Hmm, this logo looks familiar..

[drafael]

http://www.nzma.ac.nz/

Rotated + colors changed (not even changed that much if you consider the new boot screen).

[dragos240]

Theives.

[dragos240]

Also did anyone notice the bottom logos. One is the ubuntu logo, and the others are debian.

[PuddingKnife]

they forked it

[drafael]

Also did anyone notice the bottom logos. One is the ubuntu logo, and the others are debian.

Oh wow, I didn't notice that at all actually!

[staf0048]

Aren't those logos trademarked? I smell a lawsuit or at least some nasty communications from Canonical and/or Debian.

[dragos240]

2 stolen logos on one page.

[Eisenwinter]

Oh yeah, because Free software can never be complete without copyrighted and trademarked logos for each distribution.

[AllRadioisDead]

The redfish logo looks nothing like Debian, go visit their website and see.

[sliketymo]

Maybe the poor chaps just are not that creative? That has got to be pretty close to some kind of trademark infingment I would think.

[dragos240]

The redfish logo looks nothing like Debian, go visit their website and see.

The fern one shure does.

[staf0048]

Maybe the poor chaps just are not that creative? That has got to be pretty close to some kind of trademark infingment I would think.

I would say so.

Check out:
http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy

We don't know if permission was asked or granted though, so it's all speculative...

[NoaHall]

That's a complete copy of both logos. There's no way they came up with them.

[AllRadioisDead]

The fern one shure does.
No it doesn't, go visit their website.

[lisati]

Recurring discussions?

Edit: The website people have been contacted with a reference to this thread.

[FuturePilot]

in b4 someone posts angry email they sent them.

[dragos240]

No it doesn't, go visit their website.

I have. It looks very similar.

[doas777]

No it doesn't, go visit their website.

huh? do you not see the cleft spiral? why would I go to their website to see an image on this one?

and these are the people that want to censor the internet to make sure that only they can commit copywrong infringement?

[RiceMonster]

Oh yeah, because Free software can never be complete without copyrighted and trademarked logos for each distribution.

Everyone knows that free software is about getting angry when someone else uses your work!

[NoaHall]

in b4 someone posts angry email they sent them.

Done.

[FuturePilot]

Done.

facepalm.jpg

[RiceMonster]

Done.

Pretty demanding coming from someone who has nothing to do with Canonical or that copyright.

[Tristam Green]

lol @ you acting like a spokesman for Canonical.

[AllRadioisDead]

I have. It looks very similar.
Not really.
They are both spirals, that is the only thing I see in common.
The Ubuntu logo is a ripoff, but I don't agree with the Debian one.

[Tristam Green]

I'm going to sue God for making the Nautilus look like the Debian logo.

[NoaHall]

Pretty demanding coming from someone who has nothing to do with Canonical or that copyright.

Who said it was me? :) I have contacts, you know.

[doas777]

Everyone knows that free aoftware is about getting angry when someone else uses your work!


lol. at the same time, remember, FOSS stems from academia, and attribution is the bread and butter of the academic world.

[Tristam Green]

Who said it was me? :) I have contacts, you know.

"Imaginary Dictators for Life" don't count, NoaHall.

[lisati]

Oh, they're from Auckland. If I remember correctly, the real Shortland Street (which supposedly has nothing to do with the TV show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortland_Street) of the same name) is a side street from Anzac Avenue. That could account for something :)

[doas777]

"Imaginary Dictators for Life" don't count, NoaHall.
yep, looks like Noa's polls are down in the 6 yearold demographic. if he wants to be reelected, he'd better introduce a platform of pizza and cheeseburgers for dinner and the abolishment of bedtime.

[Tristam Green]

yep, looks like Noa's polls are down in the 6 yearold demographic. if he wants to be reelected, he'd better introduce a platform of pizza and cheeseburgers for dinner and the abolishment of bedtime.

+1 for Calvin and Hobbes reference.

[DemonCat1992]

AWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!! Those poor people are so poor they have to take a logo from a free software company that is so sick, I'm not surprised they haven't been sued yet...


I smell dinner and a movie :popcorn:

[adelphos]

lol. at the same time, remember, FOSS stems from academia, and attribution is the bread and butter of the academic world.

This is a good point. Software designed for a practical use is very different from creative work or identifying work. Thus, why the Creative Commons licenses require attribution, but the GPL doesn't.

[cascade9]

and these are the people that want to censor the internet to make sure that only they can commit copywrong infringement?

