Logo design plagarism tom appleton by tomappletondesign

Graphic Arts Research Project

Tom Appleton 2018

LOGO DESIGN PLAGIARISM. HOW IMPORTANT IS ORIGINALITY?

Logo design plagiarism

CONTENTS

Contents

How important is originality?

Introduction

Bauhaus and Beats

Hull City of Culture 2017

Google Quick Draw

Convergent Evolution

Template Culture

AirBnb

Final Thoughts

Conclusion

Bibliography

Logo design plagiarism

Introduction

INTRODUCTION

How important is originality?

Commercial logo design is without a doubt one of the most saturated creative fields. Due to its nature, it often prides itself on reducing concepts and visuals down to their most basic forms to make them instantly recognisable, and aesthetically successful. These rules that we have set for ourselves within logo design are far stricter than other areas of professional creativity, though of course there are exceptions, whether it’s an illustrated logo for a tattoo parlour or a beautifully hand drawn chalk design for a coffee shop, the clear majority of logo designs follow the notion presented by Lindon Leader, the designer of the brilliantly clever FedEx logo “I strive for two things in design: simplicity and clarity. Great design is born of those two things” (Leader, 1994). With millions of designers following the same advice to ‘keep it simple’, eventually there will be creative crossover. By intentionally limiting our design possibilities to ensure our logos have “simplicity and clarity” (Leader, 1994), the total possibilities for any one design is hugely reduced. Yet despite each individual designer following the same rule book, originality is still expected, from designers and clients alike. This is a research project around the idea of originality, specifically in commercial logo design. I am going to be taking a personal and critical approach, questioning how feasible it is to achieve true originality in a creative field as stringent as logo design.

Logo design plagiarism

BAUHAUS AND BEATS

Figure 1. Stadt BrĂźhl

Figure 2. Beats by Dre

Anton Stankowski 1971

Ammunition Group 2006

How important is originality?

Walter Gropius was the founder of the Bauhaus school of design which was active between 1919 and 1933. In 1925, Gropius commissioned Herbert Bayer to design a ‘geometric sans-serif Proposal for a Universal Typeface’. Bayer designed the typeface between 1925 and 1930, yet it remained a concept and was not cased into type until 1997 when it was adapted into the digital typeface ‘Bayer Universal’. In 1930, this typeface could have been considered a proposal of a new typographical philosophy, as Bayer “emphasized legibility (even cross-culturally) by removing ornaments from letterforms (serifs)” (Liillenstein, Tessmer, 2015). This resulted in an incredibly modern outcome “reflecting the prerogatives of the new machine age” (Liillenstein, Tessmer, 2015). Almost 50 years later in 1971, German graphic designer Anton Stankowski designed the logo for the city of Stadt Brühl. The logo was essentially the ‘b’ from Bayer’s Universal Proposal as negative space within a solid circle, with a smaller negative circle in the centre to fully form the ‘b’ character. Although not a particularly famed logo, it was strong and successful for its purpose and Bayer’s typeface had remained timeless within it. So timeless in fact, that there have been numerous logos that have been ‘heavily inspired’ by Stankowski since 1971, most notably Beats Electronics, an audio tech company owned by Apple Inc. Beats Electronics’ core focus initially was ‘personal audio’, with Beats by Dre headphones as the central product. This was a collaborative project between Interscope Records, Dr Dre and Ammunition Design Group. Ammunition designed both the physical and the digital material for the company in 2006, including the logo and identity. Without the addition of colour, the logos are almost identical, with the only differentiating factor being the line weight; considerably thinner on the Beats by Dre logo. Alongside the clear influence Bayer Universal had on Beats by Dre, the company also produced a typeface that followed the same principles as Bayer’s Proposal. This was also reduced in weight significantly, adopting the clean and white Apple led design trend of 2006. Perhaps it is fair to assume that Beats took their inspiration from the Bauhaus and did not intentionally copy Anton Stankowski. Bauhaus is renowned within the design world, far beyond Stankowski, and as a school that indented to spread a specific manifesto that it prided itself on, perhaps it is also fair to pardon Beats Electronics of its alleged plagiarism.

Logo design plagiarism

Figure 3. Publix

Figure 4. Darbar Festival

1971

2007

How important is originality?

However, can the same absolution be granted for companies proceeding Beats considering their huge acclaim in both audio technology and design? In 2006 as Beats was published, their product and appearance became instantly iconic. However, in 2012 Publix published a new logo design, updating their identity but preserving the clean use of Bayer Universal inspired type they have used since 1972. The new logo shows a lowercase ‘p’ in a solid green circle, in a comparable composition to Beats by Dre. Personally, I believe it is clear this is an update on their existing logo that has used the same style ‘p’ since 1972 and therefore have every right to do with their identity as they please. The same could be said for the Darbar Indian Festival. Their original logo also used the same Bayer Universal lowercase rounded typeface in their original identity material. Yet in 2007, 1 year after Beats published their identity, Darbar updated their logo mark to a design almost identical to Beats by Dre, only using a ‘d’ and not a ‘b’. The design is so similar in fact, that although it changes colour depending on the event it is promoting, the standard colour for the festival is almost the exact same shade of red that Beats by Dre uses. This is a complex case, stretching across numerous companies and organisations. Without the opportunity to converse with the designers of these identities, or even issued statements by them, the only real factor to be certain of is the dates in which each of these logos were published, and any identities they had which preceded the one in question, concluding how conceivable it is that their identity developed so similarly to the others naturally.

Logo design plagiarism

Stadt BrĂźhl

British Music Experience

Brainstorm Overload

Beats by Dre

Blechpackungswerk Stassfurt

BigFix

Beweging

A. Bertelli

Saint John HarbourBridge Authority

Bath Building Society

Bloomingdales

Boffy IT

How important is originality?

Darbar Festival

Orchid Infosys

Oxford Dictionary

Den Danske Presses Faellesindkobs Forening

Porsche Proposed

Publix

Peres Sports

Polygraphy Export DE

Profile Tyrecentre

Phenomenex

Priority Parking

Pintrest

Logo design plagiarism

HULL CITY OF CULTURE 2017

Figure 5. Horsa HotĂŠis Reunidos S. R. Alvim 1970

Figure 6. Hull City of Culture 2017 Jaywing Consultancy 2016

How important is originality?

