View Full Version : New FIRST logo
David Kelly
21-06-2004, 21:06
So, FIRST has finally got the [circle] R on the logo and is a little different looking too. So what do you think? Old logo vs. New logo?
[old logo]------>http://www.indianafirst.org/images/index/fr_logo.gif [new logo]-------> http://www.usfirst.org/images/fr_logo.gif
Beth Sweet
21-06-2004, 21:12
Can there be a category on the poll for "I can't tell the difference"?
Joe Matt
21-06-2004, 21:13
Where's the 'I can't notice a difference' option? ;)
Personally, they are both great, even though I notice NO difference. Now someone just needs to hook me up with the new logo in high quality psd, png, and fla format! :D
Can there be a category on the poll for "I can't tell the difference"?
The Z-axis of the triangle and square are shaded. Different sizings. Mainly the same...
Jessica Boucher
21-06-2004, 21:14
Meh. If I glanced at it I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
To me, in the new logo it looks like the triangle and the square are less rigid to their places around the circle then they are in the old one because of the change of shading.
But other than that, it's nothing huge, and since I like the logo I guess thats a good thing :)
Note: As long as we never ever go back to "Tropical FIRST" (the colors on the 2001 crew shirts) I'll be happy.
So, FIRST has finally got the [circle] R on the logo and is a little different looking too. So what do you think? Old logo vs. New logo?
[old logo]------>http://www.indianafirst.org/images/index/fr_logo.gif [new logo]-------> http://www.usfirst.org/images/fr_logo.gif
the old logo has an sm which is registered as a selling mark, thats why thats on the merchindise, while the new one, has the r in a circle which represents a registered trademark, which means you cant use it to gain anything without legal consent from the owner..
Astronouth7303
21-06-2004, 21:29
new one. Matches high-res version.
(The big dif I think is the new is a little brighter/lighter)
Ashley Weed
21-06-2004, 21:34
The new one seems a bit more bubblier?? .... little more fun, modernish, brighter I think. It's the FIRST logo, it's just cute and cool no matter what! :D
Rich Wong
21-06-2004, 21:43
new.....old.....new......old.....new.....old.....
oh oh which one was the new one again?
Well, you guess! ;)
PS- the old logo was copied from a 2000 document.
Ken Leung
21-06-2004, 21:55
new.....old.....new......old.....new.....old.....
oh oh which one was the new one again?
Well, you guess!
People people people. Of all of us I am supposed to have the least talent in regard to art. But even I can tell the difference.
If you look closely, in the old logo, on the left side of the triangle facing upward and the 2 sides inside the triangle, and the sides of the square facing downward, they are white. In the new logo, the whole triangle is red, and the whole square is blue.
Rob Colatutto
21-06-2004, 21:57
The new one seems a little bit off-level to me. It could just be because it has a bigger triangle and square in it. But if you ask me, I like the old one better. However, I do like the new one better than the one they had displayed during kickoff this year, with the white highlights everywhere on the triangle and square.
Jay H 237
21-06-2004, 22:04
If you look closely, in the old logo, on the left side of the triangle facing upward and the 2 sides inside the triangle, and the sides of the square facing downward, they are white. In the new logo, the whole triangle is red, and the whole square is blue.
True, but if they weren't side by side or if I had glanced at them quickly I wouldn't have seen the difference. At least they didn't completely change the logo. To do a major change on the logo at this point I think FIRST would lose some of it's reconition if people didn't connect the new logo to FIRST. Could you imagine what would happen if Chevy decided to get rid of the "bowtie" tommorrow!? :ahh: I'm just glad FIRST didn't change the logo altogether or do a major modification to it.
Astronouth7303
21-06-2004, 22:30
Say, I know there is a high-res version of the new logo on-line, the problem is I can't find it! can some one help me out?
