[Openid-specs-ab] Branding for OpenID Connect
Justin Richer
jricher at mitre.org
Wed Apr 11 13:18:08 UTC 2012
Chris has the intent right -- I wanted something more iconic that could
be recognizable, distinct from either the existing OpenID or OAuth
brands (though definitely using elements from the former), and easily
dropped into things like presentation decks, websites, etc. I want
something that buttonizes well, and because they are drastically
different protocols, it can't look like the same button that gets used
for OpenID 2.0 today.
One of the major things I've been doing lately has been trying to keep
people straight on the fact that Connect is a different protocol than
OpenID 2.0 (or earlier), and as such it has very different usage and
security profiles. The use of "OpenID" as a name for a whole family of
protocols including one very widely known version can cause confusion
here. For instance, some of the people I've talked to have looked at
OpenID 2.0, decided it doesn't fit their use case for a variety of valid
reasons, and moved on. Now coming to the table with Connect, I find that
they throw it into the same "already decided it's bad" bucket as the
legacy OpenID 2.0 stack. Will a distinct brand / logo fix this? Not on
its own, but I think it'd help.
Do I think we should change the name? No, I think that OpenID Connect
makes a lot of sense. But I do think we need a bit more than words,
something overall more distinct for the uses and reasons given above.
I understand the hesitation of the OIDF in adopting anything like this
as "official", and I'm fine with the reasoning given for that. But what
are people like me, community members trying to get the word out,
supposed to do when we don't want just plain text? I like pictures. I
like shiny things. Until now, in the absence of any kind of official
iconography, I've been using Chris's dark gray button from his original
post about the OpenID Connect term:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4053/4246318962_f1507a6a7f_o.png
But with all that said, because both Chris and a few members of the WG
here have requested, I'll not use this logo generally. Even though I
*really* like it (in concept at least, I think that it still needs some
work in execution). But I'm hoping that this thread at least gets the
right conversations started about this topic that I think we'll have to
address sooner or later.
-- Justin
On 04/10/2012 09:52 PM, Chris Messina wrote:
> I also think that this is a bit confusing as it conflates these brands
> when really they need to stand on their own.
>
> OAuth is a very particular brand/community with a different org
> structure than the OIDF. If anything, the OpenID Connect brand should
> derive from the OpenID logo, rather than from the OAuth logo, even
> though there is a technical relationship between the two.
>
> I also think that more due consideration/investment should be given to
> the OpenID Connect brand — though that's obviously not in my hands at
> the moment. I appreciate Justin's efforts here, but think that this
> logo misses the mark (pun intended).
>
> A safer path (IMO) would be to simply use a word mark, like this:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/4609980463/
>
> …though I understand that there may be a desire to have a more iconic
> representation of this technology for use on stickers and the like…
> but that, I think, would require additional design effort here.
>
> FWIW, my intention was to release the OAuth mark under the "community
> mark
> <http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2006/01/14/the-case-for-community-marks/>"
> concept — and let the community enforce its use. This is different
> from a copyright license of course… so, if I do represent the OAuth
> community, I'd be wary if not opposed to using this mark in this way.
>
> Sorry Justin!
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Anthony Nadalin
> <tonynad at microsoft.com <mailto:tonynad at microsoft.com>> wrote:
>
> We should not be promoting this or using this logo as this can
> cause OIDF legal issues now
>
> *From:*Nat Sakimura [mailto:sakimura at gmail.com
> <mailto:sakimura at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2012 4:59 PM
> *To:* Pam Dingle
> *Cc:* Anthony Nadalin; Mike Jones; Richer, Justin P.; OpenID ABC
> Working Group; Chris Messina
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Branding for OpenID Connect
>
> I like the logo. Thank you very much Justin and Chris.
>
> I would send it to the marketing committee to see what they can
> come up with.
>
> If I were in the position to check it, I would first check if it
> constitute a derivative mark of the OpenID trademark, and the
> copyright and licensing status of the baseline OAuth graphics.
>
> If it is deemed to be protected under our current trademark, that
> would be very good as it would not incur us additional cost as far
> as the trademark registering is concerned.
>
> If not, the cost issue will kick in if we want to protect it. My
> feeling is that it would be adequately protected under our current
> trademark but it needs to be seen.
>
> As to the copyright status of the OAuth graphics is concerned, I
> understand that it is CC-BY-SA.
>
> (http://wiki.oauth.net/w/page/12238520/Logo)
>
> So there does not seem problem in modifying it like this one.
>
> The potential problem I see is that then the connect logo may
> become CC-BY-SA as well.
>
> If that is the case, I am not sure how the trademark (which is
> obviously non SA and ND) and this CC license intersection is to be
> dealt with.
