pic: just brushing up

[Timmyd]

loading photo ...

[AV_guy007]

that looks good although as i found out it is against the rules. it is considered altering the logo. it has to remain with a white back ground. just though i should let you know.

nice job though i like it

[Timothy D. Ginn]

Admittedly I haven't read the specific rules for any animation competition... but, FIRST itself does provide an official version of their logo with a black background at http://www.usfirst.org/4vol/resource...ics/index.html it's called FIRSTlogoR_color_rev_rgb.jpg (92KB). The logo standards are also linked to from that page.

[AV_guy007]

Originally Posted by Timothy D. Ginn

Admittedly I haven't read the specific rules for any animation competition... but, FIRST itself does provide an official version of their logo with a black background at http://www.usfirst.org/4vol/resource...ics/index.html it's called FIRSTlogoR_color_rev_rgb.jpg (92KB). The logo standards are also linked to from that page.

did not know that. i had seen one with black backgrounds before, but i was told by a team member that only the white bg was legal . i guess he was wrong

[663.keith]

the rules for logo standards state that any color back round can be used, but it does say specifically in the book
"Do not create 3D logo versions, or apply and visual effects, including drop shadows, glow, blur, etc."

oh well, I think it looks cool

[KenWittlief]

do the logo rules apply to annimations or only to logos that are printed?

I think this is a question for FIRST. The trademark behind the logo prevents someone from putting it on a product and selling it, like the VEX robots stuff in Radio Shack.

Having an annimation of the logo is not the same - perhaps if the logo ends up being the correct format in the end, it would be acceptable?

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

do the logo rules apply to annimations or only to logos that are printed?

I think this is a question for FIRST. The trademark behind the logo prevents someone from putting it on a product and selling it, like the VEX robots stuff in Radio Shack.

Having an annimation of the logo is not the same - perhaps if the logo ends up being the correct format in the end, it would be acceptable?

Back when you were an X-Cat we were going to put the FIRST logo on the door of the museam and to make it fit were going to alter the design but FIRST made it clearly that it was not allowed.

[Matt Krass]

Actually the logo is on the Vex box, I just checked, it's on the side where it says "Engineered for FIRST"

I think the logo rules are a might bit too strict, I fully understand though, not everyone is graciously professional and without restrictions the logo could be abused.

Ah well, I still think it looks really cool though.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

Actually the logo is on the Vex box, I just checked, it's on the side where it says "Engineered for FIRST"

thats what I meant. Since its a registered trademark that means some company in China cannot start making robot kits and call them FIRST robots, and sell them online or in Target and Kmart

not with the FIRST logo, not with any variation of the FIRST logo.

The reason why we cant vary it is: only the exact depections of the logo that FIRST has on record at the trademark office are the official FIRST logos. They cant trademark the word 'first' itself, so that no one is every able to put 'first' on a box of anything - and they dont own circles triangles and squares.

So if FIRST allowed people to use any and all variations of their logo to refer to their organization, they would eventually loose all the trademark rights.

Does this make sense? Not sure if I have explained it clearly?

[phrontist]

FIRST has a very harmful and awkwardly contrived "corporate" stance on it's logo. Look at the Linux penguin, the peace sign, the cross, the smiley face or Andre The Giant. People adopted these signs, they altered them, they evolved, and they became cultural fixtures. FIRST is trying to artificially control it's symbol, depriving us of any meaningful creative ownership of it. It's the people's nerd revolution, and it should be the people's sign. This isn't about brand recognition, it's about changing the culture.

Slightly off-topic, I know, but this peeves me.

On preview: I don't think FIRST can lose any legal rights based on what non-FIRST entities (see: teams) do...

[Timmyd]

wow this kinda stinks i had a really cool concept going around the logo
o well more story boarding

[KarenH]

Animation...I noticed something during the Kickoff webcast, and went back to review the archive. During the time the different FIRST officials were speaking, there was an animated version of the FIRST logo floating and rolling through puffy clouds in a blue sky. Apparently the organization has the privilege of playing with its own logo.

