DataPortability WorkGroup is a project founded in November 2007 to develop best practices towards letting users move, share, and control their identity, photos, videos and all other forms of personal data stored in social networks and other web services. After months of positive news, the group has had its first hiccup, a cease and desist letter from RedHat over their use of the Fedora logo.
Red Hat, Inc. (”Red Hat”) recently became aware that on your website, located at http://www.dataportability.org, you are using art work that is identical to the Fedora Infinity design logo owned by Red Hat. Specifically, I am referring to two images on your site: the green and white logo, as well as the blue and white logo.
Both logos contain the symbol for infinity. They are above are above for reference.
What’s my opinion? I agree with Marc Canter, who writes in an email to DataPortability cofounder Chris Saad, “Do NOT spend 0.001% of your mindshare - time - or energy - worrying about a LOGO! Get a different logo.”
The DataPortability Workgroup is an important step in the evolution of social networks. The ideas are what’s important - the logo is irrelevant. RedHat should have just let it go, but you guys can’t waste mindshare on this. Have a contest and let fans create a new logo for you.
See all
Post
Amen brother.
The larger issue is, the badge, with the logo, is meant to be carried on supporter/compliant sites other than dataportability.org itself, complications arise from supporter sites whether they would want to carry a badge of potential IP issues.
“Red Hat, Inc. (”Red Hat”) recently became aware that on your website, located at http://www.dataportability.org, you are using art work that is identical to the Fedora Infinity design logo owned by Red Hat. Specifically, I am referring to two images on your site: the green and white logo, as well as the blue and white logo.”
http://www.redhat.com/about/ne.....arter.html
Why does Red Hat boast huge numbers for a Linux vendor?
Because they write their own legal notices.
linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/14/2252202
They also write their own patents.
-$300 per hour x 10,000. Imagine the savings. No copyright law is even cited in the above notice.
“Red Hat, Inc. (”Red Hat”) recently became aware that on your website, located at dataportability.org, you are using art work that is identical to the Fedora Infinity design logo owned by Red Hat. Specifically, I am referring to two images on your site: the green and white logo, as well as the blue and white logo.”
http://www.redhat.com/about/ne.....arter.html
Why does Red Hat boast huge numbers for a Linux vendor?
Because they write their own legal notices.
linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/14/2252202
They also write their own patents.
-$300 per hour x 10,000. Imagine the savings. No copyright law is even cited in the above notice.
1. When did the infinity symbol become trademark? It’s the key element in both designs- there’s no legal ground to stand on.
2. A brand mark is a symbol of the promise you make to a customer/member- in this case neither mark is important to the experience of using the product/service. Using Times would work just fine.
That logo is lame anyway. I agree, have a contest…
Although the angle is similar, I think they are quite a bit different. When I look at Fedora’s logo, I see an f… and only after looking much closer do I see the infinity symbol.
While the data portability one is clearly a dp made in the shape of infinity.
While it could be better designed (to make the d and p more prominent), I can’t believe that Red Hat would waste money on a suit they would lose if defended.
Maybe turn it into a moebius?
I thought their logo was a guy with a red hat? That would be way better since its recognizeable. This logo says literally nothing. Certainly not something worth defending like this.
I totally forgot about Red Hat. I thought they went out of Business when Microsoft bought them out and started to gradually take the community apart to dispense with Fedora as part of their anti-competitive business strategy, but of course that is just my opinion.
Michael, can please explain what happen to the 23andme kit?
If is personal and you don’t share,please say so.
I had to put this into the “WTF Dept” - haven’t used it in six months.
http://www.centernetworks.com/.....esist-logo
Dataportability would be better to come up with a better logo anyways. Unless they want that ‘kids drawing’ look.
These lawyers are really stretching on this one. Bottom line is that Dataportability should get a better logo, the green suitcase and infinity sign leaves a lot to be desired.
I guess red Hat is getting some free press for this even though it doesn’t paint them in the best light. I had actually forgotten about them too.
@Michael,
They are above are above for reference.
^^ Data Multiplity..!! lol!
Since when does somebody have rights to an infinity symbol? Red Hat should just chill…
First of all, to Jon Doe in comment 9, what the hell are you talking about? Red Hat is NOT owned by MS. In fact RH is probably MS’s arch rival since they declined the MS deal which Novell (SuSE) accepted. They are also very popular. Tons of businesses run RHEL or the RHEL based CentOS. While shopping around for a web hosting service I swear about 80% of the Linux providers used CentOS.
