just what I'm doing. Sit in the thread monitoring progress. Then congratulating progress when it's made. Or, if they want to contribute without causing arguments. Go upvote this on Reddit, WOT, Twitter, and whatever else in a way which won't cause a shitstorm in /g/.
  - Datsundere 13y ago
    tox = talks because tox sounds like talks.
moneyrich2 13y ago
hamachi kicked ass :D
- fauxpad 13y ago
  This is certainly a crucial point to make here, a fact which immediately won empathy from me
- BillyMaize 13y ago
  I still use it to play Terraria because its creator never fixed the multiplayer (which by the way if you play will be updated very soon with lots of new content).
Kasuto 13y ago
Stop being a baby. Someone even commented on your post that they had the same idea months ago. But instead of whining about it, he shrugged it off and said "Great minds must think alike." The current Tox logo wasn't even the first proposed logo with the chat bubble/padlock idea. There were a lot of other ones. People were taking the idea from other logos and improving it. That's innovation. You weren't the first one to come up with the idea; and even if you were, that doesn't give you exclusive rights to it. Grow a pair and show some "professional courtesy" yourself by not giving a fuck.
- abcd_f 13y ago
  It came from the 4chan side.
  - hnriot 13y ago
    It being what?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
pyrocat 13y ago
Just came here to say thank you for Hamachi, many hours of multiplayer Worms Armageddon were had thanks to you.
williamcotton 13y ago
Neither of you guys invented these concepts: 1.) Using a padlock to represent computer security. 2.) Using a cartoon chat bubble to represent a way to chat on your computer. 3.) Using a little oval on top of a bigger oval to represent a person. Is it really that much of a stretch to combine the three? I would think that this concept would be pretty standard output from someone with even a moderate amount of visual communication skills. It's a rather simple visual sentence and I can easily imagine quite a few people having come up with this concept. Please realize that both logos are built on top of an already existing visual language and that neither of you are really all that original to begin with.
- siddboots 13y ago
  I don't think this argument is very powerful. If two authors come up with exactly the same sentence, no one would dismiss the coincidence on the grounds that "both sentences are built on top of an already existing language". What matters is how similar the precise combination of visual elements are in the two logos. Yes, it is possible that they were created independently. However, after looking at the "evidence" provided by Daiz, it seems more likely that an anonymous channer borrowed the design without crediting it.
  - williamcotton 13y ago
    "Today I went to the grocery store and bought a few bananas." "I just got back from the store. I picked up some bananas while I was there." Both sentences say the same thing. No, they are not completely the same, but neither are the logos in question. If you want to talk about precise combinations of visual elements, there are LOTS of differences. Look closely at the logos. The Tox logo makes the person more like a keyhole. The Secure Chat logo uses something more like a natural human silhouette. The ratios of the arc to square are different. The spacing is different. There's a bunch of differences. Frankly, my eye appreciates the the layout and design of the Secure Chat logo... the weights of the Tox logo are a little off... I DO really like the keyhole/person combo, though! So each design has its merits. The only similarities are the padlock, the chat bubble, and the person. Just like how in my textual sentences the only similarities are "store", "multiple bananas", and "at some point today". The point is, the two sentences, one textual and the other visual, both "say the same thing" and are made up of "the same concepts" and "predefined elements of language"... and neither should be considered plagiarism or even that unique to warrant talking about originality...
Selfcommit 13y ago
The first hit off google seems to come from this site... http://whysocreative.com/2013/04/07/10-most-creative-black-white-logos/ http://whysocreative.com/2013/04/07/10-most-creative-black-w... Are you associated with them? How could these guys have known it was "yours" ?
chj 13y ago
Why not donate this logo design to the project and close the matter in an amicable manner?
ekianjo 13y ago
Did you trademark your logo in any way? If not, your claim has no legal ground.
tjbiddle 13y ago
