EDIT: The logo was originally made in /gd/ (4chan's graphic design board), and since the board is archived I managed to track down the thread it was made in.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
Then someone thought about moving the speech bubble to the keyring here:
https://archive.foolz.us/gd/thread/86081/#87186
And then after some iteration they got to the current version:
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have plans for it. It wasn't just an idle doodle.
In this case, the products/ideas are straight-up competitors.
Oh wait
This isn't competition. It's complaining on a professional level.
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.
EDIT: and now I remember where I've heard that name before, as well: 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!
[+] [137 messages] "Bunch of people arguing about logo copyright & design for an open-source project."
There's a whole bunch of extensions/plugins/userscripts for HN out there, including ones that implement thread hiding. I personally use Hacker News Enhancement Suite for Chrome.
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.
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/.
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.
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.
"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...
Perhaps the person who made the logo for this project had the same idea as this commenter.
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].
Besides, the icon was made by an anonymous person so it's not really like we can blame anyone.
Isn't that convenient?
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.
Trust me. The logo does not make or break your program.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Given the 4chan "culture" both you and I know what the answer would've been if he'd go via the private channels.
Either way - hope you and Tox come to an agreeable solution. For what it's worth I like your spin on it better :-)
Nice logo by the way.
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.
Are you associated with them?
How could these guys have known it was "yours" ?
http://dribbble.com/shots/479881-Secure-Chat
http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/165288
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.