Skip

W In Court Again
September 9, 2006 1:53 PM   Subscribe


 
[NewsFilter] I know, a one link post (sigh]. I was so sure this would be all over the Internets by now.
posted by Robert Angelo at 1:54 PM on September 9, 2006


How could they write an article like that without actually including images of the logos in question?
posted by Bugbread at 1:59 PM on September 9, 2006


"I don't think that two people could look at both of these logos and say one was copied from the other," said Ted Jackson, founder of Spalding Group, which has produced materials for GOP presidential campaigns since 1984. "They're just completely, totally dissimilar."

combined with...

"In the official George W. Bush for President logo, started in the fall of 1999 up until the (2000 Republican) convention ... the W-dot is exactly in the same font that Mr. Gossett chose to use," Jackson said. "There are over 5,000 different fonts available in the marketplace, and Mr. Gossett somehow chose to use that exact font."

Er. I guess I can't really know without seeing both but these two statements seem to contradict each other.
posted by effwerd at 2:06 PM on September 9, 2006


pictures, we need pictures
posted by caddis at 2:06 PM on September 9, 2006


D'oh. My reading comprehension is off today. The 2000 campaign logo is not the similar logo.
posted by effwerd at 2:10 PM on September 9, 2006


I thought the legal precedent was already set when Negativland got nailed over their use of the letter U and the numeral 2.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 2:21 PM on September 9, 2006


If the RNC has to cough up $millions in infringement damages, that means less in the coffers for endless poltical attack ads on TV. Now do you care?
posted by Cranberry at 2:21 PM on September 9, 2006


angry anti-marketing comment about logos™ and idealistic poltical systems that don't exist in $amerikkka
posted by Mikey-San at 2:23 PM on September 9, 2006


NYT didn't include pictures either (although the article might have before it was archived).
posted by owhydididoit at 2:28 PM on September 9, 2006


Silly... this will probably drag on for years and bankrupt the plaintiff through legal fees.
posted by clevershark at 2:32 PM on September 9, 2006



posted by Rhomboid at 2:35 PM on September 9, 2006


or maybe this one, I don't know.
posted by Rhomboid at 2:38 PM on September 9, 2006


rhombold:

your second link reminds me of a tax form.

"hey, did you get your W-04s in the mail? you gotta file soon, you know."
posted by Mikey-San at 2:46 PM on September 9, 2006


The one I kept seeing around here was a dark-red circle with a white, serif, capital "W" in the center. Dunno if that's the one or not.
As a designer, I had to give them props for a great "logo". It worked well.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:48 PM on September 9, 2006


Pic's were in the print edition of the Chron, but they aren't online -- dunno why. I'd searched before posting this, didn't see it when I Googled.

Now I search again, and find that it's old news: see this, from BBC last year. They include a pic of the Gosset logo.

Bottom line for me is that it's amusing and embarrasing for the RNC. I'm surprised that they didn't just settle to make Gosset go away.
posted by Robert Angelo at 2:53 PM on September 9, 2006


Thorzdad, I think you're talking about the "W: the president" sticker that was supposed to look kinda like the banana republic logo.

I assume these are just two european-looking white oval W stickers they're talking about?

Also, wouldn't he need to trademark the design, not just rely on copyright for a case?
posted by mathowie at 2:53 PM on September 9, 2006


Rhomboid, I don't think it's either of those,

from the link:
Gossett's design, which his attorney said was inspired by the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, shows a serifed capital W and a period, a twice-creased U.S. flag flying slightly downward from the W's right side, and the number 43, representing Bush's place in the line of American presidents.


So we need to find one with a flag and a 43.
posted by quin at 2:58 PM on September 9, 2006


I've seen that one, quin, but I can't find a picture. At first I thought they were talking about this one, though.
posted by brundlefly at 3:21 PM on September 9, 2006


Isn't the root of the issue that he pitched them on marketing Bush with just the "W" and they turned him down and then did it? It's not that they happened to use the W, it's that they took the idea from him and ran with it without credit or compensation.

I assume he's arguing and has to prove that had he not pitched the W marketing idea, they would not have come up with it on their own.
posted by dobbs at 3:32 PM on September 9, 2006


Bottom line for me is that it's amusing and embarrasing for the RNC. I'm surprised that they didn't just settle to make Gosset go away.

They would then have to admit they were wrong.

I just don't think these folks are wired that way:


posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:58 PM on September 9, 2006


Hester Pryn (Scarlet Letter) wore the letter A to signify to tghe public that she was a sinner. Does the W stand for whore, wimp, wuss, weird, wannabee or What, me Worry?
posted by Postroad at 4:11 PM on September 9, 2006


I enjoy seeing Republicans fucked over by other Republicans.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 4:18 PM on September 9, 2006


Hester Pryn (Scarlet Letter) wore the letter A to signify to tghe public that she was a sinner. Does the W stand for whore, wimp, wuss, weird, wannabee or What, me Worry?

wtarded
posted by Mikey-San at 4:18 PM on September 9, 2006




In the BBC News image on the left, Gossett is holding his bumper sticker design.