I actually wouldn't be surprised if it was independently conceived - When http://identity.com http://identity.com designed their first logo they found out both Stide's iD gum and one other company (That I can't recall off hand) both had the exact same logo - Not just insanely similar as in this case - but the exact same. Either way - hope you and Tox come to an agreeable solution. For what it's worth I like your spin on it better :-)
ronaldx 13y ago
>the generally accepted rule of the game is that the first to the finish line gets to keep the logo. Respectfully disagree. The generally accepted law is clear enough, as I understand it: that you have (automatic) copyright over your own design work, but not your idea. (Bad Analogy: I am free to make a for-profit game about flinging red birds at pigs, but I can't use Rovio's code or the Red Bird graphic) If you work as a graphic designer, you need to understand how this impacts on your work. If you wish to protect your design any further, you need to specifically register a trademark to prevent confusion between businesses in the same industry. It's clear that they haven't copied your design - the appearance of the work is quite different - and besides it seems plausible or even likely they came up with the (very nice) idea independently. This is also important to understand for people hiring graphic designers for freelance work - in the UK at least, the designer maintains the copyright for commissioned work unless contractually agreed otherwise (even though the business can still trademark it). In theory, the designer can later prevent you from repurposing one of their designs. For example, if you later decide to start selling merch for your brand, you may have to renegotiate with the designer. Edited to carefully note: IANAL, take this as advice at your own risk. Further international edit, from wikipedia, emphasis mine: The United States, Canada and other countries also recognize common law trademark rights, which means action can be taken to protect an unregistered trademark if it is in use.
jps359 13y ago
It's a great logo and it's a shame it was stolen.
catsman 13y ago
The legalities of this are very clear-cut. 1) Intellectual property laws state that the TOX project is not infringing on any copyright unless it directly takes assets from your logo. As you can plainly see, the TOX logo was created from scratch. 2) Even if intellectual property laws did work that way (again, they don't) it's also incredibly obvious that the TOX logo concept was arrived upon totally independently of your logo. You have no legal ground to stand on in this regard, and a shaky ethical ground considering that you somehow think you're entitled to exclusive rights to this really quite generic idea. ESPECIALLY considering you've been sitting on this idea for well over a year - as far as I know, there's no risk of this project being confused with an existing brand or idea, and there are no actual pieces of software that use this logo. I'm sorry that you feel like this TOX logo has violated your 'generally accepted rules'. Perhaps they aren't as general as you assume?
- eps 13y ago
  > As you can plainly see, the TOX logo was created from scratch ... the TOX logo concept was arrived upon totally independently of your logo It is far from obvious. Linked posts show how they were stomping around a simpler logo for a long time busy with minor adjustments until someone posted a much improved logo, which just happened to be almost identical to the OP's. That was not an evolution. But even that aside, you are viewing this situation all wrong. "Legalities", "legal ground to stand on", etc. The way Tox handled this is nothing short of peeing in a community pool. How do you envision Tox replacing Skype if the project leadership can't handle a simple dispute over a logo in a civilized manner? Look at latitude's creds, they should be wanting him on their side, but, no, let's mix him with a barrel of shit, because he dared to suggest that /gd/ might've ripped his work. Right on.
  - catsman 13y ago
    Dared to suggest? The words 'oh, I see you helped yourselves to my logo' are the unhelpful ones in my opinion. Also, the fact that this post was here, in a public forum, rather than directly attempting to contact the TOX authors on their IRC channel. Even so, demanding that a FOSS project (with extremely limited resources) scraps a perfectly fine logo and starts from scratch just because a similar logo exists is simply not a reasonable demand.
59nadir 13y ago
All I see here is "Hey, guys, I'm kind of a big deal and I made a logo like this that I don't use, so you should change yours. I'm kind of a big deal, guys...".