Nope, actually-


Welcome to NZMA the home of hospitality, business and call center learning. We believe we are the best placed organisation in New Zealand to provide hospitality, business and call center qualifications to help you achieve your goals of a great career and a brighter future.

http://www.nzma.ac.nz/About.aspx

I think you've got the NZMA mixed up with the ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority)

http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/HOMEPAGE/PC=HOME

BTW, its not 'censor the internet to make sure that only they can commit copywrong infringement', its 'censor the internet to make sure that business can do, well, business, and nobody can say bad things about the government'.

[Techsnap]

Do you know what makes me laugh with you guys, whilst I don't condone people plagiarising work, when Apple sues a company for using logos similar to their own (Sometimes really similar) there's a huge thread complaining about how terrible it is that Apple is doing this, even though the other company is not a software company.

Anyhow in this case, it's up to Canonical to sort this out, not UF members, Canonical will deal with it how they want, however considering that the logo is changed somewhat and the related site has nothing to do with Software this case wouldn't cause confusion to Canonical customers so they'll probably let it go.

Another thing is Free and Opensource, where it's promoted as "freedom" yet you all jump on the bandwagon and in the past sent letters to these companies, just let it be and Canonical will sort it, it's not your job.

[Groucho Marxist]

Oh wow, I didn't notice that at all actually!

:D I just saw it, too. The sheer lack of effort on their part is astounding.

[forrestcupp]

That's a complete copy of both logos. There's no way they came up with them.

Because a spiral and a circle with 3 smaller circles on it are two things that are extremely hard to conceive of without stealing it from a couple of Linux distros. Most people don't even know what Linux is, let along Ubuntu and Debian.

I think they're both different enough that there couldn't be a real case.

[Joeb454]

Of course, the correct thing to do, rather than sending an angry emailm would be to fill out this form:

https://forms.canonical.com/trademarkviolation/

[lisati]

A reply:

From: NZMA Website <no-reply@nzma.co.nz>
To: *********************
Subject: [Bulk] Thanks for your enquiry
Date: 7 Jan 2010 09:25:01 +1300

Hi Lisati

Thanks for your enquiry. Will get back to you as soon as possible.

Your enquiry:

I wish to draw your attention to the discussion of your choice of logo at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1374198


Sincerely,

NZMA
New Zealand Management Academies
www.nzma.ac.nz

[Eisenwinter]

Do you know what makes me laugh with you guys, whilst I don't condone people plagiarising work, when Apple sues a company for using logos similar to their own (Sometimes really similar) there's a huge thread complaining about how terrible it is that Apple is doing this, even though the other company is not a software company.
Agreed.
Can't even add anything to that.

[NoaHall]

A reply:

That's a automated response, you know.

[Simian Man]

Too bad Canonical didn't even come up with an original design themselves. They adapted theirs from that of Human Rights First (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/index.aspx). Perhaps Canonical should be sued :).

[lisati]

That's a automated response, you know.

True. At least it's in their system now, so barring problems in their server they have no excuse for not having a record of it.

[alphaniner]

Most people don't even know what Linux is, let along Ubuntu and Debian.

I think they're both different enough that there couldn't be a real case.

Just because they may not really know what Ubuntu is doesn't mean they didn't see the logo in passing and rip it off. The spiral is one thing, but the Ubuntu-ish logo is too similar to just assume it's coincidence. That doesn't mean it isn't, of course. And then it's also possible that they were using it first...

[NoaHall]

Too bad Canonical didn't even come up with an original design themselves. They adapted theirs from that of Human Rights First (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/index.aspx). Perhaps Canonical should be sued :).

And the Debian one is from Buzz Lightyear, I think.

[forrestcupp]

Just because they may not really know what Ubuntu is doesn't mean they didn't see the logo in passing and rip it off. The spiral is one thing, but the Ubuntu-ish logo is too similar to just assume it's coincidence. That doesn't mean it isn't, of course. And then it's also possible that they were using it first...

Maybe. But the only reason I've ever seen an Ubuntu logo is because a long time ago I deliberately searched for a Linux distro. I've never seen that logo outside of my activities within the community. But it's not such a unique concept that I would be surprised to see a similar concept somewhere.

[doas777]

And the Debian one is from Buzz Lightyear, I think.

the debian symbol is based on the sprial (iterative) model for system design. I also though debian was older than toystory, but maybe I;m the one getting old.

I would generally assume that both were honest mistakes, except that they are both on the same page. that does imply a nexus of origin.

[NoaHall]

the debian symbol is based on the sprial (iterative) model for system design. I also though debian was older than toystory, but maybe I;m the one getting old.

I would generally assume that both were honest mistakes, except that they are both on the same page. that does imply a nexus of origin.