Back to the logos, I think they are similar enough for Fedora to be concerned. Besides trademark there is also tradedress law which protects certain styles and even color schemes. If you let one incident slide then it may lead to other’s who will intentionally copy your logos for profit.
I really feel sorry for the DataPortability group right now, if they want to fight on with this, it will cost them a fortune, even though they would win. The infinity illustration is a generic illustration.
I’m sure companies have used a speech bubble in their logo before like they have, lets fight them for that!
I’ve thrown my Red Hat CDs and DVDs in the trash, I have no respect for them anymore.
Fuck it! Drop me a note. (you have my email) Lets talk about doing something for you on the cuff. Maybe run you a contest and get some great brand designers throwing in some concepts. I am pretty angry about crap like this… dont even worry about the fedora. You should have a better mark anyway. - christopher (creative director)
You know, the Fedora logo has been around forever. Why should the data portability group get away with using an excessively similar logo? Hi, I’m Prior Art. Ever heard of me?
http://www.cubicgarden.com/blo.....etter.html
Look, even one of their own says that changing the logo wouldn’t be a big deal.
Face it people, this isn’t a huge deal. Red Hat wants to protect the identity of their pride and joy from being stolen by a very new organization. Exactly why is Red Hat in the wrong to protect what is already copyrighted?
And don’t give me hundreds of ridiculous reasons that say “You can’t copyright infinity”, or “the logos are totally different. Just look at the colors/curves/angles/all these other uses of infinity in totally different logos.”
It isn’t about them “copyrighting infinity” or having a totally different radius on the corners of the shape. If you remove the colors and contrast of whats shaded (the F in fedora’s, and the ‘D’ in DP’s), look how similar they are.
Dam u linuxamp, you are RIGHT!
I retract my statement and I got the mixed up with Novell for making that deal with them. mYBad …………
This logo is quite similar to fedora’s http://www.persistent.co.in/
People are making all kinds of factual errors here -
First, it’s “Red Hat” not “RedHat” - there’s a space in it.
Second, trademarks, copyrights, and patents are three different things. This has to do with trademarks. “Prior art” has nothing to do with trademarks, it has to do with patents. Several posters mentioning copyright are confused.
Third, trademarks become invalid if the owner doesn’t watch for similar marks used by others, and send them cease and desists. So all trademark owners who can afford lawyers will send out multiple cease and desists *daily* - Red Hat does, and so does every other major tech company, and every other major company *period*. It’s not a big event when it happens. There is someone whose job is to sit there all day sending these things, at every large company in the world.
Put up something confusingly similar to any large company trademark and wait for the cease and desist note. You can count on getting one.
Fourth, a cease and desist like this is not a “lawsuit” - it’s an email. The decision to send it would normally come from one person, it’s not some kind of major company initiative or strategic decision. The person sending it almost certainly has no idea what DataPortability is, their job is to just look at the two logos and send an email if they might be confusingly similar.
Lame, lame. This is not infringement, IMHO, but neither logo is good enough to fight over. I like Michael’s idea to put this out for community involvement in redesign.
John
Idiots 1, Common Sense 0.
But I am not sure who the idiots are
fedora should look at these
http://www.underconsideration......arious.gif or maybe they should be calling fedora?
This is sad. Red Had it beyond lame for doing this. Like there isn’t better things to get your panties on a bunch than to complain to an group that is trying to make sense our of a mess.
RH should think back on its start.
Dallas Clark: aren’t you a member in the main company behind the Data Portability group?
Jon Doe, your sincere retraction is noted.
[quote]The person sending it almost certainly has no idea what DataPortability is, their job is to just look at the two logos and send an email if they might be confusingly similar.[/quote]
Then Red Hat needs to get that person a new manager, some better training, and or fire him/her for being incompetent. Red Hat is not just another company, or at least they seem to try and claim to be. Being an open source company, and one that purports to be something of a “torch bearer” for the open source “movement” (if you will) means they have a different sort of relationship with their community than a company like Microsoft. A lawyer / paralegal / clerk / whatever, working at Red Hat, *should* be able to understand what DataPortability is and understand that, in this context, the appropriate “first move” would have been a polite email or phone call first, rather than something which is generally considered antagonistic and confrontational like a C&D.
In short, this would be understandable (maybe even acceptable) if it were Microsoft, HP, CA or their ilk. It would probably even be OK if DataPortability were a competing OS vendor. But in this context it was not the right decision.
