A History of Logo Larceny
Take a good look. On the left is a logo created by Mike Ivall and first posted to the Icethetics blog on July 8, 2008. It has a habit of stirring up controversy in the form of infringement because, on right is the new logo of the NAHL's Port Huron Fighting Falcons, who will have an unveiling event for it on Wednesday.
There is no question where this Fighting Falcons logo came from. Too many distinct elements just copied outright without much else altered. What is perhaps most disturbing is that this team isn't even bothering to credit the logo's original creator and, in fact, crediting someone else entirely. Someone named Larry Smith of Tag Sports Graphics gets the nod on the team's website.
Mike tells me he emailed the team over the weekend and is waiting to hear back. I also have an email into the them seeking comment on the situation. I'll let you know if they reply.
This isn't the first time Mike's logo has been used without his permission. Most recently, he worked out a deal with the Maplesoft Hawks, a AAA organization based in Ottawa, had been using his exact logo on team merchandise.
However, a rather shady company called Chi-City Tees, presumably based in Chicago, is selling t-shirts featuring Mike's design — without his permission. They list no physical address on their website. Another company called MNM Hockey, is using a slightly altered version of the logo to promote its site. To my knowledge, neither organization has worked out a deal with Mike.
That just makes them thieves.
Chris
The situation regarding the logo seems to have sputtered out this week. The Fighting Falcons will apparently go back to the drawing board on this one. Times Herald writer Paul Costanzo spoke with president/GM Ernie Hicke at Wednesday's press conference:
On the logo: I talked briefly to Hicke about it, and basically the team is looking for a new one. Mike Ivall had created a logo very similar to the Fighting Falcons (not the same) and had contacted the team. Nobody wanted to get into a legal dispute over it, so the team is just going to create a new logo.
Sounds like that wraps things up. I'll keep an eye out for the new logo and share it here on the blog when the team does unveil it. The season begins Sept. 10, so we should see it before then.
Reader Comments (72)
Given the very high quality of some of the submissions to Icethetics, I wouldn't be surprised if the site's concepts section becomes fertile ground for lazy designers to do a quick snatch-and-grab on some of the better pieces of work, like Mike's. It's a sad thought, really.
Wow. Just wow. People seriously can't come up witht their own ideas? Despicable.
despicable. We really need a proper fair use disclaimer on his website.
This is total bs, especially coming from a team in usa hockey now.
I agree this is ridiculous, but if there is no copyright or trade mark on the logo, its fair game to be stolen. I know since this is just a blog, it shouldnt be a big deal, but it seems that most of the stuff that is good that ends up on here needs to be disclaimed properly, copyrighted or trade marked.
Danny's got a good point about the Fair Use Copyright Law and a Creative Commons license. It would do wonders, I'd imagine.
The Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License would specifically be useful, as the NonCommercial clause of the license says that imagery may be reproduced or displayed as long as it does not interfere with the original artist's revenue stream. Poaching the image keeps money from Mike's, in this instance, pocket and puts it into the poacher's. Text-book violation of the Fair Use Copyright Law right there.
McBain, I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but I approved this comment to make a point. You couldn't be more wrong. Work posted on this site is de facto copyrighted by the creator regardless of whether the © or TM appears in the image. Simply posting it for the public to view does NOT enter it into the public domain. NOTHING HERE IS FAIR GAME TO BE STOLEN. Designers retain all rights and ownership of their original work. Just want to make sure that is clear to everyone.
LittleTimmy: But Mr.Chris, how
doI protect myself from being a victim of stolen property by hands of internet's greed?Nevermind, I just saw the license widget at the bottom of the page. Good on ya, Chris.
There doesn't need to be a copyright or anything else on the logo. Copyright is automatically assigned to any work that is created is physical form. No formal paperwork needs to be filed although it can be to make situations like this easier to decide on in courts.