I think the first stable release was in 1996, named Buzz, a year after Toy Story. So either Debian is run by time travelers from the future, or it was released after Toy Story :)

http://www.pixar.com/featurefilms/ts2/images/chrs_buzz.jpg

See, swirly.

[fewt]

I would say so.

Check out:
http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy

We don't know if permission was asked or granted though, so it's all speculative...

Hrm..

"Canonical owns a number of trademarks and these include UBUNTU, KUBUNTU, EDUBUNTU, and XUBUNTU. The trademarks are registered in both word and logo form. Any mark ending with the letters UBUNTU or BUNTU is sufficiently similar to one or more of the trademarks that permission will be needed in order to use it. This policy encompasses all marks, in word and logo form, collectively referred to as “Trademarks”."

Does a picture of humans holding hands contain "BUNTU"?

Nope. I'm not an attorney but I don't see anything on the trademark page indicating that humans holding hands is trademarked.

Wait, someone else used this mark in 2004!

http://web.archive.org/web/20040512034207/http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/index.html

They even use Canonical's colors!

:shock: !!!ZOMG SUE!!! :shock:

[Chronon]

Hrm..

"Canonical owns a number of trademarks and these include UBUNTU, KUBUNTU, EDUBUNTU, and XUBUNTU. The trademarks are registered in both word and logo form. Any mark ending with the letters UBUNTU or BUNTU is sufficiently similar to one or more of the trademarks that permission will be needed in order to use it. This policy encompasses all marks, in word and logo form, collectively referred to as “Trademarks”."

Does a picture of humans holding hands contain "BUNTU"?

Nope. I'm not an attorney but I don't see anything on the trademark page indicating that humans holding hands is trademarked.

I believe that part is covered by the "logo form".



Wait, someone else used this mark in 2004!

http://web.archive.org/web/20040512034207/http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/index.html

They even use Canonical's colors!

:shock: !!!ZOMG SUE!!! :shock:
I don't know anything about the relationship between Canonical and any of these organizations or any communications that may have been exchanged already so I refrain from passing judgment.

[fewt]

I believe that part is covered by the "logo form".


I don't know anything about the relationship between Canonical and any of these organizations or any communications that may have been exchanged already so I refrain from passing judgment.


UBUNTU or BUNTU in logo form, the page states it pretty clearly.

[staf0048]

Hrm..

"Canonical owns a number of trademarks and these include UBUNTU, KUBUNTU, EDUBUNTU, and XUBUNTU. The trademarks are registered in both word and logo form. Any mark ending with the letters UBUNTU or BUNTU is sufficiently similar to one or more of the trademarks that permission will be needed in order to use it. This policy encompasses all marks, in word and logo form, collectively referred to as “Trademarks”."

Does a picture of humans holding hands contain "BUNTU"?

Nope. I'm not an attorney but I don't see anything on the trademark page indicating that humans holding hands is trademarked.

Wait, someone else used this mark in 2004!

http://web.archive.org/web/20040512034207/http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/index.html

They even use Canonical's colors!

:shock: !!!ZOMG SUE!!! :shock:

Bottom of the page has this section:



Logo Usage Guidelines
Our logos are presented in multiple colours and it is important that their visual integrity be maintained. It is therefore preferable that the logos only be used in their standard form but if you should feel the need to alter them in any way you should keep the following guidelines in mind. It should also be borne in mind that the more you wish to vary our logos from their standard form the smaller is the chance that we will be able to approve your proposed use.

If presented in multiple colours, the logo should only use the “official” logo colours.

You may use transparency and gradient/depth tools but should retain the “official” colours.

A monochrome version may be acceptable in certain situations, if the use requires it (e.g. desktop backgrounds).

Any scaling must retain the original proportions of the logo.

[Chronon]

UBUNTU or BUNTU in logo form, the page states it pretty clearly.

Actually, it says:

This policy encompasses all marks, in word and logo form, collectively referred to as “Trademarks”.

=======
In any event, I'm unsubscribing from this thread now. This issue is really not any of my business. Carry on analyzing the legality and ethics of logo usage without all of the relevant information if you wish.

[fewt]

Bottom of the page has this section:


Yes, but it doesn't state that their humans holding hands logo is trademarked, only UBUNTU BUNTU and similar. The logo was quickly found to have been used in early 2004 (5 second google search which is far less than their attorneys had most likely done) by a large group of attorneys in New York meaning they probably could not trademark it.

Believe what you want, but my money is on Canonical doing nothing because it isn't a mark, and if it is they stand to lose it just like Microsoft did.

By the way: WORD AND LOGO FORM MEANS TEXT (UBUNTU) AND CONVERTING SAID TEXT (UBUNTU) TO SCALABLE VECTOR GRAPHIC FOR USE AS A GRAPHIC LOGO (STILL UBUNTU).

