xanderliptak;59550 wrote:
In Canada and England, such a thing would be punishable by imprisonment.
On the contrary, the use of anything resembling the Canadian royal arms (or the royal crown) is illegal, but made so by the most toothless law in the country. The people in the trademark office are only dimly aware of it, and will happily trademark any logo featuring the royal crown, nineteen times out of twenty.
i always found this amusingly sickening
http://www.662mob.com/shopping/images/pirate-crown.jpg
i cant understand why the uk doesnt attempt to halt production of things like t shirts that clearly use their royal crown
It would seem from the comments under the Obama logo story in the Huffington Post that the Democrats do not care for the logo either. See story with reader comments here.
I like the design but, I think it is pretentious. Regardless of politics….
If it was the logo for, say, "Presidential Pizza" nobody would say anything
I hope no one thought I approved of the design, I just thought it was interesting how the campaign managers don’t miss a beat.
And thank you Charles Drake for the warning! I giggled.
My problem has nothing to do with partisan politics or whether he did anything wrong by using presidential insignia. My problem is that it’s terribly presumptuous. Why not go ahead and make an oval campaign office and post-dated "President Obama" stationary?
To my mind, this Obama logo displays neither arrogance nor cleverness. It rather reveals the utter lack of appreciation for heraldry and heraldic insignia commom in the US. The idea that an armorial achievement might be something one ought not freely adopt and adapt to one’s taste or purpose simply never occurred to anyone. Those who devised and approved this design either did not think of it as a coat of arms, did not recognize that they were cannibalizing a coat of arms, have no idea what a coat of arms really is, or all of the above.
Dohrman Byers;59566 wrote:
To my mind, this Obama logo displays neither arrogance nor cleverness. It rather reveals the utter lack of appreciation for heraldry and heraldic insignia commom in the US. The idea that an armorial achievement might be something one ought not freely adopt and adapt to one’s taste or purpose simply never occurred to anyone. Those who devised and approved this design either did not think of it as a coat of arms, did not recognize that they were cannibalizing a coat of arms, have no idea what a coat of arms really is, or all of the above.
Perhaps a letter from a learned AHS board member to Obama headquarters would set things right. It could be noted that the American heraldic voting block, while small, is made up of some very scary people.
Dohrman Byers;59566 wrote:
To my mind, this Obama logo displays neither arrogance nor cleverness. It rather reveals the utter lack of appreciation for heraldry and heraldic insignia commom in the US. The idea that an armorial achievement might be something one ought not freely adopt and adapt to one’s taste or purpose simply never occurred to anyone. Those who devised and approved this design either did not think of it as a coat of arms, did not recognize that they were cannibalizing a coat of arms, have no idea what a coat of arms really is, or all of the above.
Seems like a symptom of the all too common coat of arm=corporate logo mentality as seen in countless other examples.
Quote:
Seems like a symptom of the all too common coat of arm=corporate logo mentality as seen in countless other examples.
I completely agree. I think this would have been the next progression from Darren’s initial comment on it being foul.
Fr. Dohrman is also right. Heraldically speaking it is cannibalistic. I am sure that the democrats have to have very smart people in their employ this election campaign. I hope that one of them would seek out a better image for Obama’s campaign. For that matter, despite my own personal politics, I am ever the capitalist and as such would be more than happy to aid them in a design for his campaign. I would consider it an honor. I certainly would not cannibalize the U.S. arms.
(lame plea for the honor of that account huh? Oh well…what’re ya gonna do? )
I don’t agree that this is an example of heinous disrespect for the Seal of the President of the United States. It’s really not all that different from the ancient and very respectable practice of borrowing from the arms of a patron or benefactor or country, etc. and slightly changing the arms for difference. One example that leaps to mind immediately is the coat of arms of Abp. Loris Capovilla, the former Prelate of Loreto. He had served as John XXIII’s secretary. When he became an archbishop he adopted John XXIII’s exact coat of arms except that he left out one of the two fleur-de-lis flanking the tower for difference. He wasn’t stealing or, to use Denny’s word, "cannibalising" the arms of his former boss. Rather, he was paying tribute to him and showing his profound respect for him.
I doubt any one of Mr. Obama’s handlers thought of this logo in this manner. However, it is, to be sure, not even really a coat of arms but is just more of a logo. As a logo, not a coat of arms, it does exactly what it should: it helps the "consumer" to associate the "product" in the way that is desired. Namely, it associates the candidate with the presidency. Let’s be clear that the candidate is not claiming this as an adopted personal coat of arms (any more than the President of the US bears the arms on the seal as his own arms) but as a symbol of his candidacy. Candidates in the past have used campaign symbols that have employed the eagle and even the shield of the arms of the USA. It will, I’m sure, seem to many like the candidate is jumping the gun and presuming too much. But how is that really any different from being introduced (as both will be countless times in between now and November) as "the next President of the United States?
I understand the great dislike people have for using a clearly recognizable symbol like the seal of the President of the United States for one’s own purposes. It does seem a bit like cheating and I understand how some think this is kind of cheesy and cheap. I would hazard a guess that the feedback on it will be poor and it will disappear as seeming pretentious. Nevertheless, as a logo, not a coat of arms, I still say it is a clever idea and a good expansion of the already well-designed Obama campaign "O" symbol.
There is nothing wrong with non-heraldic logos as such (so long as they don’t pretend to be arms). I think a coat of arms for an organization implies both a sense of seriousness (which Senator Obama’s campaign certainly has) and permanence (which it does not because whether it is successful or not, it will last only a few more months, perhaps to be resurrected in 4 years).
As another observation, is this emblem symbolic of Senator Obama’s campaign (a political movement) or his campaign organization (committee, whatever) which seeks to direct that movement? While the latter is an organization which can appropriately adopt symbols to represent it, I wonder if the same can be said for the former.
Quote:
He wasn’t stealing or, to use Denny’s word, "cannibalising" the arms of his former boss.
Thanks, but I can’t take the credit Fr. Selvester. That was a word I borrowed from your priestly brother, Fr. Dohrman, in a post a little above mine - post #23. 8)
I think what is most striking here is the fact that the coloration seems to have been designed to evoke the "feel" of the seal in the White House Press Room… The Press Room just underwent a substantial renovation. I carved the Presidential Seals for the White House Situation Room and can recognize that blue anywhere.
... technically speaking, I don’t think the display with the carving of the White House on it in the Press Room is actually a "seal" - more of a "display" or "sign". Is there a technical term for that by the way?