Never mind. http://www.usfirst.org/4vol/resourcectr/graphics/
Tytus Gerrish
21-06-2004, 22:33
it is the same its just had a facelift. but realy, Who cares First Is First
sanddrag
21-06-2004, 22:39
On the old one, the blue seems a bit too dark. On the new one, the red seems a slight bit too light. Adjusting the red to the old shade, I like the new logo.
suneel112
21-06-2004, 23:39
There isn't a realistic difference.
All I know is that I can't sell next year's robot without permission from Dean Kamen. :yikes:
jk, you know i wouldn't do that!! :D
miketwalker
22-06-2004, 03:15
I like the new one. However, I do like the fancy ones they make occasionally much better (I've seen it used a few years ago... as well as Rob said with this year's kickoff.... I wish they would do something like that...) My guess for why they don't use the fancy one as the "Official" one is because it costs more money for the shadow and gradients when printing stuff out... plus doesn't go well into greyscale for printing in that form.
The SM stands for service mark. It is a type of trademark that indicates the source of the service and to distinguish it from the services of others. A service mark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. The R means that the trademark is registered (with the US Patent and Trademark Office). It isn't necessary to register a trademark but it does give you more legal protection both in this country, and more importantly, overseas.
maybe this is a good time to remind everyone one what can and cant be done to the logo.
"Please note that the FIRST logo is a registered trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Trademark protection does not allow the logo/trademark to be altered, cut apart, or separated in any way. The logo may be resized, but must maintain the same proportions. The background color may be changed (for example, to incorporate the logo on a website with a background color other than white or to match the color of an article of clothing)."
And, to educated people about both sides of the law ...
Of course, with fair use and free speech, you can do some of those things under certain conditions. For instance, if I were unhappy with FIRST and wanted to express my disgust, I could certainly have the "rings" entrap Kamen, Flowers, and, oh let's say Lavery ... and then change the FIRST to some sort of unsavory expression best left unmentioned. So long as I'm not trying to impersonate FIRST, or would not give the average, reasonable person that impression, then free speech is a wonderful thing. Remember, the word "Microsoft" is a registered trademark, -- but you certainly don't have to get written permission to use the word, either in praise or disgust (so long as the use isn't to sell software). And you can do whatever you want to the word, nearly, because of free speech/fair use. (Of course, this is assuming you're not a business trying to make a profit from the use and you're not trying to defraud anyone. Trademark law can be quite the nebulous area, so the best advice is to be careful and not take advice from people unaware of the subject, -- like me, for instance.)
(For the record, I would never do a thing such as I have described. I just don't have the artistic talent :D)
David Kelly
22-06-2004, 11:55
And, to educated people about both sides of the law ...
Of course, with fair use and free speech, you can do some of those things under certain conditions. For instance, if I were unhappy with FIRST and wanted to express my disgust, I could certainly have the "rings" entrap Kamen, Flowers, and, oh let's say Lavery ... and then change the FIRST to some sort of unsavory expression best left unmentioned. So long as I'm not trying to impersonate FIRST, or would not give the average, reasonable person that impression, then free speech is a wonderful thing. Remember, the word "Microsoft" is a registered trademark, -- but you certainly don't have to get written permission to use the word, either in praise or disgust (so long as the use isn't to sell software). And you can do whatever you want to the word, nearly, because of free speech/fair use. (Of course, this is assuming you're not a business trying to make a profit from the use and you're not trying to defraud anyone. Trademark law can be quite the nebulous area, so the best advice is to be careful and not take advice from people unaware of the subject, -- like me, for instance.)
(For the record, I would never do a thing such as I have described. I just don't have the artistic talent :D)
Actually, you do not have permission to change the logo in any manner you want to. Free speech does not apply to changing a logo to degrade someone or an organization. If you look in the 2004 Communications section of the competition manual (http://www2.usfirst.org/2004comp/2-Communication-RevB-incorporated.pdf) it says:
2.13 USING THE FIRST LOGO
We encourage teams to develop and promote team identity. It is a great way to help FIRST judges, announcers, and audiences recognize your team at the competitions, and it is also a way to help you create a "buzz" about your team in your community.