This thread isn't worth my time, later people.

[The Toxic Mite]

Actually, despite the Ubuntu logo being a registered trademark, it's in the public domain since it only contains simple geometric shapes, and text.

[koleoptero]

A reply:

You directed them to this thread? Wonderful move.

[pgp_protector]

Actually, despite the Ubuntu logo being a registered trademark, it's in the public domain since it only contains simple geometric shapes, and text.

I don't think just because it's a simple geometric shape makes it a public domain logo.
Example the Nike Swoosh, can't get much simpler than a fat check mark, but just try to use it without their permission :)

[slushee]

this company seems legit. so, i think they would have gone through the appropriate legal process and registered their trademark, meaning their legal team would have come across the ubuntu logo during research, meaning ubuntu would have been contacted and, since this company is still using the logo, ubuntu would have given permission.

this seems like a more reasonable assumption than jumping the gun and shooting off accusatory emails based on nothing.

unimaginative? yes.
trademark infringement? awaiting evidence and insider knowledge. until then, probably not.

[sudoer541]

this company seems legit. so, i think they would have gone through the appropriate legal process and registered their trademark, meaning their legal team would have come across the ubuntu logo during research, meaning ubuntu would have been contacted and, since this company is still using the logo, ubuntu would have given permission.

this seems like a more reasonable assumption than jumping the gun and shooting off accusatory emails based on nothing.

unimaginative? yes.
trademark infringement? awaiting evidence and insider knowledge. until then, probably not.


exactly! people react very aggressively when someone copies the ubuntu logo!
what should Microsoft do when Linux violates more than 200 patents?
I mean OMG people judge yourselves first!

[NoaHall]

exactly! people react very aggressively when someone copies the ubuntu logo!
what should Microsoft do when Linux violates more than 200 patents?
I mean OMG people judge yourselves first!

Software patents != Copyrighted images

Software patents don't exist, really, anyway. Only in the good old USA.

[dragos240]

exactly! people react very aggressively when someone copies the ubuntu logo!
what should Microsoft do when Linux violates more than 200 patents?
I mean OMG people judge yourselves first!

You just stole joeb's avatar!

[felious_fadger]

they forked it

did they wear protection?

[Giant Speck]

You guys are missing the point.

The name "Redfish" obviously violates the trademark of Red Hat, Inc. They sound too similar. People might confuse the two.

[Gizenshya]

What about the green logo? openSUSE anyone? I'd say this is a clear example of some lazy graphic designer working at that "Advocate Advertising" (http://www.advocateadvertising.co.nz/) company hoping to get away with using others' ideas.

At the very top of the page, all 3 logos were taken from Ubuntu, Debian, and OpenSUSE. They7 did change the colors on the Ubuntu logo, but the red and green are the same colors even. The OpenSUSE one was changed the most, but there are several similarities that cannot be ignored. When combined with all the other data and similarities, I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that it is a clear rip. I just took screenshots and I'm about to get on photoshop and analyze the colors to see how close for the Debian and OpenSUSE-like logos. I'll post results here in a sec.

And all 3 can be tested in various ways to see how the dimensions add up. But, as I said already, there is very little doubt in my mind that they are plagiarized atm.

I wouldn't be harsh on that NZMA company. I've seen these type of plagiarism before (I was the victim once), and I highly doubt NZMA had anything to do with it. The graphics design was clearly outsourced, and I have a feeling that someone from Advocate Advertising may lose their job soon...

But It would be best to get some better facts first. Like a list of similarities. And although NZMA would probably be informed eventually, some here certainly overstepped their bounds and did not follow proper proceedure. This makes us all look bad.

[sudoer541]

You just stole joeb's avatar!

LOL:P I asked him if he wants me to remove it, but he didnt say anything. Its a nice avatar, next I will use the Stewie avatar lol+

[Dark Aspect]

You just stole joeb's avatar!

sudoer541
http://ubuntuforums.org/customavatars/avatar909496_2.gif

Joeb454
http://ubuntuforums.org/customavatars/avatar373057_40.gif

Personally they look a lot different to me.

[FuturePilot]

sudoer541
http://ubuntuforums.org/customavatars/avatar909496_2.gif

Joeb454
http://ubuntuforums.org/customavatars/avatar373057_40.gif

Personally they look a lot different to me.

Joeb454 changed his

[slushee]

And all 3 can be tested in various ways to see how the dimensions add up. But, as I said already, there is very little doubt in my mind that they are plagiarized atm.

they're definitely similar; there's not doubt about that. but plagiarized? do you have evidence this company used that design without ubuntu's permission? plagiarism always involves copying, but copying doesn't always involve plagiarism. they copied the logo, but did they plagiarize it? until there's hard evidence of this, we just don't know.