The W'04 bumper sticker on the right is listed by the American Association of Political Consultants as one of their 2005 Pollie Award Winners. It was a Gold winner in the "Most Original / Innovative Collateral Items" category (large image here).

The design is credited to RSD Advertising in Austin, Texas. If you click on the page's Portfolio link, then on the horizontally scrolling 'Logos designed by RSD' link, you'll see the design along with others done for the Bush 2004 campaign and Bush family.

If you'd like to buy a sticker for your car, it's available from Patriotic Jewelry.Com.
posted by cenoxo at 4:22 PM on September 9, 2006


wapture?
posted by owhydididoit at 4:24 PM on September 9, 2006


Can anyone link/cite an earlier "logo" promoting Bush that uses just a W and a flag? If not, I'd say it's Gossett's idea and clearly RSD's ripped it. (I think they've clearly ripped it, regardless. It's just a matter of if Gossett himself ripped it.)
posted by dobbs at 4:29 PM on September 9, 2006


The gosset one is better.
posted by phrontist at 4:39 PM on September 9, 2006


Correction — If you click on the RSD page's Portfolio link, then on the drop-down Corporate Identity menu item, then on the horizontally scrolling 'Logos designed by RSD' link, you'll see the design...
posted by cenoxo at 4:40 PM on September 9, 2006


I think the Gosset one is worse, it looks less powerful. The flag in the Gosset version is to exact, it looks busy compared to the stylized flag the RNC ended up using. Plus is points downward, which I think is a mistake.

I think it is pretty clear the RNC took their cues from the Gosset design, and probably shouldn't have. But when it comes to the design I think the one they ended up using blows Gosset's design out of the water.
posted by I Foody at 4:54 PM on September 9, 2006


I think that there's no debate over which design is better. The stylized flag works much better than the realistic one, and the to-the-point '04 is much easier to understand than the ambiguous 43. The question is if the RNC's design is an improvement on Gosset's idea, or just a (superior) coincidence.
posted by luftmensch at 5:22 PM on September 9, 2006


Speaking of W. and the law: Another major NSA legal defeat for the Bush administration.
posted by homunculus at 5:32 PM on September 9, 2006


What does Bush have to do with Richard Petty(http://www.nascar.com/promos/2004/petty/index.html)? snicker snicker.
posted by winks007 at 6:09 PM on September 9, 2006


"wildly popular"
posted by cillit bang at 6:11 PM on September 9, 2006



posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:28 PM on September 9, 2006


That is to say...

?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:32 PM on September 9, 2006 [1 favorite]


W.orst
posted by Kickstart70 at 6:53 PM on September 9, 2006




great with freedom fries
posted by pyramid termite at 7:20 PM on September 9, 2006




What about an upside down W? Would that be a patent infringement also?
posted by c13 at 8:14 PM on September 9, 2006



posted by djeo at 8:21 PM on September 9, 2006


  1. Why is he suing now, in 2006, if they ripped him off in 2004?
  2. Gosset's design is uglier than RSD's.
  3. They both use unneccessary punctuation.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:29 PM on September 9, 2006


As a graphic designer, I don't think it's close enough for a case. It's not a particularly brilliant idea, so it doesn't surprise me that someone could come up with something similar.

In a not-very-related issue, I live three blocks from the Spaulding Company mentioned in the article. I've always wondered what it was when I walked by; it's a small, anonymous brick building tucked between a hair salon and a Chevron station. They don't look like the kind of place that would be stretching out a lawsuit on the strength of their massive legal team, but then who knows?
posted by Mcable at 6:11 AM on September 10, 2006


Gosset's is better. It's the flag of the United States of America. Not something to be stylized into something 'cute'. You wanna burn it, go ahead. You wanna use it in a logo for political office, you respect it.

The 43 is obscure. Stupid, really.

The font is better on RSD's.

Both problems are simple fixes.
posted by Goofyy at 6:22 AM on September 10, 2006


... [His lawyer] said his client was a Republican who attended the 2005 inauguration despite the perceived copyright infringement.

Aw, what a brave man.

obligatory related self-link
posted by odinsdream at 7:53 AM on September 10, 2006


Goofyy : "It's the flag of the United States of America. Not something to be stylized into something 'cute'. You wanna burn it, go ahead. You wanna use it in a logo for political office, you respect it."

I've seen artists draw stylized pictures of other artists and people they respected. Perhaps, for you, stylizing something into something 'cute' is not respecting it. But that's your hangup. If that's the bar we're setting, then I may as well counter with "It's the flag of the United States of America. It is a symbol. If you wanna burn it, go ahead. If you wanna use it in a logo for a political office, respect that it's a symbol, and don't disrespect it with attempts at photorealism."
posted by Bugbread at 8:43 AM on September 10, 2006


Why is he suing now, in 2006, if they ripped him off in 2004?

The lawsuit was filed 2005. The news story was prompted by a court date being set for November.
posted by Robert Angelo at 11:09 AM on September 10, 2006


W.anker?

FWIW the campaign one is graphically simpler and less busy -- therefore better as a logo.
posted by clevershark at 12:23 PM on September 10, 2006


A different W.
posted by the Real Dan at 3:46 PM on September 10, 2006


« Older It's all smoot...   |   Louis Gottschalk Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post