Kingston Upon Hull was awarded City of Culture for 2017. With that, a rebrand of the city was commissioned and Jaywing Creative was the consultancy that was chosen. The rebranding uses “a broad range of colours (that) were used to change the “perception of a ‘grey’ northern city at the edge of the world into glorious technicolour” (Shore, 2016). The branding works wonderfully, clearly achieving their intent. Purples, yellows and reds all working together alongside monotype typography and geometric line forms, clearly derived from the logo. However, it is the logo mark itself that I am personally concerned with (Figure 6). Upon release, Jaywing state “The logo is a “H” shape constructed out of a series of geometric lines, used against a colourful palette of purple, green, yellow, blue and pink .. “The idea of the logo came from simple ‘frames’, or boxes, that were reinterpreted to create shapes, connections and forms, and to re-frame images, objects, art and culture,” (Shore, 2016). In an interview I conducted with Jaywing Consultancy, they claim to have held “interviews/conversations/workshops with over 400 individuals from all walks of life in Hull” to capture Hulls “voice” (Smith, 2017). With an eloquent rational, a successful final form and a design that has more than enough creativity to be registered as a trademark, the logo and the branding should be considered a resounding success for the city of Hull. However, in 1970 an arguably identical logo mark was used for the Horsa Hotéis Reunidos (Hotel Nacional) (Figure 5) in Rio de Janeiro, one of “Brazil’s most recognizable hospitality buildings” (Bastos, 2015). Although the Hotel Nacional closed in 1995 and was left empty for over 20 years, in which time “Justin Bieber was charged with illegally graffitiing the hotel in 2013” (Mairs, 2017), the hotel was bought in 2009 for around £21.7 million. (BRL $85 million) and re-opened in 2017. The Hotel Nacional was of such high standing, accommodating “2,800 people and a theatre for approximately 1,400 spectators where artists such as Liza Minnelli, BB King, Chet Baker and James Brown have performed. It featured five restaurants, helicopter air taxi service from its helipad and original artwork and sculpture. In the 1980s, it hosted the Rio Film Festival” (Bastos, 2015). It was “considered the most modern hotel in Latin America when it opened (and) it quickly became a Brazilian design icon”. (Bastos, 2015).

Logo design plagiarism

Figure 5. Wall Drawing #370: 10 Sol LeWitt 1982

How important is originality?

Designed by S.R. Alvim, the original Horsa Hotéis Reunidos logo is almost identical to the Hull City of Culture logo with a few minor differences. The Hotel Nacional logo consists of 16 lines all together, 10 symmetrically creating the ‘H’ form and 3 vertical lines on either side to create a perfect square from the logo. The Hull logo uses 10 lines in total in a heavier weight, 8 symmetrical lines to create the ‘H’ shape, and 1 line on either side, again to turn the logo into a perfect square. Jaywing Consultancy explained to me, “the mark was created independently, driven by one of the key thoughts than ran through the project – specifically ‘look again’ – as there is the second shape in the centre, which is the foundation for the rest of the graphic style.” (Smith, 2017) Perhaps the Hull City of Culture logo could be considered a development from the Hotel Nacional logo with the very subtle changes that have been made. But in terms of brand association, there is a clear infringement of Intellectual Property, whether intentional or not. Despite their differences based solely on the logo symbol, an audience could easily misinterpret one for the other had they coexisted in the same timeframe. Addressing this directly, Jaywing state “the Hotel mark is not in the same region, sector or even place in time (the hotel is no longer in operation) so we’re not concerned” (Smith, 2017) This is not however an accusatory statement of theft, nor of copying. It is perfectly plausible to perceive that the logo was designed organically through the “result of many hundreds of conversations,” and as a “direct result of the many, many voices that fed into it” (Smith, 2017). Sol LeWitt was an American artist who created many hand-rendered, abstract wall art pieces. Wall Drawing #370: 10 geometric figures (Figure 5), created in 1982, draws from similar visual principles as both ‘H’ logos, creating a shape within a shape using vertical and horizontal lines using only 1 colour and negative space. It is reasonable to assume that Sol LeWitt had not been aware of S.R. Alvim’s Horsa Hotéis Reunidos logo. It is far more likely that they had both been a part of the same post-modern era of art and design, and shared certain creative influences. Regardless, LeWitt’s abstract wall art develops the idea, and makes it unique, iconic and exhibition worthy; as oppose to Hull’s readjustment of the lines. It is possible that Jaywing Consultancy also share similar post-modern influences – but I personally feel it’s equally as likely someone simply owned a copy of Logo Modernism. Regardless, in response to my questioning about the similarities between the two logos, Jaywing replied “it was still really disappointing! But as I said, this is something that happens, and isn’t always uncovered prior to launch. Occupational hazard” (Smith, 2017).

Logo design plagiarism

GOOGLE QUICK DRAW

Figure 6. Quick, Draw! Google 2017

Figure 7. Quick, Draw! Google 2017

How important is originality?

‘Quick, Draw’ is described as “the world’s largest doodling data set”. It’s a fun game where the player is asked to draw a certain recognisable subject in just 20 seconds, whether that be a skull, or a palm tree or a flamingo etc. The purpose is to contribute to a collection of data that is teaching an Artificial Intelligence to “recognize doodling”. However, what I find the most interesting is the vast collection of quick drawings that have been collected through ‘Quick, Draw’ that we are able to see for ourselves. When observing this data, the similarities between each drawing is instantly noticeable. As an example, there is currently 119,276 drawings of a skull (Figure 6). Disregarding the occasional anomaly, almost every skull drawing is constructed in the same way; rounded head, thinner often square mouth and looking face on. This is the way that the AI has come to understand what we instinctively think a skull looks like. I believe there are two key aspects as to why the same conclusion was reached so many different times; time and clarity. The player is put under the pressure of a time limit to create the most simplified, recognisable version of the subject they possible can, in the hopes that the AI will be able to recognise it. Yet going into the ‘Quick, Draw’ experience without knowledge of what the AI understands from data collected previously, means the player must quickly predict what it will respond to “for to foresee consists of projecting into the future what has been perceived in the past” (Henri Bergson, 1911). When creating a professional logo design, the designer is not likely to be under a 20 second time limit, although this could be considered a beneficial exercise for quick idea generation. Time is important for the development of ideas “the more we study the nature of time, the more we shall comprehend that duration means invention, the creation of forms, the continual elaboration of the absolutely new” (Henri Bergson, 1911). But if it is possible to draw a recognisable icon in under 20 seconds, why do logo designers intentionally seek out alternative solutions from one that is globally recognised? And why are some icons, such as skulls and palm trees, accessible to everyone as a logo mark despite being used on countless occasions throughout modern history?