gohrt 13y ago

Both your logos might look nicer if the avatar moved up and to the left to make the chat bubble look more like a chat bubble.

Craigpd 13y ago
Then it would not look like a keyhole. :(

sehrope 13y ago

Very nice logo by the way. Took a second glance to see the speech bubble at the top but once you do it's beautiful.

talles 13y ago

Maybe it was just a coincidence..? Nice logo by the way.

praisewhitey 13y ago

On your second link someone posted "it's funny...i came up with the exact same mark a few months back and presented it to a client. Almost uncanny how close it was to this." Perhaps the person who made the logo for this project had the same idea as this commenter.

rossy 13y ago
Maybe he was "the first to the finish line." It all goes to show how silly this is. If there was two finished projects with such similar logos, that would be a real problem.

Daiz 13y ago

Honestly, I don't see the concept being so unique and original that someone else couldn't have come up with it independently, and frankly the Tox logo has a much nicer balance (in the Tox logo, the person/keyhole works much better, whereas in yours it doesn't really work as a "keyhole" in my opinion) than the versions you linked. EDIT: The logo was originally made in /gd/ (4chan's graphic design board), and since the board is archived I managed to track down the thread it was made in. Here's a somewhat different version that people were playing around with at first (which also featured a lock, a speech bubble and a keyhole doubling as a person): https://archive.foolz.us/gd/thread/86081/#86375 https://archive.foolz.us/gd/thread/86081/#86375 Then someone thought about moving the speech bubble to the keyring here: https://archive.foolz.us/gd/thread/86081/#87186 https://archive.foolz.us/gd/thread/86081/#87186 And then after some iteration they got to the current version: https://archive.foolz.us/gd/thread/86081/#87235 https://archive.foolz.us/gd/thread/86081/#87235

tptacek 13y ago
Strong disagree. That was a clever logo and one I hadn't seen before.
- pairofslacks 13y ago
  Whether or not you "strongly disagree" doesn't change the fact that it was created independently by other people as well, evidenced by the third comment in one of the links latitude posted (http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/165288 http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/165288) and in archived threads where multiple people came to the current design on 4chan's /gd/ that Daiz posted.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I'm not invested in this issue enough to argue about it. I look at a lot of systems like this and was struck by the novelty of the logo, is why I commented. Take that for whatever you think it's worth.
    - 13y ago

Plexion 13y ago

I think this is a matter of coincidence. The lock and chat bubble leads itself to a familiar look. I'm pretty sure you aren't the first person to think of such a concept, and neither are we. Besides, the icon was made by an anonymous person so it's not really like we can blame anyone.

jessaustin 13y ago
Besides, the icon was made by an anonymous person so it's not really like we can blame anyone. Isn't that convenient?
- salad 13y ago
  It's kind of how 4chan works. I'm not sure exactly what you're implying.
- unknownian 13y ago
  Because we made this project just to violate copyright. Sure thing.
  - ceol 13y ago
    I think their point was that the person who made the icon is anonymous, so it's harder to blame and therefor benefits you. Not that you had that goal in mind to begin with.
    - unknownian 13y ago
      I understand that. It's still a ridiculous claim.
siddboots 13y ago
If you don't know the identity of the person who created your logo, how can you be sure that they didn't steal it?
- 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

chacham15 13y ago

Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with this company/person. Is it possible that they simply had a similar idea? It doesnt appear that they lifted the logo as is. Look at the person in their logo; it looks quite different (it doesnt stop at the shoulders like yours does). Other things are also slightly different. These differences lead me to believe that they at least made their logo by hand. Now if it was inspired by yours i dont know. To be fair, that google link does NOT show me your logo anywhere on the page. Furthermore, I tend to go with the principle of Hanlon's razor[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

unknownian 13y ago

We definitely did not steal. People were making mockups for weeks.

3825 13y ago
It is OK. However if you are making a community project you should definitely change your logo to be distinctive of existing projects. Please fix. The original project expressed their desire to be visually distinct and it would be very nice of you to respect their wishes. This will remove the unnecessary distraction for you. Note that this is not without precedent. Mozilla renamed Firebird to Firefox because of the community's opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Firefox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Firefox
- salad 13y ago
  What existing projects?
  - 3825 13y ago
    The project that Latitude[1] was talking about. I am not saying you are legally obligated to do something (IANAL). I am just saying it is common courtesy. Trust me. The logo does not make or break your program. https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=latitude https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=latitude
    - Daiz 13y ago
      As far as we know, said project only exists in latitude's mind, and the only public information about it is that he may or may not still have plans for a "secure chat" program. I'd be hard-pressed to call that an "existing project", since for all practical purposes, it isn't.
      - latitude 13y ago
        You are asserting a made-up argument. Having an active public project behind a logo is not a necessary condition for not re-purposing the logo for another project. This particular concept just happens to be taken. Every good logo is trivial in retrospect, it's finding a strong concept that's a bitch. I looked at /gd/ thread and virtually all of it revolves around shaping a keyhole this way or that way. Then suddenly someone says - "Here, done". Turning an empty space into a chat bubble requires a step up, it's an altogether stronger and more complex concept. It is possible that another person came up with it independently, but also consider that with all the variety of secure messaging apps no one had thought of it before 2012. It's not an easy concept to stumble upon. (edit) This is getting meta. It is plenty obvious that Tox fellas think they are in the clear and it's OK to recycle an existing logo. I think that it's not. That's hard to reconcile.

