[Owasp-board] Brand Usage Guidelines

Noreen Whysel noreen.whysel at owasp.org
Fri Mar 25 22:08:57 UTC 2016


Also I do like how Mozilla has a section showing graphic dos and don't on
using the logo. We have that to some extent in the Customization and
Imagery sections (which Mozilla has but Apache doesn't seem to have) and in
the Identity Standards Manual & Quick Reference Guide, which gives even
more detail on how the image, font and colors can be customized.

I also wanted to point out that we go into detail on Non-Endorsement in a
new section that was added in December. This addresses a similar point that
Apache addresses about fair use but also indicates the reverse policy, that
just because we may mention another company or use its logo in any of our
materials we are not endorsing them.

Noreen Whysel
Community Manager
OWASP Foundation

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Noreen Whysel <noreen.whysel at owasp.org>
wrote:

> Yes. it was Mozilla's that focused more on the colors and graphical
> elements of the logo. I agree that Apache has more detail on use of Apache
> project logos and the long lesson on trademark principles, but the
> guidelines themselves are really only more detailed in that they have an
> example of text one might use.
>
> I have a concern about the language of the examples in that they might be
> understood too narrowly. I think our language is clearer. I would
> definitely consider linking to information on fair use, but not sure we
> want to include a long section on legal terminology for our audiences. A
> link is fine.
>
> If we divide the rules graphically into sections it could be easier to
> understand. I like how they have a separate section on using it for
> conferences. We should probably have a section on project logos, except
> there is the caveat that they are not trademarked. Our main logo is at
> least in process with USPTO.
>
> Noreen Whysel
> Community Manager
> OWASP Foundation
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> Noreen,
>>
>> > I reviewed the Mozilla and Apache branding guidelines and guidelines
>> surrounding use. For the my part, they are less detailed than ours and
>> focus more on how the logos should look than on allowable uses.
>>
>> Check out the Apache trademark "nominative use" section and "specific
>> guidelines" section in particular.
>>
>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
>>
>> The "specific guidelines" in particular is what we are missing and seems
>> very detailed and comprehensive.
>>
>> - Jim
>>
>>
>> On 3/24/16 12:52 PM, Noreen Whysel wrote:
>>
>> I reviewed the Mozilla and Apache branding guidelines and guidelines
>> surrounding use. For the my part, they are less detailed than ours and
>> focus more on how the logos should look than on allowable uses.
>>
>> I adopted some of their language to clarify non-endorsement and included
>> a new section on non-endorsement. I have it in a Google doc that I shared
>> with the board and shared the suggested changes via the Branding Guidelines
>> Discussion page on the wiki and posted links in my Community Manager report
>> for the Board meetings. I do recall a board discussion re getting advice
>> from Mozilla's lawyers but I don't remember getting anyone's contact info.
>> I'd be happy to reach out to them if you can point me to those details.
>>
>> Noreen Whysel
>> Community Manager
>> OWASP Foundation
>>
>> On Mar 24, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Josh Sokol < <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
>> josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>> Your response confuses me.  I'm not so much concerned about this one
>> specific incident, but rather, the bigger issue of Brand Usage Guidelines.
>> We went through this topic just a few months ago when discussing the
>> Benchmark Project and some of the brand usage around it.  We talked about
>> what we wanted to see out of these guidelines.  We pointed at companies
>> like Mozilla as an example.  We provided contacts to hopefully get some
>> assistance from their lawyers.  My thoughts on this is that we need to
>> re-write our brand usage guidelines and, if I remember correctly, that had
>> Board support and a directive to Paul to make it happen.  My expectation
>> was that the staff would come back to the Board with a new guideline in
>> hand ready to go.  Not sure if others had that same expectation as well.
>> It sounds like we've made a couple sentence changes rather than an
>> overhaul.  If the staff needs more support on this, then we should form a
>> working group, but I feel like we need to make major progress on this
>> sooner rather than later.
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Noreen Whysel <
>> <noreen.whysel at owasp.org>noreen.whysel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Josh,
>>>
>>> We received critical comment from Dirk Wetter, suggesting that allowing
>>> members (individual, corporate and sponsors) to display our logo somehow
>>> constitutes a "sale" of the logo and should not be permitted. He used as an
>>> example a local sponsor of OWASP Germany that included an OWASP logo on
>>> their training flyer. The logo included text indicating the are a supporter
>>> of OWASP which in my mind makes a clear indication that they support us,
>>> not that we endorse the training. However, Dirk feels that our endorsement
>>> is implicit in any display of our logo. He goes as far as saying our logo
>>> should not be used on partner events and events we are cohosting either,
>>> which to me goes too far.
>>>
>>> We need a balance between getting our image and links to our resources
>>> out their and protecting it. We could include a rule that says under no
>>> circumstances may the OWASP logo be used in advertising, unless it is for a
>>> cohosted event or partnership where a signed agreement exists.
>>>
>>> Love to hear your thoughts.
>>>
>>> Noreen Whysel
>>> Community Manager
>>> OWASP Foundation
>>>
>>> On Mar 23, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Paul Ritchie < <paul.ritchie at owasp.org>
>>> paul.ritchie at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi josh.  The short answer is we have made 2 update to the wiki
>>> guideline language, and Norden has a third update change pending.
>>>
>>> The red line of that recommended update is on the branding page
>>> 'discussion page'.
>>>
>>> @Noreen,  please take lead to expand on this short answer, AND take
>>> proactive steps to get community feedback then approval of this next set of
>>> changes.
>>>
>>> Thanks Paul
>>> On Mar 23, 2016 9:04 AM, "Josh Sokol" < <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
>>> josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul,
>>>>
>>>> It seems that the question of OWASP branding has come up yet again.  I
>>>> know that we set you and Noreen off to redefine our guidelines, possibly
>>>> with the help of the Mozilla lawyers, but I haven't heard anything for
>>>> several months on that.  Would you mind giving us an update of your
>>>> progress thus far?  Thank you!
>>>>
>>>> ~josh
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Owasp-board mailing listOwasp-board at lists.owasp.orghttps://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20160325/4d3b677d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list