Logo design plagiarism

How important is originality?

Logo design plagiarism

How important is originality?

Logo design plagiarism

Figure 8. Odd Future 77 Chastity Preble

How important is originality?

The answer lies in stylization. Using a doughnut as an example, it is not the doughnut itself that is considered intellectual property, despite 16-year-old Hanson Gregory creating the ring-shaped doughnut in 1876. But variation in how the doughnut looks is how the iconic shape can continue to be used as a mark of identity. Of course, for a shape so basic there is bound to be crossover between designs. Rap collective Odd Future used an illustrated, bold, pink doughnut as their identity for years, and recently Topman have begun selling a tshirt that bears striking resemblance to the Odd Future doughnut. But when a designer is given the task to design a doughnut logo, due to the nature of the object there are only so many possible outcomes before it loses form and recognisability. Regardless, design should be all about finding alternative solutions. Not purposely seeking out originality, but finding a way to make it recognisable as your own, “I don’t believe in originality as an absolute, I think it’s more to do with interesting twists on existing forms…I think the key to whether it’s good or not lies in the viewer’s response to a piece of design. Do they say “I’ve seen it before” or, “I’ve seen it before but not in that way” (House, Julian 2013). In regards to plagiarism in logo design, I believe there is a large distinction between stealing and copying. Stealing would be to blatantly use an existing logo. Whether that be to sell counterfeit goods, or to use their brand identity to form an intentional association. Louis Vuiton Dak, a South Korean chicken restaurant is a prime example of identity theft, blatantly using Louis Vuitton’s brand and likeness. Stealing is using someone else’s exact work for your own gain, potentially damaging their existing public image.

Logo design plagiarism

CONVERGENT EVOLUTION

Figure 9. Homology.

How important is originality?

In Convergent Evolution, two or more species share traits that are not derived from a common ancestor. Unlike Divergent Evolution, where a common ancestor is shared such as wolves, dogs and foxes. As an example, birds, bats and butterflies all converged on a common trait, wings, yet each species evolved independently from each other. Adapting to similar environments, over time, perhaps at completely different times, each species developed a variation of wings that enable them to fly, and this is clear across all flying species that wings of some variation are the most successful method of flight. We can learn from Convergent Evolution that there is often only one solution to a problem. The first insects began flying using wings over 320 million years ago, and flying species have been developing wings ever since. Each species that established traits though Convergent Evolution came to that solution independently, entirely unaware that a similar species in a different part of the world had also reached the same outcome perhaps hundreds of years ago. Stealing and copying is of course no concern to animals, they develop a certain way over time to best suit their environment. Throughout my research this is something I have seen more and more within commercial logo design. The possibility of intentionally reaching the same or a similar conclusion to another designer is very possible. Unlike the complexities of evolution, logo design often prides itself on simplicity and ideas reduced to their most basic forms. Therefore it is almost guaranteed that eventually paths will cross, and independent ideas will begin to share visual similarities with others; “the pessimistic axiom that ‘everything has already been done’ is becoming more and more true” (Davidson, Mike, 2005). The total possible outcomes for a logo design is huge, though that number is finite. As an example, combining one letter and one shape has a certain number of possible compositions, and even less that are visibly effective; this is evident in the Beats logo and all the logos similar. It is perfectly conceivable that each company began with the starting letter of their company, ‘b’, ‘d’ or ‘p’, explored the round form of the character, creating a circle shape to compliment it, and then experimented with the composition of the two pieces. From this point, it is plausible that each company reached the same conclusion because they all independently shared the belief that that was the most effective composition for those pieces to work together, and for the logo development to conclude at that outcome.

Logo design plagiarism

Figure 10 Saint John Harbour Bridge Authority J. C. Stackhouse Studios 1966

Figure 11 A. Bertelli Albe Steiner 1964

Figure 12 Blechpackungswerk StaĂ&#x;furt Rudolf Purke 1965

How important is originality?

The Saint John Harbour Bridge Authority logo by J.c. Stackhouse Studios (1966) (Figure 10), A. Bertelli by Albe Steiner(1964) (Figure 11) and Blechpackungswerk Staßfurt by Rudolf Purke (1965) (Figure 12) are all logos that have very similar attributes to the Beats logo. They all use a ‘b’ character within a circle, two of which also use Bayer Universal. These slight visual alterations are what separate these examples from being accused of copying or of being copied by the examples discussed. Yet the logos are incredibly similar in concept, notably the Blechpackungswerk Staßfurt logo (Figure 12), and it is not unlikely to conceive that Rudolf Purke indirectly designed the Beats logo in the development stage for this design, but bypassed it and continued to use a stroke outline instead of the filled shape; interestingly however, this logo was designed 6 years earlier than Anton Stankowski’s Stat Brühl logo. It is evident from these extensive examples of logos that share similarities with the Beats logo that something about that specific form works incredibly well. It’s an outcome that keeps reappearing time and time again, which makes me question, if designers continue to reach the same conclusions as each other, does that suggest that (with all brand associations aside) it is in fact a strong, refined logo? If so many designers have made it their outcome, does that prove the effectiveness of it as a design? Or does it suggest that it is too simple, too obvious and done too many times to be taken seriously? In Convergent Evolution when a working adaptation is made, such as the development of gills or wings, it is unlikely that those attributes will need to change or vary species to species, as they are already working successfully. However, within logo design, successful outcomes must of course differ to a certain extent from company to company (species to species). This also means that our concept of originality has become derived from developing what has worked in the past, to what is suitable to work in a contemporary environment. Copying is somewhat mutually accepted by all artists. “By copying we are acknowledging the past and building upon existing knowledge” (Vogler, Ferdinand. 2017). The space left for true originality is almost totally saturated by millions of designers throughout time, and therefore the search for completely unique ideas is almost unreasonable “We don’t have to act like we’re reinventing the wheel every time— even if we might sell it that way sometimes” (Vogler, Ferdinand. 2017).