In the end, I’m guessing the situation will be resolved in an amicable manner that satisfies all involved parties. But that doesn’t mean that RH should not be more careful about these kinds of situations.
@ 29
no no no no no no
Puppy dogs and butterflies will not work in the real world. Should the clerk research every company? Should he politely call every company? Should he wait a few months to see if they make some changes and then call again? And then politely mention the cease and desist?
If anyone should be fired for incompetence, it should be the DataPortability guys who came up with the logo. After all, they should know about Fedora and have the sense to not create a similar logo.
Or maybe they were going for LogoPortability?
great, another win for corporate bullies!
Just shows the true nature of Redhat and gives you another reason to avoid them like the plague they are. Redhat and FedoraCore. Riding the opensource train and f’ing people over. Yay!
Quote - “Have a contest and let fans create a new logo for you.”
Fans? DataPortability fans? I think you meant designers, not fans. Techies might be fans, but are not designers, that’s for sure
I think it could end up being so hard coming up with a new logo if common sense is not given a chance.
I disagree for two reasons:
1. The logo’s are similar, not identical.
2. If RedHat pushes the issue this could lead to a lot of free exposure. It won’t go to court, so why not milk it.
I think it’s poor advice to suggest not to waste time on this. From a marketing standpoint I would advise they use this to their advantage.
btw - has anyone checked at the online patent database for some of the patent applications that Red Hat has made? they seem to be gearing up to take on data portability as a concept in general…here’s just one, but there are like 8 of them, increasingly specific to data portability related apps:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacg.....rk&RS=(TTL/social+AND+network)
Sorry. Tinyurl needed:
http://tinyurl.com/2355g8
Do the search, you’ll see a bunch more from Red Hat.
ARG! Wrong patent link…
http://tinyurl.com/2mql3t
There. Look at that list.
@38 - good point and important perspective to recognize of.. and in this regard, the dataportability group’s choosing existing technologies (of open protocols) only (vs. trying to inventing something new, as RH does) has been a right direction.
Both of them look like Last FM to me!
http://www.last.fm
Both of them look like Last FM to me!
http://www.last.fm
The logo contest is a ridiculous idea.
First of all, it’s <Spec work and second of all we’re talking about an identity not a “logo”.
Second, there is much, much more to developing an identity for a service, company, or product than a .jpg file people. I think this is a great example of WHY.
If the proper research and trademark/copyrights had been sought initially this would not be occurring and neither company would have their brand / image at risk in this situation.
I DO agree that the ideas and the products are what’s important. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that a logo is what makes a company, but to operate and succeed in certain business spaces it is imperative to you, your clients and your employees to have a strong identity for recall, identification and mental consumption.
A logo design is very similar in principle to the argument that was posted that the “ideas are what’s important” and that is why so many people degrade and misunderstand what “it” does.
While the end product is simply an paired down, relatively “easy” looking aesthetic…the research, concept, long-term message and intent of the logo is what really matters.
So, again, if this had been done CORRECTLY, by the RIGHT client and the RIGHT designer in the first place…these things would not be an issue. Design contests and bargain basement designers is what caused this situation. SOMEONE couldn’t afford to do their research because the cost of the service was too low.
DataPortability should change their logo. While the infinity symbol is generic, the angle, style, and feel are very similar. Enough to cause confusion.
They’re both screwed. Dataproducts has had this inifinity logo for eons.
Follow-up to previous comment, here is the Dataproducts website:
http://www.dpc.com
The company has been around since, I think, the 70s.
I’m gonna move all our servers from Red Hat to CentOS! Oh wait, we did that a long time ago.
Red Hat is pretty famous for this behavior. They are really overzealous with the trademark guidelines and they try to play them off as law - which they are not. Frequently, these cease and desist letters are prepared by a “trademark administrator” who is usually not a lawyer. I’ve played this game with Red Hat. I sent them several lengthy responses citing actual cases and law. I don’t believe Red Hat has ever actually taken someone to court after sending one of these letters. I’m pretty sure they just scare most people in to changing. They have no legal basis here. The two companies aren’t even in the same business, so there cannot be any trademark infringement here.
@42
FIRST - A brand is not a logo. (slide 7 of 162)
SECOND - A brand is not an identity. (slide 9 of 162)
…
per http://www.slideshare.net/coolstuff/the-brand-gap (good read)
(ps - the caps above are theirs, not mine)
@45 - interesting.. but quite likely of different class(es) though..
Hello trolls,
the fedora colors inside the infinity symbol form an “f”, while data portability forms a “d”.