Peter, the only surefire to way to make sure no one steals any work from you on the internet is to simply not post anything for anyone to steal. But then your work is seen and appreciated by no one. You can't prevent anyone from doing anything. All you can do is prosecute the offenders in the aftermath.
Check out the Fighting Falcons Wikipedia entry that ahem someone ahem edited...
Link
You should at least start putting some sort of overlay watermark on all of the concepts that are posted. Or the authors should be adding their own. I know that it isn't a complete deterrent but every little thing helps.
hahaha nice work Johnny.
this guy didn't even create the new eye (which is the only big difference) - he stole that from the old arizona cardinals logo. sheesh... shakes head
I actually saw the logo on a t-shirt for sale in a store near the United Center. I took a picture to send to Chris, but unfortunately I lost my camera in the craziness that was game 1 of the SCF.
Sounds like "Larry Smith" has a lot to answer for. Hopefully Mike gets his compensation, this is BS how everyone is altering his original logo.
johnny that is so awesome XDDDD
I wonder how long that edit will stay up there before some Wikipedia edit-hawk decides it's not NPOV enough and changes or removes it.
It's interesting that we have this going on (and poor Mike, having to go through this again!), while we also have the whole Weagle thing. At least with the hawk, we know it's been out there - it's documented, and there's already been one settlement over its appropriation.
Nice work johnny!
That tee shirt from the chi-city tees is awesome and i would definitely buy one but only if it was something that mike ivall made himself or something. It's even more disgraceful that they put the TM thing right next to the logo since it ISN'T THEIRS TO DO SO!!!!
Looks like your edit was edited.
Mike here has got to be annoyed. Maplesoft, Port Huron, Chi-City Tees, MNM, and one more you didn't mention - Hossports. Wow. I mean, it's a great design, but you'd think people wouldn't be such rats.
What I find strange is the actual need to copy everything so obviously. If a team is called Fighting Falcons, what is the purpose of the falcon wearing other feathers on his head. The feathers obviously relate to the indian wearing the feathers on the Blackhawks logo, but is not relevant with a team called Falcons. If they just coloured the area with the feathers in black and maybe put the team name inside there, it wouldn't be so blatant.
But I guess that is not what we are discussing here.
i feel really bad for the artists who get their concepts jacked. honestly like most have said thats really low, especially imo from "professional" or "semi-professional" hockey clubs. i mean, you have the cash, pay them.
GO BLUES!!!
There is also some clown on Ebay selling jerseys with Mike's Logo...just do a search for hockey practice jersey and you'll find it. Hopefully...it's just a template of a jersey he's made to serve as an "example", but unless Mike authorized it, sounds like some other joker may have stolen and had this guy on Ebay make them for him. Maybe it's this MNM Hockey place...who knows? BS to the Third...
My wikipedia entry was, in fact, taken down. So, too, was the offending logo image. However, Greg T has created another entry:
"Their logo is controversial, as the current version, claimed as original by its designer, bears remarkable resemblance to a logo originally designed by Mike Ivall. The original logo by Mr. Ivall was first released as concept art for the Chicago Blackhawks on Icethetics.info on July 8, 2008."
This entry reads much better than my quick, angry version!
Sent an email to the league about this. Might help
It says on the Fighting Hawks website that they are holding a press conference on July 14. Looks like they will introduce the team and uniforms then, with Mike's logo. It'll be a nasty shock for the team's PR staff to find out about this.
Hopefully they will change the message on the website, giving Mike full credit for the idea and giving Smith a minor mention for altering the the logo (Or better yet, leave him out altogether).
According to Puckdrawn, a local writer for Port Huron's newspaper has picked up the story, thanks to Johnny Griswwold and has also emailed the team, as well as Mike for an interview. If the Falcons continue to ignore everyone, they are going to face some bad press.
Oh the irony. Mike Ivall is complaining about the theft of his logo that itself blatantly infringes upon the Blackhawks brand.