Logo design plagiarism

Figure 13 Théâtre de Liège Olivier Debie 2011

How important is originality?

Music genres are a good example of how artists can take something that already exists and change it. This could be done in many different ways, but is something that has been done for hundreds of years and is still done today. There are hundreds of sub-genres of Rock music, and it’s this variation and adaptability that keeps the genre relevant. To create a completely original style of music, that has not been influenced by anything at all, would have to be created by someone who has never listened to music before, and has had no exposure to either contemporary culture or creative history. This is unlikely to ever happen, and even if it does happen, it doesn’t mean what will be created would be different from what already exists, nor that it would be any good. That is why we continue to build on what we have. It may be true to a certain extent that we have reached a level of stylistic saturation, but so long as there are creative personalities there will always be creative ideas. With that, although copying and building on past ideas may be perfectly acceptable, there is a definite level of change and number of alterations that must be made before accusations are made, and the Tokyo 2020 Olympics logo is an example of not changing enough. In 2015, designed by Kenjiro Sano, the official 2020 Olympics logo was published (Figure 14). It was instantly met with criticism, claiming it was a copy of the Théâtre de Liège logo (Figure 15) designed by Olivier Debie in 2013. It is understood that Debie took legal action against the International Olympic Committee over the alleged plagiarised logo. However, despite any similarities between the two logos, “even that attempt to defuse the crisis backfired when it was pointed out that Sano’s initial submission resembled a work by the late German typographer, Jan Tschichold” (Mcurry, 2015) and that “Sano used a photograph from a website without permission when he presented his original logo” (Mcurry, 2015). Sano had earlier stated that his Tokyo 2020 design was inspired by the emblem used when the city first hosted the Summer Olympics in 1964, adding that he had never seen the Théâtre de Liège design. However, the logo also bares huge resemblance to the ‘Rebuild Japan’ design by Hey Studio (Figure 16) after the 2011 Japanese tsunami. Interestingly, the studio themselves tweeted about the Olympics logo saying “We think it is just a coincidence. Both are a combination of geometry and synthesis and it is entirely possible for things to end up looking similar” (Hey Studio, 2015). “In a statement, organisers defended the intellectual-property checks the emblem went through. Graphic designer Armin Vit shared his opinion on the logo, “With a logo this simple and using basic geometric shapes, similarities are bound to happen” (Alderson, 2015).

Logo design plagiarism

Figure 15 Théâtre de Liège Olivier Debie 2011

Figure 14 Tokyo 2020 Olympics Kenjiro Sano 2015

Figure 16 Rebuild Japan Hey Studio 2011

How important is originality?

Figure 17 Tokyo 2020 Olymipics Asao Tokolo 2016

Figure 18 Tokyo 2020 Paralympics Asao Tokolo 2016

Logo design plagiarism

Figure 19 Tokyo 2020 Olympics Concept Tom Appleton 2017

Figure 20 Tokyo 2020 Paralympics Concept Asao Tokolo 2016

How important is originality?

7 months after the initial logo was pulled, the new logo was published (Figures 17 & 18). This new logo was decided through a competition, and the winning logo entitled ‘Harmonized Checkered Emblem’ designed by Asao Tokoro “is intended to represent different countries, cultures and ways of thinking” (Addley, 2016). We will never be certain exactly how Kenjiro Sano designed the first Tokyo 2020 logo. Whether he intentionally stole ideas, or it was a genuine coincidence is still open for discussion; I personally feel that he simply remained too close to his influences. The line between stealing and influence is blurred here. In my opinion it would have been more suitable to look at each aspect that is significant about both logo references, understand why they have used them and how that could be adapted into a more unique idea to implement in the Tokyo 2020 logo. The similarity of form between the Tokyo 2020 and Théâtre de Liége logo could be overlooked as creative crossover, but the use of the lower Serif is unnecessary to the design. In the Théâtre de Liége logo it is clearly there because the character references both a ‘T’ and an ‘L’. I personally cannot see a reason as to how or why Sano would have ended on this particular form; simply losing the lower serif and keeping the shape of the ‘T’’ (Figure 19), or flipping the Serif to place the curve on the underside creating a ‘K’ (Figure 20) would have been a subtle enough change to intentionally reference inspirations without being publicly perceived as plagiarising them.

Logo design plagiarism

TEMPLATE CULTURE Figure 21 The perils of do-it-yourself logo generators Steve Douglas 2011

Figure 22 World Wildlife Fund Sir Peter Scott 1986

How important is originality?

Identity design, and graphic design in general, is one of the most poorly understood and under-appreciated professional fields. Websites like LogoGarden and Fiver emphasise this, and belittle the process of working with a designer, by offering clients quick, poor quality design for a small amount of money. For years templates, web builders and other shortcuts have been helping people to build their own websites. Web design is such huge undertaking, and for people who don’t necessarily need a professional standard website, but would like to have their own independent web presence, these template services such as WordPress, Squarespace and Wix have become ever more popular and increasingly useful. However these templates, really are just templates. The content is entirely that of the creator, the website template is simply an easy way to help you compose each page. Template culture in logo design is very different. Using Logo Garden as an example, in the 2017 version of the website the user starts to ‘design’ their logo on the website by clicking the “design a logo in minutes” button. The user is presented with a very simple interface, displaying a small artboard for the composition, a simple toolbar and a palette of symbols to choose from. The first step is to pick your symbol, these are sorted into categories such as Accounting and Finance, Real Estate and Alphabet. From there you simply type in the name of your company, choose from a very limited list of the kind of cliché web fonts you would expect and then choose your colours. It would be unreasonable to expect every logo to be designed professionally, or by someone who considers themselves a ‘designer’. Quick, cheap creative tools like Logo Garden are always going to be the solution for some people. However, the ‘do it yourself’ logo design becomes a problem when the initial symbols have been stolen. “According to John Williams the owner of the site, he’s able to offer “10,000” new symbols designed by John himself and his hand-picked team of worlds-class logo designers” .. “A page of Bear options looks like designer bingo with theft of logos from Micheal Vanderbyl, Landor, James Lienhart, Mitre Agency, Richards Brock Miller and Mitchell and Gardner Design and who knows who else” (Gardner, 2011). Although this controversy took place in 2011 and has since been resolved, there are still symbols to choose from that bear a striking resemblance to existing logos. However, when offering a service that provides users a choice of over 10,000 symbols, it is expected that eventually some of these very basic, intentionally corporate logos will look like others.

