Haha. I remember that press conference
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Haha. I remember that press conference
The very first logo was the best one one. This new one though is basically the same as previous with different letters so still doesn't do much for me... (who cares what I think anyway lol). I wish you guys had a logo competition though.turbof1 wrote:I'll try to be diplomatic here as I can, and that means that particular question cannot be answered with a yes or no.Phil wrote:is this what I think it means?
First off, I have to make a reference to this specific page:
https://www.formula1.com/content/fom-we ... lines.html
It essentially tells that "Formula One" is their licensed brand, and this includes the list of derivitives mentioned on the website. We got contacted to make changes in regard of that. We did not necessarily had to change it to GPTechnical, BUT the limited options we had would have forced us to create a rather dull F1 logo which would be very distant from the logo we are associated with.
Remains the question of course: there are a few hundred websites out there with 'F1' in their logo's. We have to assume all of those were contacted.
We have reason to believe there will be sites who respectfully declined the request from FOM. It would be debatable if juristical action would be taken against these sites given the widespread of it. That's either way none of our business and neither was that part of the decision we made.
Ultimately, we made a decision to stay on good terms with FOM, knowing they decide about a whole lot of none-juridical aspects as well (and without going into detail: these are quite important aspects!).
I know that's a rather vague answer, and I'm not sure at the moment how far I can go with speaking about this. I wish I could just blatantly tell "we took this decision for specific reason X", but ultimately that's up to Steven. Just know we had a good reason to change our name and logo, with pain in our hearts!
I think so too.PlatinumZealot wrote:The very first logo was the best one one.
There is a small difference between for example BMW and FOM:Phil wrote:For example; I'm fairly certain that any car maker, like BMW has their logos protected too - but I don't see them going around contacting the thousands if not millions of communities that use that logo in some way because they have built a community for that brand.
No I disagree, none of your previous logos ever violated those guidelines, and they are guidelines not rules.Steven wrote:None of this site's previous logos ever complied with the rules that they are handling.Diesel wrote:Your original logo didn't violate any part of those guidelines. Can you perhaps reference the specific section you were told you had to comply with?
Fair play if you wanted to change it, but you've set a dangerous president by doing based on the unjustified demand...
The bottom line that the current modification doesn't violate any copyright or include any trademark, which is a positive, even though it will require some getting used to.
Suggestions welcomeGeorge-Jung wrote:I understand the reason, but I do not like the new logo..
It could have been done better.
This is pure gold.
Maybe they feel like they have enough of that.strad wrote:... and in fact provide advertisement and information for their business.