Discussion about: Joomla! Brand Guide & Logo Usage Released

[rhuk]

Just some observations about the rationale for having a brand manual and set of rules in using the logo:

...

The same with Xerox: they don't want you to write, "I needed 10 copies, so I xeroxed them"; they want "I needed 10 copies, so I made them on a Xerox-brand photocopier." Same deal with Xerox's lawyers sending warning letters to publishers.

In the Open Source world -- where we all agree that we all share the code, anybody and everybody can have it and use it any way they want, except to resell it as their own brand -- the only thing of any tangible value is the brand name (and in the United States, anyway, that is carried on the books only as "goodwill," a non-tangible asset).

The Joomla logo, logotype and slogan are the main assets of the Open Source Matters Foundation. The license to use those assets has been developed to prevent a situation like the one we just went through. For example, let's take a hypothetical company called Orim -- it decides to remarket Joomla with ASP and support services. The Orim folks put on their web site, "We're the true and only makers of Joomla -- those Open Source guys are full of bull. Get your Orim Joomla here -- don't buy it from anybody else and for goodness sakes, don't try to install it yourself -- your hair and teeth will all fall out."

At this juncture, the Open Source Matters Foundation can haul Orim into court (in Orim's jurisdiction) and make them stop -- and, perhaps even compensate OSMF for its troubles (certainly legal fees, if not punitive damages).

As part of its defense, OSMF is going to submit as Exhibit A the latest edition of the Joomla Brand Manual. So the document -- and following its rules precisely -- benefits the entire community, because we all share in the purity of the Joomla trademark.

Not altering the Joomla logo is your way of supporting the Open Source community in general and the OSMF/Joomla community specifically.

Don't hassle the Core Team about the rules -- they're in place to make Joomla (and by extension, you) more successful.

\dmc

PS: I just ran this note through the forum's spell checker and it flagged "kleenex" with a lower-case "k." It didn't flag xexrox, though. ;-) ...

This is a great post!  You really hit the nail on the head with this one.  The Brand Manual is an effort to correct some mistakes that have happened in the past and to make Joomla! better for all of us. 

[Johnny Boy]

Now, to try and think of a sentence with the word Joomla! as a verb. 

"That old Mambo site? I Joomla'd it just this morning."

\dmc

@dmcole,

Good post. Some very good points well presented and also very informative.

Now, to try and think of a sentence with the word Joomla! as a verb. 

"After I Joomla your site it will be much easier to maintain and expand with new features."

"After Joomlaing the project, it became clear that the new team was fabulious!"

joom - la (ing | ed)
1. To make a website easier and more powerful in less time than other web technologies
2. To recreate a project in a way that it gains mommentum and improves

ant.  Mambo

1. To dance and spin while while little is done.  Opposite of joomla

Excellent. 

I had a feeling there would be a little creativity when I first mentioned the use of the word Joomla!

Thanks for those suggestions.  I'll make a note of them and try to drop them into conversation.

Anyway better get back on topic now before the thread gets hijacked. 

[ajdlinux]

I really would like to change the logo, but I can’t  . Please change the usage terms.

Could you be a little more specific... this is a very broad comment and I don’t have any idea what your refereing to.

i.e. I can’t create a logo with special dimensions that will fit into my site.

I can see the reasons why the logo team would not want people modifying the logo (e.g. could look like endorsement, can damage brand/reputation), but this means  I can’t create a ‘powered by joomla’ button or anything like that. BTW, it’s also entirely GPL-incompatible, so therefore it can’t be distributed with Joomla itself.

Andrew

[doublebeast]

It is a pathetic thing to do, we might aswell not even put a logo on the site with the amount of restrictions , i think this is a stupid move by joomla, i wasn't very pleased with some things but this is becoming worse. We should be able to put it on backgrounds that are tinted and use it in our own designs. The fact that we should respect it is true however, it is the morality of a person to judge what is right and wrong. Say if i wanted to base something on the joomla logo  in my work for my ict diploma ,in the uk i would like to make some nice graphics with it. Well i cannot. Ever sort out better freedoms, or i will just make my own idea of what mambo should be turned into, as it is becomign annoying...