Logo design plagiarism

Figure 23 Gelatelli American Style Ice Cream Lidl 2017

Figure 24 Ben & Jerryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Ice CreamBen & Jerrys 2017

How important is originality?

With design like this we usually associate it to small companies that most likely have no need for creativity and originality within their identity. In which case, why do we feel it’s okay for small companies such as these to have logos that are noticeably uninspired and often ‘rip off’ bigger companies? Why are bigger name companies the only ones susceptible to criticism? I believe the answer is, that no one cares, not genuinely. When a controversy of plagiarised identity arises around a big company or organization, people are often quick to condemn the offender, usually through social media, yet will obliviously walk past smaller companies in their everyday life and ignore the possibility of plagiarism completely. Notoriously cheap supermarkets like Aldi and Lidl both stock an incredible number of products that clearly emulate the full price brand in their packaging design through brand association in the way they look to intentionally communicate to customers what it is they are buying a cheaper version of: Nescafe Gold, Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream and Walkers Crisps are all identities that are clearly hijacked for this purpose. Of course in some instances the idea of creating a link between similar products through visual catalysts is important. The shared visual language of products like crisps, chocolate and milk use colour to indicate what the product, or what variation of that product it is without having to pick it up from the shelf. With red meaning ready salted crisps, dark chocolate and semi-skimmed milk, this shared, universal language is something we subconsciously acknowledge everyday. Designers must implement this in their packaging design around these products, but it is how they use the colour association that is important. It is clear when the line has been crossed between shared colour palettes and blatant copying. This is not to say we should start policing design, but to be aware of how much copying and sharing of ideas is around us.

Logo design plagiarism

AIR BNB

Figure 25 Azuma Drive In Akisato Ueda 1975

Figure 26 Air BnB Design Studio 2014

Figure 27 Air BnB - The Meaning Design Studio 2014

How important is originality?

Logo design controversy first came to my attention in 2014 as disputation began to rise around the new Air BnB logo. (Figure 26). The logo was criticized on three levels. Firstly, it was accused of being phallic of both genders simultaneously. Secondly for being ‘too simple’, and baring no link to the previous logo. And lastly, for being almost identical to the Azuma Drive-in logo from 1975 (Figure 25). In regards to the logo being ‘too simple’, this decision, like it is for many other companies, was intentional. But what is interesting about AirBnb’s logo simplicity is that it is intended to “free the logo from the digital world and bring it into the physical” (Bigman, 2014). Its purpose is for people renting out their space using AirBnb can “symbolize this affiliation by drawing the logo on a piece of paper” (Bigman, 2014). A fantastic image (Figure 27) of how the logo was conceptualized and constructed was published alongside the logo. The development is shown in an equation: People + Places + Love + A (for AirBnb) = the new logo. The way the image has been hand drawn, the shapes all link together, creates a convincing presentation of genuine idea development. However, it is not hard to see why the comparison has been drawn between the new AirBnB logo and the Azuma Drive-In logo. The only real distinction between them is the line weight and height, aside from that they are executed in almost the exact same way. Nevertheless, this does not disregard its initial development story, not does it reduce the quality of the design. The shape in general feels fluid and natural, and it’s clear how both these companies could have easily reached the same outcome. They both use the capital ‘A’ character, they both emulate movement, and through that create an identity that feels welcoming and not at all corporate. However, AirBnb also include the shape of an aeroplane within their logo, adding a third visual concept to the design.

Logo design plagiarism

Figure 28 Trademarks & Symbols. Volume 1: Alphabetical Designs Yasaburo Kuwayama 1973

Figure 29 Trademarks & Symbols. Volume 1: Alphabetical Designs Yasaburo Kuwayama 1973

Figure 30 Trademarks & Symbols. Volume 1: Alphabetical Designs Yasaburo Kuwayama 1973

How important is originality?

Nonetheless, it is interesting to me that AirBnb is not the only company to have found criticism from supposedly plagiarising their logo around this time. There had been many accusations claiming “Beats, AirBnb, and Flipboard lifted their logos from the same 1989 design book” (Hoffman, 2016). That book is Trademarks & Symbols Volume 1: Alphabetical Designs by Yasaburo Kuwayama, and it showcases over 1,500 typographical logo designs from around the world up until 1989. It is fair to assume that some of the designers accused of plagiarism would have begun their practice or began studying design around this time, and with these post-modern influences in their work it is not unreasonable to assume they ‘accidentally’ created the same logos because they have spent their careers trying to become the designers in this book and books similar. But of course, that does not entirely justify their similarities. “Someone didn’t do their homework” (Spiekermann, 2014) is the essence of most of the discussion around this topic. Why weren’t these logos checked and scrutinised to combat or prevent any potential criticism? Perhaps they should have been. In terms of legality and copyright law, I feel these will act as case studies for all companies unveiling new logos, encouraging companies and designers to at least try to be aware of past logos that may be considered to share similarities. But the truth is it doesn’t really matter. These logos all exist in different eco systems and different points in time. Being used again is in no way negatively impacting the original design, nor is it degrading the designer in anyway. I believe that by independently reaching the same conclusion as a logo that is already celebrated as a brilliant logo in books, that it is unintentionally celebrating the brilliance of the original. Re-envisioning past logos is by far superior to having them hidden away in books. That being said, I in no way endorse the idea of purposely seeking out old logos and tweaking them slightly. A line must be drawn somewhere.