salad 13y ago

Your logo is not very good. You're upset because someone had the same idea as you, and they did it better. That's understandable, but not a reason for them to change it.

jessaustin 13y ago

An hour in, a complaint about icon-plagiarism-via-anonymous-bikeshedding-session is still the top comment on HN for a software project with ambitious technical goals. That in itself is a strong argument for doing one's own work and creating original icons. Assuming for the sake of discussion that Tox is or could be a technically superior solution, do they really want that obscured by this sort of extraneous bullshit? EDIT: and now I remember where I've heard that name before, as well: http://testrun.org/tox http://testrun.org/tox Perhaps a rebranding effort is in order? That sort of work seems to be right up /g/'s alley? Google is your friend!

eps 13y ago
Agreed. Though it's a Litmus test of how willing they are to cut corners. Imagine having this discussion if it were Linux kernel.
Craigpd 13y ago
TOX is just the project name. The product name is yet to be decided. This is still a pretty heavy argument about it on the 4Chan threads.
- IDEAS_GUY 13y ago
  >This is still a pretty heavy argument about it on the 4Chan threads. The only reason that occurs is because all the non-technical lurkers want a way to contribute.
  - Craigpd 13y ago
    Maybe they should do just what I'm doing. Sit in the thread monitoring progress. Then congratulating progress when it's made. Or, if they want to contribute without causing arguments. Go upvote this on Reddit, WOT, Twitter, and whatever else in a way which won't cause a shitstorm in /g/.
- Datsundere 13y ago
  tox = talks because tox sounds like talks.

moneyrich2 13y ago

hamachi kicked ass :D

fauxpad 13y ago
This is certainly a crucial point to make here, a fact which immediately won empathy from me
BillyMaize 13y ago
I still use it to play Terraria because its creator never fixed the multiplayer (which by the way if you play will be updated very soon with lots of new content).

Kasuto 13y ago

Stop being a baby. Someone even commented on your post that they had the same idea months ago. But instead of whining about it, he shrugged it off and said "Great minds must think alike." The current Tox logo wasn't even the first proposed logo with the chat bubble/padlock idea. There were a lot of other ones. People were taking the idea from other logos and improving it. That's innovation. You weren't the first one to come up with the idea; and even if you were, that doesn't give you exclusive rights to it. Grow a pair and show some "professional courtesy" yourself by not giving a fuck.

abcd_f 13y ago
It came from the 4chan side.
- hnriot 13y ago
  It being what?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

pyrocat 13y ago

Just came here to say thank you for Hamachi, many hours of multiplayer Worms Armageddon were had thanks to you.

williamcotton 13y ago

Neither of you guys invented these concepts: 1.) Using a padlock to represent computer security. 2.) Using a cartoon chat bubble to represent a way to chat on your computer. 3.) Using a little oval on top of a bigger oval to represent a person. Is it really that much of a stretch to combine the three? I would think that this concept would be pretty standard output from someone with even a moderate amount of visual communication skills. It's a rather simple visual sentence and I can easily imagine quite a few people having come up with this concept. Please realize that both logos are built on top of an already existing visual language and that neither of you are really all that original to begin with.

siddboots 13y ago
I don't think this argument is very powerful. If two authors come up with exactly the same sentence, no one would dismiss the coincidence on the grounds that "both sentences are built on top of an already existing language". What matters is how similar the precise combination of visual elements are in the two logos. Yes, it is possible that they were created independently. However, after looking at the "evidence" provided by Daiz, it seems more likely that an anonymous channer borrowed the design without crediting it.
- williamcotton 13y ago
  "Today I went to the grocery store and bought a few bananas." "I just got back from the store. I picked up some bananas while I was there." Both sentences say the same thing. No, they are not completely the same, but neither are the logos in question. If you want to talk about precise combinations of visual elements, there are LOTS of differences. Look closely at the logos. The Tox logo makes the person more like a keyhole. The Secure Chat logo uses something more like a natural human silhouette. The ratios of the arc to square are different. The spacing is different. There's a bunch of differences. Frankly, my eye appreciates the the layout and design of the Secure Chat logo... the weights of the Tox logo are a little off... I DO really like the keyhole/person combo, though! So each design has its merits. The only similarities are the padlock, the chat bubble, and the person. Just like how in my textual sentences the only similarities are "store", "multiple bananas", and "at some point today". The point is, the two sentences, one textual and the other visual, both "say the same thing" and are made up of "the same concepts" and "predefined elements of language"... and neither should be considered plagiarism or even that unique to warrant talking about originality...