A logo is the corporate identifying mark for a corporation or organization. It represents that entity. Logo specifications are for identity and quality control purposes. If a human entity does not have standards, and does not insist on adherence to those standards, the quality of its work and its identity can be lost very quickly.

Example #1:
Saturn cars are carefully designed, and every part in every model is drawn according to exact specifications. Suppose someone at the factory decided that the doors only needed to be manufactured to within one inch of what the drawings specify. The doors probably wouldn't close, even if they could be installed on the cars. Or suppose someone at the factory decided they didn't need to correctly place the letters in the SATURN name, and cars started coming off the assembly line labeled TURN or SATUN.

Example #2:
A portrait represents a person's face. While it's good for a laugh when Heidi photoshops Dave Lavery into Pimp Dave or Robot Horror Show Dave, it would simply be wrong for NASA to put a picture of Dave with Dean Kamen's hair on their official website. They would be misrepresenting Dave.

Like it or not, FIRST is an organization, and it must have its corporate identity, along with the other accoutrements of being an organization.

If you think FIRST is stuffy about its logo, you should see how Mattel is! Did you know that Barbie(R) cannot be spelled Barbie's(R)? Everything that Mattel literature says about Barbie(R) can only include her name in that one form; no possessives, no plurals! So, there is no Barbie's Dream House, only a Barbie(R) Dream House. Every single time the name appears, it has to have the (R) with it. Mattel pays a team of lawyers to review every jot and tittle of every ad, every cross-sell booklet, and every version of every package design for these little details. They seem to fear that even one appearance of Barbie without her (R) would compromises the company's rights to her name. And you thought Ken was her boyfriend--no, she's actually married to (R)!!

The FIRST logo spec's are simple by comparison.

[Matt Krass]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

thats what I meant. Since its a registered trademark that means some company in China cannot start making robot kits and call them FIRST robots, and sell them online or in Target and Kmart

not with the FIRST logo, not with any variation of the FIRST logo.

The reason why we cant vary it is: only the exact depections of the logo that FIRST has on record at the trademark office are the official FIRST logos. They cant trademark the word 'first' itself, so that no one is every able to put 'first' on a box of anything - and they dont own circles triangles and squares.

So if FIRST allowed people to use any and all variations of their logo to refer to their organization, they would eventually loose all the trademark rights.

Does this make sense? Not sure if I have explained it clearly?

I understand now, I misread your post, thanks for clearing that up.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by phrontist

FIRST has a very harmful and awkwardly contrived "corporate" stance on it's logo. ...
On preview: I don't think FIRST can lose any legal rights based on what non-FIRST entities (see: teams) do...

look into the history of trademark ownership, its pretty interesting. A couple companys over the years have lost their trademarks, because the word came into common usage, it became generic

Xerox has fought hard for years to prevent 'making a xerox' from becoming equal to 'making a copy'. If they fail then any corporation can call their copiers 'xerox' machines.

Kodak has also battled over the years to keep 'Kodak' from being turned into a verb 'kodaking' for taking photos

if FIRST loses their trademark and corporate identity then anyone can collect money, sell products, or host robotic competitions and call themselves FIRST robotics. We dont want that. We dont want some bunch of telemarketers fund raising for 'first robotics', and the money that people wanted to donate to us ends up in someone elses pocket.

Its taken years for this organization to grow into what it is. We want that protected, we want our identity protected.

there is absolutely nothing wrong with those of us in the FIRST community creating our own culture, or counter culture and coming up with our own name for things, our own symbols, slogans... we can be as creative as we want

in fact, that would be something new, if people involved with this program developed some sort of sub-culture within our society.

[Goldeye]

If I understand correctly, all this means is that you cannot in any way publish a modified logo without FIRST's explicit permission. However, I don't believe it would be illegal to submit a modified image directly to them; you're not publishing it. This gives them the final word on whether or not they can be represented by that image. The only issue is whether or not they want to make such decisions (as would be needed by allowing animations to include modified logos)