I hate to break this to you folks but if this ever went to court it would be thrown out so fast your head would spin. Go read up on trademark law. You can not trademark a logo that infringes upon the Blackhawks intellectual property this obviously. This is text book fair use.
It looks like now a writer from the Times Herald in Port Huron picked up on this story. The writer e-mailed the team's owner. Looks like things are about to get exciting.
Larry Smith is a talentless parasite. I'm glad he has been shown for the hack he is. He has a lot of nerve to claim credit for this.
Mike Ivall, congrats on creating an enduring design worthy of branding teams and merchandise. I wish you got the royalties and the proper recognition that come with it. For now it is a feather in your cap, something to boast about. I almost wish I had your problems! Anyways keep up the good work!
NHLJEFF, I also saw shirts with that logo on it around Wrigley Field just after the Hawks won the cup. I knew it looked familiar, but I couldn't remember where I saw it originally
The league was made aware of the issue within five minutes of sending the email unveiling the logo.
This is really sad. They are said to be announcing the team in a press conference on Wednesday, maybe someone should go there (if they are close) and protest? That'd be interesting. Hehehe.
The problem that I'm seeing here is that, like Chris has alluded to, is that some people are simply too lazy to be this creative themselves.
However, as also previously alluded to, the "offending" logo is also infringing on Chicago Blackhawks design, which means that if they're forced to change the logo, it won't be on the grounds of the person who posted it on this site, but because the Chicago Blackhawks raise a stink.
Now, I'm under the impression that the original creator of the Eagle logo isn't getting anything monetarily from this, which is fine, but this is why I'm not very fond of some of the re-concepting that goes on here. Simply put, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Let the teams determine that for themselves.
@ Reality
The point here is that Mr. Smith the "designer" of the Fighting Falcons logo ripped off Mike Ivall. Mike's concept was never meant to be for public consumption as a logo of any hockey team. It was created as a concept art for this site. Therefore, there has been no infringement on his part, as it was just a concept. However, if Port Huron is going to use it, then they should either credit Mike or better yet, pay Mike to design a new logo for them.
If you are going to say that all concept art is copyright infringement, the the concept portion of this site, and other sites like it should just be shuttered away, and banned forever.
And if Mike's (and therefore the ripoff's) logo is not for use under the Blackhawks property as you claim, then why wouldn't the Blackhawks go after the Port Huron Fighting Falcons in that case? After all, under your ruling, it is the Blackhawks' intellectual property.
Either way, Port Huron is in a little bit of a bind because of their hired designers.
Oh, and FWIW, Tag Sports Graphics also has a pirated version of Keith Flynn's OJHL Burlington Cougars logo as a football helmet sticker.
@ Reality....
Are you kidding???? First off, I must state that it is obvious that this is a representative of 'snag sports graphics', if not Mr. Smith himself!!! Secondly, It is interesting that you are attempting to cover yourself with 'fair use' clauses when it is known that you pass other peoples work off as your own all of the time...Do the Burlington Cougars ring a bell????
Also, please explain how a hawk head with feathers is an infrigment of the Blackhawks logo which is an Indian head with feathers???
The concept of owning an idea is ridiculous. Reserving a distinctive image as a distinguishing feature to indicate the producer or provider of a product or service makes sense to me, but copyright and patents have no legitimate place in modern society. The creator of the Fighting Falcons logo may have used the Blackhawks logo and Mike's logo as inspiration, but there should be no law to prevent the use of the logo.
That being said, the laws do exist. And Mike has every right to take legal action here. There is a good chance that he will win. But our society has to carry the dead wait of such rent seeking behavior regardless of the outcome. When will this madness stop?
<i>Also, please explain how a hawk head with feathers is an infrigment of the Blackhawks logo which is an Indian head with feathers???</i>
Both use four feathers, using the same primary feather colors and trim (red feather with white and green; green feather with yellow; yellow feather with blue; orange feather with white). One of the concepts behind Mr. Ivall's design is that the use of the exact four feathers brings a sense of continuity between the Indian head logo and his design.