You have incredibly creative opportunities in terms of designing your own identity. Every year we see great examples of how teams "brand" their efforts with websites, incredible team logos on robots, t-shirts, hats, banners, fliers, and giveaways.
These branding activities are a wonderful way to include students from art, communications, computer, and language arts classes in your team effort. As you manage your own promotion, you may want to incorporate the FIRST logo in what you do. Because our mark is registered, both name and the geometric logo, we have a few guidelines for you to follow when using the FIRST logo:
Positive Promotion: Use our logo in a manner that is positive and promotes FIRST.
Unmodified: Use the FIRST logo without modification. This means that you will use our name and the circle, square, and triangle as you see it on our website or letterhead. You can use it in red, blue, and white, or in black and white.
Modification Permission: If you have an interest in modifying our logo, do that only when you receive our permission.
FIRST is happy to talk with you about modifications after you submit a written request letting us know why you want to modify the logo; how you plan to do it, and where you plan to apply it.
Send an e-mail request to Ken Freitas, kfreitas@usfirst.org, Marketing and Promotion.
Advertising Use Approval: All Teams and sponsors must obtain approval from FIRST prior to incorporating our logo in any advertising. E-mail requests to
Ken Freitas for approval, by e-mail kfreitas@usfirst.org or by phone at 800-871-8326 #410.
The major thing FIRST is saying is that
A. You must use the logo in a manner that is positive to the image of FIRST
B. If you do want to modify the logo, you must gain written permission from FIRST.
Saying that you can change the FIRST logo (of any other logo of a company or organization) because of freedom of speech is quite a lame excuse. Infact, it is against the law, and is the reason that we have the registered trademarks etc in the first place.
Tristan Lall
22-06-2004, 12:39
Actually, you do not have permission to change the logo in any manner you want to. Free speech does not apply to changing a logo to degrade someone or an organization.Annoying as it may be, under U.S. law (more specifically, case law), most parody is protected. For example, this is allowed:
https://www.copleynews.com/contentpreviews/EditorialCartoons/BN/2002/20020508BN1AT-EnronScrewCA.gif
(From Copley News Service (https://www.copleynews.com/1cns/EditorialCartoons/Default.idq?CiBookMark=N-e573ee0-898a-b&CiBookmarkSkipCount=10&CiMaxRecordsInResultSet=300&OriginalQuery=Enron&CiMaxRecordsPerPage=10&CiScope=%2C%2C%2Fcontent%2Feditorialcartoons%2F%2C %2C&TemplateName=%3C%25TEMPLATENAME%25%3E&CiSort=date%5Bd%5D&HTMLQueryForm=%3C%25HTMLQUERYFORM%25%3E))
A higher standard than "degradation" is necessary to judge infringement; notably, the unsanctioned user should not associate a trademark with something obscene, nor should they confuse potential customers by using a mark. To do as mtrawls described, it would likely not be infringement, provided that it wasn't being used to promote another FIRST-like organization, and provided that the "expression" (in lieu of "FIRST") wasn't an obscene word or phrase.
See here (http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2000-all/gall-2000-12-all.html) and here (http://www.cll.com/articles/article.cfm?articleid=32), for examples.
By quoting the rulebook, you are referring to things that FIRST doesn't like--but can't enforce outside of the competition. They would be within their rights to place sanctions on a team that violated the rules--but a random citizen would not be bound by these regulations.
Saying that you can change the FIRST logo (of any other logo of a company or organization) because of freedom of speech is quite a lame excuse. Infact, it is against the law, and is the reason that we have the registered trademarks etc in the first place.It is therefore neither against the law, nor lame. You have a First Amendment for a reason.