[ajdlinux]

It is a pathetic thing to do, we might aswell not even put a logo on the site with the amount of restrictions , i think this is a stupid move by joomla, i wasn’t very pleased with some things but this is becoming worse. We should be able to put it on backgrounds that are tinted and use it in our own designs. The fact that we should respect it is true however, it is the morality of a person to judge what is right and wrong. Say if i wanted to base something on the joomla logo  in my work for my ict diploma ,in the uk i would like to make some nice graphics with it. Well i cannot. Ever sort out better freedoms, or i will just make my own idea of what mambo should be turned into, as it is becomign annoying...

Maybe a license similar to CC-A-SA might be good, with an extra restriction that you must explicitly state that you aren’t connected with Joomla or OSM. While it doesn’t give as much brand protection it gives us freedom (the reason I use Joomla, not Mambo). “Open source” must include the logos too.

Andrew

[xperis]

It is a pathetic thing to do, we might aswell not even put a logo on the site with the amount of restrictions , i think this is a stupid move by joomla, i wasn't very pleased with some things but this is becoming worse. We should be able to put it on backgrounds that are tinted and use it in our own designs. The fact that we should respect it is true however, it is the morality of a person to judge what is right and wrong. Say if i wanted to base something on the joomla logo  in my work for my ict diploma ,in the uk i would like to make some nice graphics with it. Well i cannot. Ever sort out better freedoms, or i will just make my own idea of what mambo should be turned into, as it is becomign annoying...

MMMM Vintage 2005 whine... my favorite...
Joomla has a right to control how their image is presented.  If you ask nicely I bet you could get the OK to create a nice Powered by Joomla button.. etc.  MAybe you can create one and offer it to the project.

We need to keep in mind the idea of building some structure and marketable idenity was approved of and desired by the core, they just felt the Mambo Foundation as it was created was unworkable. 

For Joomla to move to the next level, it needs some rules.  So fare the Core has done a good job of involving the commuity and balancing that.

[kaizen]

Love the logo (I voted for it myself), Brand Manual is excellent and well done.

Tagline?

Blechhh!

Says absolutely nothing about the product.  Great name for the organization, but unsuitable for a tagline.

[SineMacula]

Love the logo (I voted for it myself), Brand Manual is excellent and well done.

Tagline?

Blechhh!

Says absolutely nothing about the product.  Great name for the organization, but unsuitable for a tagline.

I tend to agree... I love the logo, and I certainly agree with the sentiment of the tagline, but it seems designed to speak to those who are part of the Open Source community rather than the many end users (think small-med-large companies) for whom that may or may not mean anything or be of importance. I think that from a marketing perspective we'd want something a little more geared towards the benefits of Joomla!

[globule]

as some of our users were starting to ask things like "who is more restrictive, Miro or OSM", no freedom at all, why all this legal stuff etc etc, and this would help to clear some points..?

I've read carefully the Joomla brand manual and felt it very strict :
If you really want to apply it, many of sites have their name based on joomla : Joomla Ressource, Joomla Radio, Planet Joomla, Joomlactive are some of them (http://www.joomla.org/content/blogcategory/21/36/). Will they have to re-design their logo?

I ask this question because I'm in this case(see my logo below). This choice has a history that began before this summer but I didn't have published my site yet. When I kew this the tragedy with Miro, I decided to wait for the knew name to take a decision. So, "come on mambo" project became "come on Joomla!".
I thought it was the best moment for a new site to come if many others would have to change their name. That why I bought "comeonjoomla" name with 4 domain extensions.
But now, if I want to conform with the rules, I must have the 2 logo in my banner. And I don't want to give up my logo because it is the choice of my members (and i love it). The small bird represent a user and the big is our community. I just want "Joomla" to be side by side with my big bird but it's not allowed : the Joomla logo MUST appear before the word 'Joomla' ! (it's one of the rules)

So, what do you suggest?

1. First choice during the official logo contest.
2. 2nd version when the winner has been announced.
3. What it should look like if your rules are applied.

[kaizen]

Love the logo (I voted for it myself), Brand Manual is excellent and well done.

Tagline?

Blechhh!

Says absolutely nothing about the product.  Great name for the organization, but unsuitable for a tagline.

I tend to agree... I love the logo, and I certainly agree with the sentiment of the tagline, but it seems designed to speak to those who are part of the Open Source community rather than the many end users (think small-med-large companies) for whom that may or may not mean anything or be of importance. I think that from a marketing perspective we'd want something a little more geared towards the benefits of Joomla!

