Logos and "LogoDesigners"

Fabiouser's picture

Hello typographer and typo aficionados;

It been a while that I noticed that this urge of logotype epiphany is recurring in the global news and on other news. "A new logotype was made for the X company".
Well, last month I went to a presentation of some startup companies: a place where a logotype need a place to live. There, some designers shown their logotypes, presenting them as their beautiful children. Back, I am wondering: That logotype is just a 'chosen by someone typeface' with a color and the name of the company.

Why they call theirselves "the creators of the logotype?".
You, that make the typefaces that they use, are not that creator of it (on that kind of cases)? Or, because they buy the typeface, they are the owners of your creativity? I said that, because they neither bother to refer the name nor the creator of that typeface.

What do you guys think of that?

Thanks Fábio Santos

JamesM's picture

It would be helpful if you posted specific examples.

A logo consisting of just the name in a commercial font may seem like a lazy solution (and in some cases it might be), but keep in mind that startups often have very tight budgets and the logo designer may just be someone on their staff or a low-budget freelancer.

Also it's likely that the designer presented a variety of logos, and the client chose the simple one.

As for mentioning the font name, designers are under no obligation to do so. When you buy a font you're free to use it as you wish (within the terms of the license).

Nick Shinn's picture

I’ve never been very impressed with wordmarks that are straight off-the-shelf font gylphs, no matter how nicely kerned.

However, if the company name plays second fiddle to an original symbol, then plain type is just fine.

When the logo is banal—the recent GAP makeover with Helvetica and a square comes to mind—again, I wonder.

As James says, despite the underwhelming design of a logo, it may nonetheless have been through a relevant design process and, as part of a corporate identity, be a good design solution and provide an effective identity for the company.

Concerning creative authorship, as a type designer I’m flattered whenever anybody uses one of my types—providing they have paid for it—so see no need to be acknowledged.

There are some foundries which stipulate in their EULAs that using one of their types as the creative whole of something such as a logo requires special licensing.

Nick Shinn's picture

(Double post)

gezegen's picture

It's not that simple. According to your arguments, Gustav Jaeger, creator of the typeface "Catull", must be considered the creator of the Google logo as well! Looking for and choosing a particular typeface for a company logo is a (design) process on its own. Someone, and not Gustav Jaeger, spent time, chose Catull and created the logo for Google.

Fabiouser's picture

Nice point @gazegen. One of the most chosen typefaces that I had noticed is Underware Lisa. It is impressive the amount of times that I already saw that typeface in just different colors.

This is a place where I find some answers for my random thoughts. As a Designer I do know how sometimes doing a logo might be.

Syndicate content Syndicate content