To add to what Tristan said, the reason for the harsh warning from FIRST is quite understandable when you realize that if they do not seek to actively enforce their trademark, then they lose it. I.e., if they allow one person to use it in an unauthorized way (which isn't fair use), then they are showing that they don't care to keep it and it will be open to everyone.
Also, you must remember a very important concept called "Fair use." Granted, the RIAA or MPAA won't be talking about this (they'd prefer it didn't exist) ... but try to think of what life would be like without it. I'll refrain from Orwellian tales, for now, -- but, as said, the first amendment is in no way lame, and remember that a major reason we allow companies to have trademarks is to protect consumers. For a further reference, see Wikipedia:Trademark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark).
Free speech does not apply to changing a logo to degrade someone or an organization.
Oh, and degradation is actually a very difficult thing to prove in the US, -- especially when applied to famous people or organizations (as opposed to the average joe). If FIRST would try to press the issue, it would be on pure trademark law. Again, as said, parody is a very typical defense in these cases. Lame or not, us Americans like our free speech it seems :)
JoeXIII'007
27-06-2004, 17:54
The 'new' logo is technically brighter red and brighter blue than the other 'old' logo which looks like it was scanned on a very old scanner. :D
As for choice, I like the 'new' logo. It's quite nice. :cool:
tiffany34990
27-06-2004, 19:48
i say it's nice logo--FIRST will always be FIRST to me as long it's the triangle, circle, square deal-- it's all good
enjoy y'all
winterfairy100
27-06-2004, 20:05
I like the new one...but I don't think the red is any brighter. I just think the darker shading makes it look brighter. I do think the blue is brighter though...
I have always said, never mess with a classic but who says that maybe the classic should be altered?
Why not offer both?! They do it for Ford Mustangs!
Barry Bonzack
27-06-2004, 22:05
FIRST is FIRST. The logo is and always has been great. I do like making the SM into a small R though, so i am a very slight lean to the new one. By the way, im sure this has been discussed before, but what does the triangle-circle-square stand for? I'm sure there is some meaning behind it, I'd like to know why this logo was chosen and how it was thought of if anyone knows. thanky.
dk5sm5luigi
27-06-2004, 22:09
I don't understand how people didn't notice the difference. The first time I saw the difference it stuck right out at me. Maybe seeing the logo for the past 8 years has left an imprint in my brain. Well I definatly like the old one better.
Spammy Badame
29-06-2004, 19:06
I can tell the difference now, but i'm sure that if you came up to me later, held up a logo, and asked me if it was the new one or the old one i prolly wouldn't be able to tell you. but even so, i really don't see why it matters.
As Al Franken said "Parody is still considered Parody even if the subject of the joke doesn’t get it"
Just like the use of the words "Fair and Balanced" in the title of his Book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right
Faux new brought Al to court and Fox was pretty much laughed out of the courtroom.
Annoying as it may be, under U.S. law (more specifically, case law), most parody is protected. For example, this is allowed:
https://www.copleynews.com/contentpreviews/EditorialCartoons/BN/2002/20020508BN1AT-EnronScrewCA.gif
(From Copley News Service (https://www.copleynews.com/1cns/EditorialCartoons/Default.idq?CiBookMark=N-e573ee0-898a-b&CiBookmarkSkipCount=10&CiMaxRecordsInResultSet=300&OriginalQuery=Enron&CiMaxRecordsPerPage=10&CiScope=%2C%2C%2Fcontent%2Feditorialcartoons%2F%2C %2C&TemplateName=%3C%25TEMPLATENAME%25%3E&CiSort=date%5Bd%5D&HTMLQueryForm=%3C%25HTMLQUERYFORM%25%3E))
A higher standard than "degradation" is necessary to judge infringement; notably, the unsanctioned user should not associate a trademark with something obscene, nor should they confuse potential customers by using a mark. To do as mtrawls described, it would likely not be infringement, provided that it wasn't being used to promote another FIRST-like organization, and provided that the "expression" (in lieu of "FIRST") wasn't an obscene word or phrase.