This was my idea:

[rhuk]

as some of our users were starting to ask things like "who is more restrictive, Miro or OSM", no freedom at all, why all this legal stuff etc etc, and this would help to clear some points..?

I've read carefully the Joomla brand manual and felt it very strict :
If you really want to apply it, many of sites have their name based on joomla : Joomla Ressource, Joomla Radio, Planet Joomla, Joomlactive are some of them (http://www.joomla.org/content/blogcategory/21/36/). Will they have to re-design their logo?

I ask this question because I'm in this case(see my logo below). This choice has a history that began before this summer but I didn't have published my site yet. When I kew this the tragedy with Miro, I decided to wait for the knew name to take a decision. So, "come on mambo" project became "come on Joomla!".
I thought it was the best moment for a new site to come if many others would have to change their name. That why I bought "comeonjoomla" name with 4 domain extensions.
But now, if I want to conform with the rules, I must have the 2 logo in my banner. And I don't want to give up my logo because it is the choice of my members (and i love it). The small bird represent a user and the big is our community. I just want "Joomla" to be side by side with my big bird but it's not allowed : the Joomla logo MUST appear before the word 'Joomla' ! (it's one of the rules)

So, what do you suggest?

1. First choice during the official logo contest.
2. 2nd version when the winner has been announced.
3. What it should look like if your rules are applied.

Of course you can use your #1 version.  The purpose of the brand manual is not to force you to use the logo anywhere you want to type the word Joomla!  The purpose is that you don't take bits of the logo and manipulate it so that it distorts or takes away from the offical Joomla logo.  So you shouldn't use the Joomla! text as it appears in the offical Joomla! logo without the image in front, but your #1 variation with "come on Joomla!" with the jbird is fine. This is your own logo, your own image, your own font, it does not affect the official logo at all.

Does this make sense?

[chette]

I would like to congratulate whoever was in charge of the copy and the layout. Such a lovely PDF document. (And that's coming from someone who is known for her extreme obsessive compulsiveness on user manuals)

[globule]

... So you shouldn't use the Joomla! text as it appears in the offical Joomla! logo without the image in front, but your #1 variation with "come on Joomla!" with the jbird is fine. This is your own logo, your own image, your own font, it does not affect the official logo at all....

Thank you to have enlighted my mind,rhuk!

[doublebeast]

well, we should be able to use or not use the logo whenever we want with these stupid rules placed on the logo, as basically, i cannot fit the logo on my site as, i haven't got enough room, look at those media wiki logo's it is stupid for it to not be larger than an inch. What is the point in joomla being opensource when the logo isn't. They should scrap it and only accept opensource logo's...

[kaizen]

well, we should be able to use or not use the logo whenever we want with these stupid rules placed on the logo, as basically, i cannot fit the logo on my site as, i haven't got enough room, look at those media wiki logo's it is stupid for it to not be larger than an inch. What is the point in joomla being opensource when the logo isn't. They should scrap it and only accept opensource logo's...

That makes about as much sense as me saying, "Well, I like doublebeast's website logo and I should be able to use it any way I like!"  We're talking about building a brand identity and inconsistency dilutes the whole purpose of establishing a logo and brand.  Noone's saying you have to use the logo at full size, just that the proportions must be the same.  I suggest many of you who have not taken the time to actually READ THE BRAND GUIDE COMPLETELY do so before posting complaints.  I think if you actually read the guidelines you'd realize that most of your worries and complaints are wholly unwarranted.

And BTW, you're getting a world class CMS ...FOR NOTHING!!!  In return for this generous gift, the people who busted their balls to produce it and staked their careers and reputation to bring it to you AND KEEP IT FREE are simply asking that the logo - WHICH THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY had an opportunity to vote on - remains standardized in an effort to build a strong brand recognition.  They hold the copyright and can actually tell you EXACTLY how they want it rendered, but they're allowing you to use your judgement and to follow some simple guidelines.

I'm sorry for shouting, but it pains me to see people be so ungrateful for all the hard work these guys have put in! 

Lighten up and RTFM!

[dmcole]

I'm sorry for shouting, but it pains me to see people be so ungrateful for all the hard work these guys have put in! 

Lighten up and RTFM!

What he said.

\dmc

[globule]

We are all talking about the logo, but I can't read anything about the favicon...
I think we can use  it 'as is'...
                                       
                                              ...even if we don't use the official logo in our sites?