>
> If Chris could license the baseline graphics to OIDF with CC-BY,
> then it may solve the issue, but it needs attorney consultation.
> It would not be a big $$.
>
> In any case, this is a valuable community input and IMHO the
> marketing committee should look at and make a recommendation to
> the board.
>
> Pam, could you kindly send it to the marketing committee so that
> they can deal with it?
>
> Best,
>
> Nat
>
> P.S. As far as I have check in US, JP, Wipo, OAuth is not
> trademarked, which I believe is a problem that OAuth community
> should deal with. So, for the logo, it is only the copyright that
> kicks in, and the copyright holder I believe is Chris.
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:02 AM, Pam Dingle
> <pdingle at pingidentity.com <mailto:pdingle at pingidentity.com>> wrote:
>
> It is a beautifully made and distinctive logo. I really like it!
> Mike and Tony are right though, we do need to look at the cost to
> the foundation that this could incur. If we choose to protect
> this logo, there will be a not insubstantial legal cost. If we
> choose not to protect this logo and it is used anyway, there are
> also possible consequences and costs. We need to make a case to
> the board as to why that cost is justified, and make an explicit
> and informed branding decision.
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Anthony Nadalin
> <tonynad at microsoft.com <mailto:tonynad at microsoft.com>> wrote:
>
> agree
>
> *From:*openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net
> <mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net>
> [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net
> <mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net>] *On Behalf Of
> *Mike Jones
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:35 AM
> *To:* Richer, Justin P.; Nat Sakimura
>
>
> *Cc:* OpenID ABC Working Group; Chris Messina
> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Branding for OpenID Connect
>
> As a board member, I believe that I must object. The trademark
> status of the OAuth logo is unknown. Combining the OpenID logo
> with it could constitute an act of infringement.
>
> Furthermore, branding is a big deal. We shouldn’t be publicly
> displaying potential branding elements until there’s consensus,
> including from the board, that it’s the right thing to do, and
> that the board is committed to spending the tens to hundreds of
> thousands necessary to defend a new trademark.
>
> --
> Mike
>
> *From:*openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net
> <mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net>
> [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net]
> <mailto:[mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net]> *On
> Behalf Of *Richer, Justin P.
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:29 AM
> *To:* Nat Sakimura
> *Cc:* OpenID ABC Working Group; Chris Messina
> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Branding for OpenID Connect
>
> OK, taking the idea a step further and working with the shiny-logo
> file from Chris Messina (thanks, Chris!), this is what I've come
> up with. It takes the OAuth logo, replaces the text and central
> logo, and adds a bronze/orange tint to the shiny bits. Unless the
> working group objects specifically, I'm going to start using this
> in at least my own talks.
>
> -- Justin
>
> On Apr 5, 2012, at 6:23 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
>
> <330.gif>
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Richer, Justin P.
> <jricher at mitre.org <mailto:jricher at mitre.org>> wrote:
>
> I like Nat's idea, but took it in a slightly different direction.
> This is just a quick take on a theme, for fun of course. But add
> some shininess to this and I think it's good! :)
>
> -- Justin
>
> <OpenID Connect Logo.png>
>
> On Apr 4, 2012, at 6:50 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
>
> Just for the sake of fun...
>
> OpenID Connect on OAuth logo.
>
> http://nat.sakimura.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/openid-connect-oauth-logo.png
>
> It is symbolizing that OpenID Connect is on top of OAuth :-)
>
> Could not get the editable version of the shiny OAuth 2.0 logo, so
> suffice it to be with this.
>
> =nat
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:31 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com
> <mailto:sakimura at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Need to check this with a patent lawyer but including our
> trademark probably will protect us.
>
> FYI, I just checked the US filing, and it is a STANDARD CHARACTER
> MARK on the string "OpenID".
>
> No logo. Internationally, the same. In France and in Japan, logo
> is also trademarked. Maybe some other countries as well.
>
> So that bottom line is, if we want a logo for OpenID Connect,
> which I do, we probably need to include the string "OpenID".
>
> The threat is real. There already is somebody trying to register
> SmartOpenID internationally.
>
> We need to take action, if it looks going through, to defend our
> right.
>
> FYI, the trademark often is a stronger IPR claim than the patent.
>
> =nat
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:54 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com
> <mailto:ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com>> wrote:
>
> The current openID logo is into many tens of thousands and the
> costs keep mounting.
>
> The problem is that unless we register and defend it, someone can
> take it and make it proprietary.
>
> There may be ways to have a derivative logo that cost less
> incrementally. I am not an expert on this.
>
> I do however see the bills.
>
> John B.
>
> On 2012-04-04, at 2:49 PM, Justin Richer wrote:
>
> Really, for something like this? How much has been spent on the
> OAuth logo to date? I understand that the OIDF may desire to take
> ownership of things like and make them official, trademarked, and
> enforceable. But what I'm after is much lighter than that:
> something recognizable.
