5 ms·

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 muc

by 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 EDIT: The logo was originally made in /gd/ (4chan's graphic design board), and since the board is archived I managed to track down the thread it was made in.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.
    - banachtarski 13y ago
      If you aren't invested, how can you open with "strong disagree." Seems like you're invested up to the point when you're wrong, which is a pattern I've observed on this site in general. Incidentally, your anecdotal "feelings" about whether something feels original or not make for a pretty weak argument.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        If you extrapolate my comment into points I wasn't trying to make, I think you'll find those arguments very easy to tear down. If that's a productive exercise for you, be my guest.
        banachtarski 13y ago
        I don't really see the straw man here, but my larger point wasn't about this particular argument at all. Just the fickle commitment to the discussion.
        tptacek 13y ago
        I strongly disagreed that the concept was't unique and original. I'm clarifying though, not trying to give you flak; like I said, I don't much care about this leg of the thread.
        ZoFreX 13y ago
        It's saddening that so much of the thread is spent dwelling on this issue. I'd love to hear your take on the actual crypto at play here, if you have time for a critique?
      - pigscantfly 13y ago
        Why should people invest past the point of being wrong? If someone proves you wrong, you should change your mind, not keep arguing just to save face.
  - latitude 13y ago
    As I said in the (edit) of the original comment, the originality is secondary to the timing. When you finalize a logo, you typically run a quick due diligence (a Google search) to see if you reinvented a wheel. If you did, you scrape it and start afresh. Tox didn't do that and they should've.
    - anologwintermut 13y ago
      Except, you run that check to make sure your not running afoul of someone's trademark restrictions/ using a logo associated with an existing brand. (Which, unless I am missing something here, they are not.). They should have run it, but just because they found your result doesn't mean they had to scrap something they (allegedly) did themselves. If they came up with it independently(a very legitimate question given the similarity of the --- very nice by the way --- logo, but one they seem to have evidence for) then there seems to be no moral problem or even a legal issue. You're basically claiming "I thought of it first, there for it's mine" which is both legally wrong in the US for copyright(independent creation is a defense) and morally bullshit in the same way that Amazon's one click ordering patent is.
      - latitude 13y ago
        > Your basically claiming I am not claiming this, this is how things work in the logo design industry. There are of course copyrights, trademarks and legal matters, but there are also professional ethics. Ideas and concepts are getting recreated all the time, that's life. But it's also why people post sketches and ask if anyone has seen anything similar, only to discard them and move to another concept.
        Daiz 13y ago
        You don't actually seem to be using the logo anywhere, though. On your site you write that "I had (have) plans to write an Instant Messenger client with proper support for privacy. This was the logo concept for the project"[1], but this project does not actually seem to exist (at least not in any public manner). As such, why not just leave the logo of Tox in peace? Especially since it's a FOSS project with noble goals (even if they have yet to reach those goals, which is not surprising considering how early in the development the entire project is) and not some commercial entity intending to profit off of it. [1] http://swapped.cc/#!/logotypes http://swapped.cc/#!/logotypes
- baddox 13y ago
  People invented calculus independently at the same time.
  - officemonkey 13y ago
    That was before the internet.
jessaustin 13y ago
Cool story bro. However, these links seem to prove GP's claim: that his design has priority.
- salad 13y ago
  What priority does his design have? People have similar ideas disconnectedly, and the evolution of the Tox logo is clear. There isn't even a trademark. He isn't even using it in a project. latitude can go back to Apple with this drivel.
jvm 13y ago
Those time stamps are from 2013, much later than parent's links from 2012, or am I missing something?
- Craigpd 13y ago
  you are missing nothing. But you can also see the development of the logo into what it became. There were also many doodles and whatnot in threads for weeks before this logo was developed.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rdtsc 13y ago
Still his work. So flagged.
interject 13y ago
Where are my subs for RnL S2, Diaz?

by Daiz 13y ago

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.
  - banachtarski 13y ago
    If you aren't invested, how can you open with "strong disagree." Seems like you're invested up to the point when you're wrong, which is a pattern I've observed on this site in general. Incidentally, your anecdotal "feelings" about whether something feels original or not make for a pretty weak argument.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      If you extrapolate my comment into points I wasn't trying to make, I think you'll find those arguments very easy to tear down. If that's a productive exercise for you, be my guest.
      - banachtarski 13y ago
        I don't really see the straw man here, but my larger point wasn't about this particular argument at all. Just the fickle commitment to the discussion.
        tptacek 13y ago
        I strongly disagreed that the concept was't unique and original. I'm clarifying though, not trying to give you flak; like I said, I don't much care about this leg of the thread.
        ZoFreX 13y ago
        It's saddening that so much of the thread is spent dwelling on this issue. I'd love to hear your take on the actual crypto at play here, if you have time for a critique?
    - pigscantfly 13y ago
      Why should people invest past the point of being wrong? If someone proves you wrong, you should change your mind, not keep arguing just to save face.
- latitude 13y ago
  As I said in the (edit) of the original comment, the originality is secondary to the timing. When you finalize a logo, you typically run a quick due diligence (a Google search) to see if you reinvented a wheel. If you did, you scrape it and start afresh. Tox didn't do that and they should've.
  - anologwintermut 13y ago
    Except, you run that check to make sure your not running afoul of someone's trademark restrictions/ using a logo associated with an existing brand. (Which, unless I am missing something here, they are not.). They should have run it, but just because they found your result doesn't mean they had to scrap something they (allegedly) did themselves. If they came up with it independently(a very legitimate question given the similarity of the --- very nice by the way --- logo, but one they seem to have evidence for) then there seems to be no moral problem or even a legal issue. You're basically claiming "I thought of it first, there for it's mine" which is both legally wrong in the US for copyright(independent creation is a defense) and morally bullshit in the same way that Amazon's one click ordering patent is.
    - latitude 13y ago
      > Your basically claiming I am not claiming this, this is how things work in the logo design industry. There are of course copyrights, trademarks and legal matters, but there are also professional ethics. Ideas and concepts are getting recreated all the time, that's life. But it's also why people post sketches and ask if anyone has seen anything similar, only to discard them and move to another concept.
      - Daiz 13y ago
        You don't actually seem to be using the logo anywhere, though. On your site you write that "I had (have) plans to write an Instant Messenger client with proper support for privacy. This was the logo concept for the project"[1], but this project does not actually seem to exist (at least not in any public manner). As such, why not just leave the logo of Tox in peace? Especially since it's a FOSS project with noble goals (even if they have yet to reach those goals, which is not surprising considering how early in the development the entire project is) and not some commercial entity intending to profit off of it. [1] http://swapped.cc/#!/logotypes http://swapped.cc/#!/logotypes
baddox 13y ago
People invented calculus independently at the same time.
- officemonkey 13y ago
  That was before the internet.

jessaustin 13y ago

Cool story bro. However, these links seem to prove GP's claim: that his design has priority.

salad 13y ago
What priority does his design have? People have similar ideas disconnectedly, and the evolution of the Tox logo is clear. There isn't even a trademark. He isn't even using it in a project. latitude can go back to Apple with this drivel.

jvm 13y ago

Those time stamps are from 2013, much later than parent's links from 2012, or am I missing something?

Craigpd 13y ago
you are missing nothing. But you can also see the development of the logo into what it became. There were also many doodles and whatnot in threads for weeks before this logo was developed.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

rdtsc 13y ago

Still his work. So flagged.

interject 13y ago

Where are my subs for RnL S2, Diaz?