[KaNiko]

Hi,
i dont understand the pdf.

Is my site "Joomla User Group Berlin" illegal? 

http://www.jug-berlin.de

I take the Logo: "Symbol Color" and another backgroundcolor.
(Page 18 of pdf: The logo should never be...placed on any color background  )
Regards
Karin

[MyJC]

2 Things:

The books says the logo is not copyright free. OK, but, who owns the copyright? What is the proper citation? What kind of copyright is it?

The outside space requirement is too high. For example, the Joomla website itself is out of compliance. Yet it looks fine.

wr

[dmcole]

The books says the logo is not copyright free. OK, but, who owns the copyright? What is the proper citation? What kind of copyright is it?

Logos and slogans aren't copyrighted, their trademarked. The Open Source Matters Foundation owns the trademark (or, to probably be more accurate, the OSMF has applied for or will soon apply for trademark status on the logo and slogan in a variety of countries).

\dmc

[idigital]

MMMM Vintage 2005 whine... my favorite...

Ok, I think we have come too far since the split to allow something like this announcement which should have been a celebration to cause a split in the community.

The manual is well written and well presented, but as some members of the community have pointed out it is in some ways not as clear as it could be and given our experiences with using the Mambo logo in the past it could be seen as rather strict considering this has been unleashed without any prior discussion.

I think both sides of the debate have valid points, there is of course a legitimate reason for such a branding guide, as well there is an honest concern from some of the community about what this could mean in the short term.

Given the nature of this project and the open and constructive input taken from the community thus far, I would think that this guide is not set in stone and if need be given community debate it could be relaxed in some ways.

We're supposed to be here to be "All Together" for Joomla! Please, let's not sink into personal attacks and accusations that because someone has a differing opinion to the core team that they are in some way opposed to the project itself.

All together, people.

[MyJC]

The books says the logo is not copyright free. OK, but, who owns the copyright? What is the proper citation? What kind of copyright is it?

Logos and slogans aren't copyrighted, their trademarked. The Open Source Matters Foundation owns the trademark (or, to probably be more accurate, the OSMF has applied for or will soon apply for trademark status on the logo and slogan in a variety of countries).

\dmc

They can be both: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102

The branding manual says, "The Joomla! logo is not copyright free" ... meaning there is a copyright.

Also, I forgot to say "thank you" to everyone involved. I like the final product a lot more now that it's final. Great work!

Thanks,

wr

[MyJC]

I just noticed something....

The Open Source Matters Foundation

That's the second time you said that in this thread...

Open Source Matters is a Foundation? When did that happen?

So, do you know something the rest of us do not or are you speculating?

[dmcole]

You're right on both points and in both instances my typing fingers went faster than my brain.

On the copyright thing, I'm sorry for not looking it up before words came flying out of my keyboard.

On the foundation thing, I'm not privvy to any special information -- when I had opened the Joomla code and saw "Copyright (C) 2005 Open Source Matters. All rights reserved," I just naturally thought that there was a legal entity (and I assumed it was a foundation) that would be the copyright holder.

Obviously, the word "foundation" doesn't appear there at all and now I'm puzzled as to who the trademark/copyright holder actually is. The Core Team is being advised by experienced open source lawyers about how to go about all of this, so I assume there is an entity in some jursidiction that is/will be registering both.

I apologize for my oversights.

\dmc

[shoffman11]

Thank you to all the people involved in creating this new logo, however, I think the brand guide is too greatly infringing upon our use of the logo.  IMHO, the brand guide limits our freedom to adapt the logo to our particular needs.  I don't see the need to require the background to be one of the Joomla colors, or have a specified minimum margin around the logo when used anywhere.  All these restrictions in the brand guide are too particular and insignificant in the bigger picture.  I am starting to worry about a Joomla developers takeover/monopoly against a section of the community.

Joomla is a great piece of open source software, but the brand guide doesn't fit very well into the openness of the project.

[brad]

Thank you to all the people involved in creating this new logo, however, I think the brand guide is too greatly infringing upon our use of the logo.  IMHO, the brand guide limits our freedom to adapt the logo to our particular needs.  I don't see the need to require the background to be one of the Joomla colors, or have a specified minimum margin around the logo when used anywhere.  All these restrictions in the brand guide are too particular and insignificant in the bigger picture.  I am starting to worry about a Joomla developers takeover/monopoly against a section of the community.