Logo design plagiarism

FINAL THOUGHTS

How important is originality?

The importance of originality within commercial logo design is an on-going debate of law and morality with no definitive answer from any of the parties involved: artists, designers, lawyers, journalists, etc. However, should there be? Should all designers and companies showcasing commercial design be given a ‘rule book’ to follow, and by following these rules ensures their work is legal and in no way resembles anything else from the last century? Perhaps. But from what I have learned throughout this study, no amount of intellectual property and registered trademark checks can ensure complete security over alleged plagiarism accusations. That is because the act of creation cannot be constrained to a set of rules. As designers, all educated about the same people, the same pieces and the same styles, often we will have ingested similar culture, maybe even share similar lifestyles and outside interests and I believe that in some circumstances, particularly within the already restrained laws of logo design, our brains may well conceive information in the same way as someone else’s might around similar information, ending in a comparable outcome. One photograph of a sunset may look very much like another, but it doesn’t mean it’s the same. In graphic design we share a number of things: typefaces, colours, shapes, grids, aesthetics, trends, opinions, software, hardware etc. Though none of these individual aspects can be protected by copyright or be registered as a trademark. For something to qualify as intellectual it must be ‘original artistic work, including illustration and photography” (www.gov.uk/copyright), and this use of the word ‘original’, although obvious in its intent within this specific legal context, is where the focus for this research project originated. Using these shared tools to create something ‘original’ is by no means an easy feat, and should in fact be celebrated as innovation and advancement within the world of commercial design, not expected of designers to be able to generate completely original ideas each time. I believe the word ‘original’ within this context should be altered and recommunicated as ‘distinctive, individual and unique’.

Logo design plagiarism

Figure 31 Apple Rob Janoff 1977

How important is originality?

Distinctiveness is a quality that designers should strive for. Producing work that is distinctive showcases the designer’s ability to create memorable, effective work unique to the individual and the client. This is different from originality, as it doesn’t have to be an idea that has never been conceived or considered before. Iconic logos like Apple and Amazon are in no way original in their conception. They are not the first companies to use simple logos of icons and type, but that does not make them any less significant. Huge companies like these are so prominent within our present culture, that their logos and identities have developed what I can only name ‘creative monopoly’. I believe the reason there are so few logos now that use the shape of an Apple within the design, is because everyone is aware that apple has ‘already done it’ and to use an apple shape in your own logo design would be considered lazy, unoriginal design. The prominence of the company, and the registered trademark of one very specific apple vector, does not mean that Apple should have any authority over the vast number of possible variations of Apple illustrations. The Apple logo is so successful because it manages to work distinctive characteristics like the missing bite and the diagonal leaf into an extremely simple shape. However, I believe it should only be these specific features that the company is able to consider their own intellectual property, after all Apple did not create the apple as a physical object, they did not submit a patent application for a new fruit they have created and based their identity around. Apple should not own the icon of an apple any more than the New York Underground owns Helvetica Bold.

Logo design plagiarism

IN CONCLUSION

Figure 32 Paul Rand

How important is originality?

Throughout this study I have learned that the concept of questionable originality goes far beyond plagiarism of any kind. If plagiarism is to intentionally and somewhat maliciously steal somebody else’s work for self benefit, originality is the blurred line around any other piece of art that has been created since the origin of humanity. This study has shown me that not only is it virtually impossible to generate a design that has in no way been influenced by something else, whether that be a conscious decision or not, but originality is not something that we must concern ourselves with as creatives. “Simplicity and clarity” (Leader, 1994) is what most logo designers strive for. But the Beats logo, and those similar, prove how when a design is refined to it most basic elements, designers will often use them in the same way as one another because as designers we are able to see when a composition works and feels right, and the lowercase ‘b’ from Bayers Universal in a circle looks complete as a logo design. Brilliant logo designers like Saul Bass and Paul Rand, among others, innovated brand identity and logo design into what we know it for today. Yet despite their brilliance, their ideas weren’t necessarily completely original. They were inspired by the art and culture they had ingested throughout their lives, and worked beyond it, taking elements of Swiss design and Bauhaus design and brought it to the commercial realm. “Don’t try to be original; just try to be good.” (Rand, Paul), is a notion that I have come to understand and greatly appreciate.

Logo design plagiarism

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Campbell, J. and Schopf, J. (1994). Creative evolution?!. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publisher. Clifford, Cathrine. (2014). AirBnB, why the new logo? Available at: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/235709 [Accessed October 2017] Davidson, Mike. (2008) When Logos look alike. Available at:

Addley, Mairs. (2016) Tokyo 2020 unveils new Olymipic logo after

https://www.logodesignlove.com/similar-original-logos [Accessed

plagiarism allegations. Available from: https://www.theguardian.

September 2017]

com/sport/2016/apr/25/tokyo-2020-organisers-unveil-new-logoolympic-plagiarism-allegations [Accessed 26th September 2017]

Dawood, Sarah (2016) Jaywing creates branding for cultural initiative Hull 2017. Available from: https://www.designweek.co.uk/

Amaral, Luiz Henrique O. do. (2015) Patents, trademarks, copyright

issues/19-25-september-2016/jaywing-creates-branding-cultural-

and designs in Brazil. Available from: https://uk.practicallaw.

initiative-hull-2017/ [Accessed 20 July 2017]

thomsonreuters.com/1-5198905?transitionType=Default&contextDat a=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1 [Accessed 20 July 2017]

Design History. (2011) Typography Teachers at Bauhaus. Available from: http://www.designhistory.org/Avant_Garde_pages/

Bailey, Jonathan. (2010) Trademarks, copyright and logos. Available

BauhausType.html [Accessed September 2017]

from: https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/08/12/trademarkcopyright-and-logos/ [Accessed 20 July 2017]

Douglas, Steve. (2011) The perils of do-it-yourself logo generators. Available at: http://www.thelogofactory.com/do-it-yourself-logo-

Bastos, Marcos. (2015) Hotel Nacional Rio De Janeiro VOA Brazil

generators/ [Accessed at December 2017]

wins competition to design retrofit for the conic Rio De Janeiro hotel designed by Oscar Neimeyer. Available from: http://www.voa.com/