Selfcommit 13y ago

The first hit off google seems to come from this site... http://whysocreative.com/2013/04/07/10-most-creative-black-white-logos/ http://whysocreative.com/2013/04/07/10-most-creative-black-w... Are you associated with them? How could these guys have known it was "yours" ?

chj 13y ago

Why not donate this logo design to the project and close the matter in an amicable manner?

ekianjo 13y ago

Did you trademark your logo in any way? If not, your claim has no legal ground.

tjbiddle 13y ago

I actually wouldn't be surprised if it was independently conceived - When http://identity.com http://identity.com designed their first logo they found out both Stide's iD gum and one other company (That I can't recall off hand) both had the exact same logo - Not just insanely similar as in this case - but the exact same. Either way - hope you and Tox come to an agreeable solution. For what it's worth I like your spin on it better :-)

ronaldx 13y ago

>the generally accepted rule of the game is that the first to the finish line gets to keep the logo. Respectfully disagree. The generally accepted law is clear enough, as I understand it: that you have (automatic) copyright over your own design work, but not your idea. (Bad Analogy: I am free to make a for-profit game about flinging red birds at pigs, but I can't use Rovio's code or the Red Bird graphic) If you work as a graphic designer, you need to understand how this impacts on your work. If you wish to protect your design any further, you need to specifically register a trademark to prevent confusion between businesses in the same industry. It's clear that they haven't copied your design - the appearance of the work is quite different - and besides it seems plausible or even likely they came up with the (very nice) idea independently. This is also important to understand for people hiring graphic designers for freelance work - in the UK at least, the designer maintains the copyright for commissioned work unless contractually agreed otherwise (even though the business can still trademark it). In theory, the designer can later prevent you from repurposing one of their designs. For example, if you later decide to start selling merch for your brand, you may have to renegotiate with the designer. Edited to carefully note: IANAL, take this as advice at your own risk. Further international edit, from wikipedia, emphasis mine: The United States, Canada and other countries also recognize common law trademark rights, which means action can be taken to protect an unregistered trademark if it is in use.

jps359 13y ago

It's a great logo and it's a shame it was stolen.

catsman 13y ago

The legalities of this are very clear-cut. 1) Intellectual property laws state that the TOX project is not infringing on any copyright unless it directly takes assets from your logo. As you can plainly see, the TOX logo was created from scratch. 2) Even if intellectual property laws did work that way (again, they don't) it's also incredibly obvious that the TOX logo concept was arrived upon totally independently of your logo. You have no legal ground to stand on in this regard, and a shaky ethical ground considering that you somehow think you're entitled to exclusive rights to this really quite generic idea. ESPECIALLY considering you've been sitting on this idea for well over a year - as far as I know, there's no risk of this project being confused with an existing brand or idea, and there are no actual pieces of software that use this logo. I'm sorry that you feel like this TOX logo has violated your 'generally accepted rules'. Perhaps they aren't as general as you assume?

eps 13y ago
> As you can plainly see, the TOX logo was created from scratch ... the TOX logo concept was arrived upon totally independently of your logo It is far from obvious. Linked posts show how they were stomping around a simpler logo for a long time busy with minor adjustments until someone posted a much improved logo, which just happened to be almost identical to the OP's. That was not an evolution. But even that aside, you are viewing this situation all wrong. "Legalities", "legal ground to stand on", etc. The way Tox handled this is nothing short of peeing in a community pool. How do you envision Tox replacing Skype if the project leadership can't handle a simple dispute over a logo in a civilized manner? Look at latitude's creds, they should be wanting him on their side, but, no, let's mix him with a barrel of shit, because he dared to suggest that /gd/ might've ripped his work. Right on.
- catsman 13y ago
  Dared to suggest? The words 'oh, I see you helped yourselves to my logo' are the unhelpful ones in my opinion. Also, the fact that this post was here, in a public forum, rather than directly attempting to contact the TOX authors on their IRC channel. Even so, demanding that a FOSS project (with extremely limited resources) scraps a perfectly fine logo and starts from scratch just because a similar logo exists is simply not a reasonable demand.

59nadir 13y ago

All I see here is "Hey, guys, I'm kind of a big deal and I made a logo like this that I don't use, so you should change yours. I'm kind of a big deal, guys...".