Joomla is a great piece of open source software, but the brand guide doesn't fit very well into the openness of the project.

Your opinion is noted, however there are some excellent reasons why the 'strict' use of the logo is a good thing (just read up a few posts/pages). It's better in the long run for Joomla as well. No brand 'dilution' and a clear logo that can only refer to the project.

I am starting to worry about a Joomla developers takeover/monopoly against a section of the community.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this?

[manuman]

Food for thought...

Absolutely anyone can use the logo... you just need to adhere to a few simple rules.

These rules protect the brand... for a somewhat extreme example, what would you all be saying if somebody draped a naked woman over the logo and started using it for a Joomla! powered adult site. Take this a step further and imagine you were seeing a potential client, you proudly propose Joomla! as the solution to all their web problems. Unfortunately you don't know the client spent last night on joomlaadultshop.com. You never knew it, but your were doomed the moment the client saw the logo. 

Now I understand this is an extreme case, but the fact is... we need to cover all such possibilities and must do so without prejudice. Hence the guide is very direct and exact in what it allows and doesn't allow. Some may see this as an infringement on their rights... but forget that what they do with the logo (if given the license to do so) could just as easily infringe on somebody elses right to a clean brand.

Remember.. these rules are not just protecting Joomla!, OSM or the Core Team... they protect every mum, dad, hobbiest, professional, student, cat, dog whatever... that uses Joomla! The brand guide protects all users of Joomla!

Well thats my little rant for the week. 

Cheers
Shayne

[idigital]

Yeah, I suppose it would protect the Joomla! logo from things like this Miro logo that was on the Lone Mamber's site:



Not that I think this project could ever fall into the same hole as Miro and have such pranksters making parody logo's like that, but there is definitely sense in the long term with the branding guide.

I still think it's fair enough that some people in the community might feel suddenly restricted by the guidelines, and that in the short term it might cause more trouble than it's worth (in the short term). For instance, how are these branding guidelines going to be enforced, I can imagine that alone could create many headaches for some team members, when there are much more important tasks to be taken care of.

It's not a nice comparison, but how would the community here have reacted to Miro doing the same thing with the Mambo logo? I'd say there'd be much less support than has been seen here for this guide.

I think it's important to keep in mind that after the situation with Miro, some community members are still reeling from the shock of it and are even unsure of the Joomla! project and it's direction. I have complete confidence in the team and the future of the project, but then I also have the advantage of knowing some team members and having been around the project for a while. People who haven't been as involved in the community, or are new to this community, might be easily scared off...

Just my 2c

[urquharttownson]

Hi,
i dont understand the pdf.

Is my site "Joomla User Group Berlin" illegal? 

http://www.jug-berlin.de

I take the Logo: "Symbol Color" and another backgroundcolor.
(Page 18 of pdf: The logo should never be...placed on any color background  )
Regards
Karin

KaNiko,

There is a reason why at this time we only want the logo to be displayed on black or white. It comes down to contrast between the logo and the background. On your site, the green color in the logo gets lost on the blue gray background. The best way to determine if there is not enough contrast between an object and the background is to squint your eyes and look at the object. You will notice the the green in the logo all but disappears. This is one of the reasons the background rule was added to the manual.

I do see the need now though, from reading the posts that we need explain certain rules better and potentially offer the ability of the logo to be placed on colored backgrounds other than white or black. I will discuss this with the development team and the decision will ultimately be theirs. In order for the rule to be modified though we would have to require that any background colors used would have to provide adequate contrast between the logo and the background. We will have to word it properly in the manual so that there is no questions on what background colors will work and what colors will not. The color you have chosen, unfortunately does not provide enough contrast.

[manuman]

I agree with idigital 100% on the short term problems, and again on the longer term gains... in 1, 2.. 5 years we would hope that the Joomla! brand is strong and recoginised as a mark of exellence. This will not happen if the brand has no protection and ends up being used on an ad hoc basis with no control of usage. Idigitals satirical Mambo flower being a perfect example of what we wouldn't want.

I think one of the things we are trying to achieve is a greater level of professionalism, this will hopefully become more aparent over time. Whilst Joomla! is a hobby for some, many people depend on it to support themselves and their families. The hobbiest won't be greatly effected by the Brand Guide... but the people who depend on Joomla! would be greatly effected by its absence.