See here (http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2000-all/gall-2000-12-all.html) and here (http://www.cll.com/articles/article.cfm?articleid=32), for examples.
By quoting the rulebook, you are referring to things that FIRST doesn't like--but can't enforce outside of the competition. They would be within their rights to place sanctions on a team that violated the rules--but a random citizen would not be bound by these regulations.
It is therefore neither against the law, nor lame. You have a First Amendment for a reason.[/left]
Jack Jones
02-07-2004, 11:58
it is the same its just had a facelift. but realy, Who cares First Is First
Second that!
No pun intended :D
From a printing viewpoint, they took it from black + 2 colors to black + 4 colors. When things are printed by silk screening, one screen (or stencil) needs to be prepared for each color. For those of you who like to put the FIRST logo in full color onto your t-shirts, now you need to make two more screens for the dark blue and dark red. Considering it costs about $40-$50 to set up and create a screen, all of your t-shirts have just become a lot more expensive.
Tyler Olds
03-07-2004, 01:06
I like the old one, the new one seems too bright to me.
A few comments on why logos change (based on my experience working in the marketing/graphics business):
I believe most marketing is driven by the needs of the producers, not the consumers. After all, it's the producers who need to make money, or, in the case of non-profits like FIRST, they need to "spread the word."
Since the logo designers are employed or contracted by the producers, the needs of consumers are not their first priority. Actually, since the logo designers are artists, and are human, their first priority is to express their own creativity (to the greatest extent for which their employer will pay them).
As a result, by the time a logo is brainstormed, selected, edited, finalized, registered, put into print, then presented to the consumer, the artists who designed the logo are totally sick of it. By the time you, the consumer, first see the new logo, if you even notice it, the people who designed it consider it hopelessly out of date, and have undoubtedly suggested to the producer that it needs updating! By the way, this applies to other media as well; musicians write new songs primarily to release their creative energy, not because their listeners are tired of the old ones.
In conclusion, I think that the artistic types need to remember that their audience, the consumer, doesn't really care what a logo looks like, as long as it's recognizable. Well-designed logos really don't need to be changed at all, and if a company changes its logo so much that ALL its audience can tell the difference, it will lose brand-name recognition.
I wonder who provoked the change in the FIRST logo...
tribotec_ca88
20-07-2004, 14:03
Hey how "new" is this new logo??? bcuz i was doing some spring cleaning (in july !?!) and looking at some first merchandise and stuff(folders, flyers, brochures, pins, etc) from 2003 that have the new logo printed on them...
so my point is...i think there's just two distinct logos that are both pretty ancient, and not necessarily a new version...
:yikes: back me up here LoL
SkitzoSmurf
21-07-2004, 01:17
new logo
that whole sm thing used to confuse the hell out of me
...
to be honest I STILL dont know what it means :confused:
Jeff Waegelin
21-07-2004, 08:37
new logo
that whole sm thing used to confuse the hell out of me
...
to be honest I STILL dont know what it means :confused:
The SM stands for service mark. It is a type of trademark that indicates the source of the service and to distinguish it from the services of others. A service mark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. The R means that the trademark is registered (with the US Patent and Trademark Office). It isn't necessary to register a trademark but it does give you more legal protection both in this country, and more importantly, overseas.
There's your answer. If you'd read the whole thread, you'd have seen that.
Sidney San Martín
21-07-2004, 21:59
Hmm... the new logo is more "fun," as was said, and I like it. Yet the old logo with its white edges seems more precise, has more of an engineered feel.
As far as the new legal restrictions, does this make the chainlike, moving, FIRST avatar illegal? It "cuts apart" the logo.
CourtneyB
21-07-2004, 22:09
i dont really see a difference haha...but if i look really close...i like the new logo better...
:D
Kyle Love
21-07-2004, 22:13
I think the new one looks better! I think it looks "more professional?" :]
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.