Gibbs, Andrew. (2014) Spotlight: Beats by Dre. Available from:

blog/hotel-nacional-rio-de-janeiro/ [Accessed 20 July 2017]

http://www.thedieline.com/blog/2014/8/14/spotlight-beats-by-dre [Accessed Semptember 2017]

BBC Humberside (2015) Jaywing creates branding for cultural initiative Hull 2017. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-

Hoffman, William (2016) Beats, AirBnB, and Flipboard Lifted Their

england-humber-34609720 [Accessed 20 July 2017]

Logos From The Same 1089 Design Book. Available from https:// www.inverse.com/article/14879-beats-airbnb-and-flipboard-lifted-

Beats By Dre. Trademark. Available from: https://www.beatsbydre.

their-logos-from-the-same-1989-design-book [Accessed 01 May

com/company/trademark

2017]

[Accessed September 2017] Hunt, Kim. (1995). Horse Evolution. [Online] The Talk Origins Archive. Available from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol. Butler, Andy. (2015). The official Toyko 2020 Olymipics logo by

html [Accessed 7 October 2009]

Kenjiro Sano. Available from: https://www.designboom.com/design/ tokyo-2020-olympics-logo-kenjiro-sano-07-24-2015/ [Accessed

Intellectual Property Office (2014) Intellectual Crime and

26th September 2017]

Infringement. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ intellectual-property-crime-and-infringement [Accessed 20 July 2017]

How important is originality?

Intellectual Property Office (2014) Intellectual Property. Available

Pints & Partnets. (2016) Louis Vuitton: Don’t be a chicken! Available

from: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/intellectual-

at: https://trademark.eu/louis-vuitton-dont-be-a-chicken/ (Accessed

property-office [Accessed 20 July 2017]

September 2017)

Jackson, Andrew. (2015) Just spotted this in the @Heystudio

Sherman, Brad. Bently, Lionel. (1999) The Making of Modern

work archive. Of dear #Toyko2020. Available from: https://twitter.

Intellectual Property Law. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

com/WillDesignFor/status/626088409946292224 [Accessed 26th September 2017]

The UK Copyright Service (2000) Intellectual Property. Available from: https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/intellectual_

Kupferschmid, Indra. (2010) True Type of the Bauhaus .Available

property [Accessed 20 July 2017]

from: https://fontsinuse.com/uses/5/typefaces-at-the-bauhaus [Accessed September 2017]

The UK Copyright Service (2000) UK Copyright Law. Available from: https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_

Kuwayama, Y. (1973). Trademarks & symbols, volume 1. New York:

law [Accessed 20 July 2017]

Van Nostrand Reinhold. The UK Copyright Service (2000) Logo Copyright. Available Lillienstein, Jaimie and Tessmer, Jeremy. (2015) Herbert Bayer (1900

from: https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/logo_copyright

– 1985) Bauhaus Designer and American Artist. Available at: http://

[Accessed 20 July 2017]

www.sullivangoss.com/herbert_bayer/ [Accessed September 2017]

Vogler, Ferdinand (2017) Your Favourite Logo is copied. Available at: https://medium.com/@fvo/your-logo-is-copied-710ac4604258

Logo book. Anton Stankowski. Available from http://www.logobook.

[Accessed September 2017]

com/designer/anton-stankowski/ [Accessed September 2017] Wikipedia (2014) Intellectual Property Office. Available from: https:// Mairs, Jessica. (2017) Oscar Niemeyer’s Hotel Nacional reopens

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Property_Office_(United_Kingdom)

in Rio after 20 years. Available from: https://www.dezeen.

[Accessed 20 July 2017]

com/2017/01/09/oscar-niemeyer-nacional-hotel-reopens-rio-dejanerio-brazil/ [Accessed 20 July 2017]

Wikipedia (2014) Intellectual Property Office. Available from: https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Property_Office_(United_Kingdom)

McCurry, Justin. (2015) Tokyo 2020 Olympics logo scrapped after

[Accessed 20 July 2017]

allegations of plagiarism. Available from: https://www.theguardian. com/world/2015/sep/01/tokyo-2020-olympics-logo-scrapped-after-

Wikipedia.Gran Melia Nacional Rio de Janerio Hotel. Available from:

allegations-of-plagiarism [Accessed 26th September 2017]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Meli%C3%A1_Nacional_Rio_de_ Janeiro_Hotel [Accessed 20 July 2017]

Nicolai, Olaf. (2011) Hotel Nacional Rio. Publisher Rollo Press. /r/pics. (2016) No, these are not the logos of Medium, Airbnb, Pearson, Lisa. Pequigonot, Andrew. Tucker, Ashford. (2012).

Flipboard, and Beats. They’re from a 1970s logo design book. Pretty

egregious. Available at

Logos, Packaging, and Products. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/4h0y4h/no_these_are_

LLP. New York.

not_the_logos_of_medium_airbnb/ [Accessed September 2017]

Logo design plagiarism

IMAGES

Gelatelli. (2017) Gelatelli American Style Ice Cream. Image. Available at: www.lidl.com Getty Images/Guardian composite/the Guardian (2015). Toyko 2020 logohe Théâtre, de Liege design. Available at: https://www. theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jul/30/tokyo-olympics-logoplagiarism-row [Accessed 26 September 2017].

Alvim, S. R. (1970) Horsa Hotéis Reunidos logo. Available at: http://

Google Quick Draw. (2017) Google Quick Draw Skulls. Image

www.logobook.com/logo/horsa-hoteis-reunidos/ [Accessed 10 April

(Screenshot. Available at: https://quickdraw.withgoogle.com

2017]

[Accessed October 2017]

Ammunition Group. (2006). Beats logo. Image. Available at: www.

Hey Studio (2011) Rebuild Japan. Available at: https://twitter.

beatsbydre.com [Accessed September 2017]

com/WillDesignFor/status/626088409946292224 [Accessed: 26 Semptember 2017]

Bath Building Society. Image. Available at: https:// smartmoneypeople.com/bath-building-society-reviews/products

Janoff, R. (1977). Apple logo. Image. Available at: cdn.

