I does beg the question, when is a logo not a logo?
I mean... you can deconstruct it to kingdom come and back in the name of keeping things subtle, but at what exact stage do, say, the mcdonalds arches stop being the mcdonalds copyrighted logo?
I mean, what if you pixelised the entire thing to bare simplicity and boxes? We are talking an 8 x 8 chunky square grid.
And then a new company had a logo that resembled a very pixellated version of the mcdonalds logo? It is the mcdonalds on, pixellated, but is actually 64 pixel boxes of colour.
Where is the line drawn?
Very grey area this one, because if you remove so much of something, it doesn't really exist then. ie, breaking down the marlboro logo, what if it shared the same font with, say microsoft. It doesn't, but.. in terms of graphic images, colours etc...
What if marlboro and microsoft were the same text, and marlboro got graphically truncated to show just the two 'o's of the logo. They'd look the same. Letter 'o' *gap* Letter 'o'.
At what point does that stop being microsoft, and stop being marlboro? And do they equate to the same thing?
Does that make sense to anyone else, to be it is kinda hillarious. It is almost like you are trying to police the position of pixel locations.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it