[Joeb454]

sudoer541
http://ubuntuforums.org/customavatars/avatar909496_2.gif

Joeb454
http://ubuntuforums.org/customavatars/avatar373057_40.gif

Personally they look a lot different to me.

I did indeed change it. If sudoer541 changes their avatar, I'll change mine back. Until then, this one stays :)

[Shippou]

They even copyrighted the site.

Hmmmnn. Tricky.

[Gizenshya]

they're definitely similar; there's not doubt about that. but plagiarized? do you have evidence this company used that design without ubuntu's permission? plagiarism always involves copying, but copying doesn't always involve plagiarism. they copied the logo, but did they plagiarize it? until there's hard evidence of this, we just don't know.

Thank you for pointing that out.

It is a tricky subject, and it gets confusing wording it all.

I meant they used it without attribution, but you are correct in pointing out that I didn't consider that Canonical et al could very well have allowed them to use those without obvious attribution.

[dragos240]

I did indeed change it. If sudoer541 changes their avatar, I'll change mine back. Until then, this one stays :)

Ah, I didn't realize you changed your avvy. They were the same at one point.

[slushee]

Thank you for pointing that out.

It is a tricky subject, and it gets confusing wording it all.

I meant they used it without attribution, but you are correct in pointing out that I didn't consider that Canonical et al could very well have allowed them to use those without obvious attribution.

that's why you'll never see a lawyer over forty with a full head of hair. yes, even the women.

[slakkie]

They even copyrighted the site.


You get copyright on all material you make by default. You don't even have to mention it, it is implicit.

[forrestcupp]

You just stole joeb's avatar!

Lol. Yeah, but you stole aysiu's avatar and changed it just enough for it to not be exactly the same.

I guess you're guilty of what the OP is about. :)

http://ubuntuforums.org/customavatars/avatar21941_1.gif

http://ubuntuforums.org/customavatars/avatar632019_5.gif

[pwnst*r]

Done.

LOL, rubbish.

[pwnst*r]

Do you know what makes me laugh with you guys, whilst I don't condone people plagiarising work, when Apple sues a company for using logos similar to their own (Sometimes really similar) there's a huge thread complaining about how terrible it is that Apple is doing this, even though the other company is not a software company.

Anyhow in this case, it's up to Canonical to sort this out, not UF members, Canonical will deal with it how they want, however considering that the logo is changed somewhat and the related site has nothing to do with Software this case wouldn't cause confusion to Canonical customers so they'll probably let it go.

Another thing is Free and Opensource, where it's promoted as "freedom" yet you all jump on the bandwagon and in the past sent letters to these companies, just let it be and Canonical will sort it, it's not your job.

/thread

[pwnst*r]

Lol. Yeah, but you stole aysiu's avatar and changed it just enough for it to not be exactly the same.

I guess you're guilty of what the OP is about. :)

http://ubuntuforums.org/customavatars/avatar21941_1.gif

http://ubuntuforums.org/customavatars/avatar632019_5.gif

lol, this thread is full of self-ownage.

[Giant Speck]

Pwnst*r, lrn2multiquote, kthx.

[pwnst*r]

Pwnst*r, lrn2multiquote, kthx.

I know how, I just didn't feel like it after the fact.

kthx.

[Tristam Green]

Lol. Yeah, but you stole aysiu's avatar and changed it just enough for it to not be exactly the same.

I guess you're guilty of what the OP is about. :)

http://ubuntuforums.org/customavatars/avatar21941_1.gif

http://ubuntuforums.org/customavatars/avatar632019_5.gif

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x33/sternau/oh_snap_flowchart_sm.jpg

qualifications are there.

oh snap!

[KiwiNZ]

To start with the fern logo is based on a native fern of New Zealand. Before people sound off and send emails some research should be done . See image

[rapo007]

i like the reddish one.

[SteveOll]

This is from a brand of bottled water for sale here in the Republic of Ireland. Looks familiar (hint: look at the image upside down)

http://www.huguenot-xmi.com/our_work/drinks/deep_riverrock/

[dmizer]

For anyone finding potential Ubuntu TM infringement, this is the appropriate way of handling it


Of course, the correct thing to do, rather than sending an angry emailm would be to fill out this form:

https://forms.canonical.com/trademarkviolation/

The people at Canonical are the TM holders, and they are the ones with the ability to decide if action needs to be taken or not. A bunch of angry emails from a public forum only damage the image of the open source community.

Thread closed.