[Accessed November 2017]

onlinewebfonts.com [Accessed November 2017]

Baqués, J. (1967). Peres Sports. Image. Available at: http://www.

Jaywing Consultancy (2016) Hull City of Culture 2017 logo. Available

logobook.com/logo/peres-sports/ [Accessed December 2017]

at: https://www.hull2017.co.uk/app/themes/hull2017/assets/ frontend/img/print-logo.png [Accessed 10 April 2017]

Ben and Jerry’s (2017). Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream. Image. Available at: http://www.onsecondscoop.com/ [Accessed December 2017]

J. C. Stackhouse Studios (1966) Saint John Harbour Bridge Authority. Image. Available at: www.logobook.com [Accessed October 2017]

Beweging Logo. Image. Available at: www.beweging.net [Accessed October 2017]

Katsumi, Masaru and Kamekura, Yusaku (1964) Tokyo 1964 Olympic

(1997) BigFix logo. Image. Available at: www.upload.wikimedia.org/ wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/BigFix_logo.svg [Accessed October 2017]

games. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2016/08/08/olympicgames-logo-designs-london-rio-tokyo [Accessed: 26 September 2017]

(1965) Blechpackungswerk Stassfurt logo. Image. Available at: www. logobook.com [Accessed October 2017]

Kuwayama, Y. (1973). Trademarks & Symbols. Volume 1:

British Music Experience (2009) British Music Experience logo. Image. Available at: www.eventim.co.uk/ [Accessed November 2017] [Accessed October 2017]

[Accessed November 2017]

(2007) Darbar Festival logo. Image. Available at: www.darbar.org

Alphabetical Designs - Spread. Image. Available at: i.pinimg.com

[Accessed October 2017]

[Accessed November 2017]

Douglas, S. (2011). Steve’s Pandas: The perils of do-it-yourself logo

Kuwayama, Y. (1973). Trademarks & Symbols. Volume 1:

generators. Image. Available at: http://www.thelogofactory.com/

Alphabetical Designs - Spread. Image. Available at: forums.envato.

do-it-yourself-logo-generators/

com [Accessed November 2017]

Alphabetical Designs. Image. Available at: /www.amazon.co.uk

Kuwayama, Y. (1973). Trademarks & Symbols. Volume 1:

How important is originality?

Lehmann, D. 1965. Polygraph-Export. Available at: http://www.

Stankowski, A. (1971). Stadt Bruhl logo. Image. Available at: www.

logobook.com/logo/polygraph-export/ [Accessed December 2017]

logobook.com [Accessed September 2017]

Le Witt, S. (1982). Wall Drawing #370: 10. Image. Available at:

Rand, P. Paul Rand Portrait. Image. Available at: http://www.

https://www.metmuseum.org [Accessed August 2017]

hypocritedesign.com/paul-rand/ [Accessed December 2017]

Lohrer, H. (1960). Porsche. Image. Available at: http://www.

Scott, P. (1961). WWF. Image. Available at: https://www.

logobook.com/logo/porsche/ [Accessed December 2017]

logodesignlove.com/world-wildlife-fund [Accessed December 2017]

Odd Future (2018) future clipart iphone. Image. Available at: http://

Steiner, A (1964) A. Bertelli logo. Image. Available at: www.logobook. com [Accessed October 2017]

laoblogger.com/odd-future-clipart-iphone.html [Accessed November 2017]

Strickler, L. (2011) Flying Cryptid Sightings: Weird Bat-Like Creatures / Large Bioluminescent Birds. Image. Available at: http://

Orchid Infosys. Image. Available at: www./media.licdn.com

www.phantomsandmonsters.com/2011/07/flying-cryptid-sightings-

[Accessed December 2017]

weird-bat-like.html [Accessed November 2017]

Oxford Dictionary. Image. Available at: https://global.oup.com/

Thomas Peter/Reuters (2016). The winning design of the Tokyo 2020

academic/covers/pop-up/9780191796319 [Accessed December

logo by Asao Tokoro. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/

2017]

sport/2016/apr/25/tokyo-2020-organisers-unveil-new-logo-olympicplagiarism-allegations [Accessed 26 September 2017].

Peets-schou, M. (1970). Den Danske Presses FĂŚllesindkĂ¸bsForening. Image. Available at: http://protokol.dk/ [Accessed

Ueda, A. (1975). Azume Drive In. Image. Available at: www.

December 2017]

logobook.com [Accessed November 2017]

Phenomenex. (2015) Phenomenex Logo. Available at: https://

Vignelli, M. (1970) Bloomingdales. Image. Available at: https://pbs.

sadasystems.com/blog/blogmicrosoft-solutionsoffice-

twimg.com/media/BnTK_ApIEAAduIs.jpg [Accessed December

365phenomenex-drives-growth-globally-with-office-365/ [Accessed

2017]

December 2017] wearedesignstudio. (2014). Air BnB Logo. Image. Available at: / Pintrest. Pintrest logo. Available at: https://seeklogo.com/vector-

www.dezeen.com [Accessed November 2017]

logo/157893/pinterest-badge [Accessed December 2017] wearedesignstudio. (2014). Air BnB Logo Concept. Image. Available Profile Tyrecenter (2016) Profile Tyrecenter Logo. Available at: http://

at: https://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/

logosolusa.com/profile-tyrecenter-logo.html [Accessed December

new_logo_and_identity_for_airbnb_by_designstudio.php [Accessed

2017]

November 2017]

(1971) Publix logo. Image. Available at: www.theshelbyreport.com/

Zerger, T. (2011) Brainstorm Overload. Image. Available at: https://

[Accessed October 2017]

dribbble.com/shots/125943-bsol-collider-b-logo [Accessed November 2017]

Priority Parking. (2015) Priority Parking Logo. Availeble at: http:// www.priorityparking.com/ [Accessed December 2017]

Graphic Arts Research Project

Tom Appleton 2018

With millions of designers following the same advice to ‘keep it simple’, eventually there will be creative crossover. By intentionally limiting our design possibilities to ensure our logos have “simplicity and clarity”, the total possibilities for any one design is hugely reduced. Yet despite each individual designer following the same rule book, originality is still expected, from designers and clients alike.