>
> -- Justin
>
> On 04/04/2012 01:46 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
>
> I’ll just add that I know that maintaining a logo worldwide is a
> very expensive endeavor, requiring dozens of registrations, due
> diligence, and enforcement actions – best case tens of thousands
> of dollars, but realistically, often hundreds of thousands of
> dollars. Creating a new brand and logo is not something we should
> do lightly.
>
> -- Mike
>
> *From:*openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net
> <mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net>
> [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] *On Behalf Of
> *Anthony Nadalin
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:11 AM
> *To:* Justin Richer; Pam Dingle
> *Cc:* <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
> <mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Branding for OpenID Connect
>
> I think this is a matter for OIDF to take up sine I believe they
> currently own the OpenID logo or are about to own that.
>
> *From:*Justin Richer [mailto:jricher at mitre.org]
> <mailto:[mailto:jricher at mitre.org]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:07 AM
> *To:* Pam Dingle
> *Cc:* Anthony Nadalin; <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> <mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>>
> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Branding for OpenID Connect
>
> Agree completely that it should tie into the overall branding of
> OpenID, and as such should probably incorporate the
> line/circle/arrow logo and standard OpenID font, but with
> something more "connecty" about it.
>
> -- Justin
>
> On 04/04/2012 12:53 PM, Pam Dingle wrote:
>
> +1 for something distinctive for OpenID Connect, but that doesn't
> mean it can't be related to our overall brand.
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Anthony Nadalin
> <tonynad at microsoft.com <mailto:tonynad at microsoft.com>> wrote:
>
> I defer to the logo gods on the status of the current OpenID logo,
> but I'm one for not introducing a new one or a different one as
> it's an overall OpenID Brand
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net
> <mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net>
> [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net
> <mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net>] On Behalf Of
> Richer, Justin P.
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 8:50 AM
> To: <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> <mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>>
> Subject: [Openid-specs-ab] Branding for OpenID Connect
>
> As I've been putting more and more presentations together talking
> about OpenID Connect, I keep getting stuck on the lack of a
> distinctive logo for it. Particularly when I want to distinguish
> Connect from OpenID 2.0 and its predecessors, as they are quite
> different. OAuth has its black token, and OAuth2 has the shiny
> token adapted from that. The best that I could find was from Chris
> Messina's original blog post that introduced us all to the
> terminology of "OpenID Connect", here:
>
> http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2010/01/04/openid-connect/
>
> So I'm putting it to the group here: is there a better or more
> official image to represent this protocol? Should there be?
>
> -- Justin
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> <mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> <mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>
>
> --
> *Pamela Dingle* | Sr. Technical Architect
> *Ping**Identity* | www.pingidentity.com
> <http://www.pingidentity.com/>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - -
> *O:*303-999-5890 <tel:303-999-5890>*M:*303-999-5890 <tel:303-999-5890>
> *Email:*pdingle at pingidentity.com <mailto:pdingle at pingidentity.com>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - -
>
> *Connect with Ping*
> Twitter: @pingidentity
> LinkedIn Group: Ping's Identity Cloud
> Facebook.com/pingidentitypage <http://Facebook.com/pingidentitypage>
>
>
>
> *Connect with me*
> Twitter: @pamelarosiedee
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> <mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> <mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>
>
> --
>
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>
> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> http://nat.sakimura.org/
> @_nat_en
>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>
> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> http://nat.sakimura.org/
> @_nat_en
>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>
> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> http://nat.sakimura.org/
> @_nat_en
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> <mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>
>
> --
> *Pamela Dingle* | Sr. Technical Architect
> *Ping**Identity* | www.pingidentity.com <http://www.pingidentity.com>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - -
> *O:*303-999-5890 <tel:303-999-5890>*M:*303-999-5890 <tel:303-999-5890>
> *Email:*pdingle at pingidentity.com <mailto:pdingle at pingidentity.com>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - -
>
> *Connect with Ping*
> Twitter: @pingidentity
> LinkedIn Group: Ping's Identity Cloud
> Facebook.com/pingidentitypage
>
>
>
> *Connect with me*
> Twitter: @pamelarosiedee
>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>
> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> http://nat.sakimura.org/
> @_nat_en
>
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Messina
> User Experience Designer, Google
>
> //chrismessina.me <http://chrismessina.me> | +
> <https://plus.google.com/102034052532213921839> | @chrismessina
> <http://twitter.com/chrismessina>
>
> This email is: [ ] shareable [✔] ask first [ ] private
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20120411/5b674d69/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 174703 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20120411/5b674d69/attachment.png>
More information about the Openid-specs-ab
mailing list