As Mr. Ivall has not used his design for commercial or financial gain, I don't think fair use would apply here.
Theives and crooks are out there. Don't like it, but ya gotta accept it. There was a team in a the "high minors" that stole something of mine about 10 years ago. Luckily, I had mailed a copy of the art to myself via certified mail, so I had proof of the date of creation. Is it fool proof?...no. But knowing I had this, the attorney for the team "suggested" they either pay me or move on to another logo. Sometimes the good guys win. I hope everyone here not only keeps up the amazing work that you post here and on Puckdrawn, but that you protect yourselves from the cretins who obviously troll around this site.
Wow, Ivall, man. Is there any way that you can get the original logo copyrighted now, just so that you have a way better chance in court? This REALLY STINKS. Keep up the fight, brother, we're behind you all the way.
@ TheLazyPeopleWhoStealOtherPeople'sWork- PIRACY IS CRUEL! Man up and design your own logos! If you can't design one good enough, then ASK SOMEONE (and then credit them) or DON'T DESIGN ONE AT ALL!! (like me) Seriously, do it right, or DON'T DO IT AT ALL!!!
This regards intellectual property law. However it has been stated before that it may be infringing on the Blackhawks Trademark (NOT intellectual property).
Technically the artist could file suit under IP law.
The artist would have just as strong suit under IP law as the Hawks would against him under Infringement. So its really up to him whether the risk is worth it. He files against them and wins, the Hawks may file against him, and probably win.
Well, that article doesn't really help Mike Ivall's case.
The incidents with the Maplesoft Hawks, Chi-City Tees look like exact copies (Go get them Mike!), also the Chi-City Tees do use the logo for the Blackhawks merchandise so the Hawks may be interested in Chi-City Tees as well ;). MNM Hockey has some differences, also I don't believe they are actually selling it, just using a similar logo as an idea/example of what the company does. Compared with the others, the Port Huron logo has the most differences from the original. The beak does look exact copy but ideas can be copied/used so if the artist of the PH logo changes some of the beak, then I think the two logos would be different enough to avoid copyright issues.
Imagine for a moment that you design a great graphic for Elvis Presley and then someone comes along and starts selling a bunch of Tshirts with your design. Of course you are pissed at the company selling the Tshirts, but how do you think the estate of Elvis Presley feels? They're the ones that own the rights to his likeness and they are the ones that are ultimately losing out.
Mike Ivall may have good reason to be pissed about someone profiting from his design, but he has no grounds to claim a trade mark for a concept that is unquestionably is based on the Blackhawks brand and seeks to associate itself with the team. This is absolutely without a doubt the Blackhawks intellectual property we are talking about here and to suggest otherwise is silly. Everyone that looks at this logo sees the obvious connection to the Blackhawks brand and that is what it's value is based upon.
Of course this doesn't mean that he can't sell merchandise with his logo on it, but don't expect any court to protect a fan concept such as this when others copy it. You can't trade mark a logo for a brand that you do not own.
I hate to say this is one reason why I have a hard time submitting my stuff up to this site. I'd loved to get peoples feedback but when people dont respect that fact then it becomes a problem.
@reality-It's nice and all that you studied up on your law and stuff, but that is all for not, because when you scroll to the bottom of the page it says two things: Logos and artwork are property of their respective owners, and Concept art featured on Icethetics is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
So there you have it. As far as I'm concerned that logo is legally property of Mike and he controls how it can and cannot be used.
So, should the Chicago Blackhawks go after the Portland Winter Hawks of the Western Hockey League, as their logo is as close to a direct knock off as anyone can get?
To the person that posted that Mr. Ivall's design wasn't meant for public consumption, then maybe he shouldn't have posted it on the internet.
Reality is that people are lazy, they will do this, and maybe this should be a lesson that if you don't want your ideas leeched, keep them to yourself. That's why I haven't posted my concepts, or sent them to Chris.
this guy's logo loks better than the original