They don't seem to mention it anywhere, but Inkscape is probably the best tool for opening .ai files, assuming you don't have a copy of Adobe Illustrator.
Neural networks might be tricky. Logos tend to be precise, neural networks work better when the result is fuzzier.
On the other hand, identifying a good logo is the sort of fuzzy problem that you might be able to train a network for. Use it as a fitness function over some other algorithm.
You could have a generator that combined a variety of operations into a 'logo expression' that generates an image.
Have values and operations in the expression to represent:
a variety of geometric shapes.
composite operations (union, intersection, subtraction etc.)
symmetry operations (reflective, rotational)
Glyph images (possibly with some sort of semantic metadata to enable relationships between multiple glyphs)
Transformations (translatiosn, rotations etc. Possibly just a matrix)
Filters (smooth corners, grow shape, generate outline)
Which if I got it right should be a set of 5 squares with rounded corners and a line thickness of 3 arranges in a circle and a small circle cut out of the bottom right corner of the squares.
It occupies a somewhat similar space, (I believe it does not provide composition operations). Having the ability to define shapes as a probabilistic combination of other shapes gives you a massive variety of possibilities.
something like this would allow for a good variety of base imagery which could then have the layer I posted in the previous comment come after.
Check out the context free art gallery for some amazing (not very logo like) images
Genetic programming using a design grammar (i.e. a hierarchical rule system, like a language grammar) is probably a much more natural fit than neural networks for generating the logos. It's been done before with other domains, including architecture. Using a neural network to learn the evaluation function (i.e. put a number on how 'good' a candidate logo is) in a GP is very possible though.
I have been building my first personal site with links to demo toy projects and was just about to figure out the logo situation. I want to create a simple but engaging brand for myself. This rocks. Thanks!
The pharmacy logo is more or less the logo of Lloyds Pharmacy in the UK. Close enough that it could be deemed to be infringing their TM IMO (it's tricky though with generic imagery).
If you're referring to this device [1], it's a matter of opinion. Personally I wouldn't really agree: the mortar and pestle is a common enough device and the leaf is a nice distinctive element.
The real risk in a situation like this is not really that you get a C&D from using it on your startup's landing page. The risk is that if you eventually tried to file a trademark for it, you would lose: either because some large firm's lawyers would oppose and have no trouble outspending you; or because, if you tried to file a trademark on an open-source logo you found on HN, you probably got bad legal advice.
If I had a natural-supplement startup, for example, I'd be fine using this open-source logo as a placeholder and developing a new logo once I wanted to start a trademark registration process.
IP law firms use automated software to scrape the trademark registration filings at the USPTO and other national trademark offices (ex. [1]). These software services automatically assess filings for possible infrigement. This is the most likely way for a bigco's lawyers to find out about your logo or company name - far more likely than them finding out about your startup from techcrunch or some other source.
Unfortunately for me, this happened to me. I was able to negotiate a coexistence agreement for my logo, but I could have done without the pain. If I were to start over from scratch, I would seriously consider doing the Apple/Google offline foreign filing trick [2].
You, too, can have a generic logo that doesn't actually reflect your individual company, message, or values! Simply pair it with a font of your choosing (font and logo need not match), and you have yourself a brand.
These kinds of things devalue the actual work that goes into real branding, like crowdsourcing your logo or Marissa Mayer popping out something that she thinks "looks nice" over a weekend. It also has the effect that any graphic designer who can whip something up in Illustrator thinks they are a brand expert.
No. I'm bootstrapping a product startup, and the only thing I care about now is whether it works and whether people find _value_ in it. Its logo doesn't matter, the copy doesn't matter, glossy startuppy pictures don't matter. The only thing that matters now is whether it is materially useful - whether someone thinks that their life is easier because this tool exist in this world.
So when this site came up a long time ago in /new, I grabbed one of it and put it on - only because my product contains a Chrome Extension, and it needs a small 32x32 icon. And, it is a damn good logo too. I also sent an email asking permission to use it, and even offering to pay (peanuts) for exclusive access, and the founder was extremely courteous and reminded me that it doesn't matter what you start with, you can always change once you get traction.
I know a few of the true stories behind the original logos of some of SV's unicorns and this is spot on (unfortunately, I cannot share them because they were shared in confidence). The parent comment is not wrong about the value of a great brand, but it can easily become a huge frivolous distraction after a certain point when you're should be focusing on building something useful for people in their daily lives. You can always perform a full brand refresh later once you can afford to spend a few months and lots of money to do so, and that's exactly what many unicorns eventually do.
I've seen outside designers rationalize some of these well known brands after the fact without knowing the inside and often accidental story and its comical. It's brand design. Like all the other components of a great company and great product, it's contributory like engineering and customer service, but it's not like you're solving World peace. For some products/services and target markets, the brand may be very important. For others, it could be non-consequential. "Worse is better" and "perfect is the enemy of done" apply to brand design as much as in any other aspect. Like other aspects you can always iterate and improve later.
Totally. I think there is plenty of value in design and brand work. The types of startups that don't have the money, or need to get a professional designer to help them out aren't the types of customer any designer would want in the first place. So free resources like these simply fill the gap to make sure startups don't waste $5 on fiverr for crap, instead get something much nicer for free. WHen they have the money and are seeing their company get traction, their brand becomes important and they'll naturally shift towards designers. I think the company behind this resource understands that. bravo.
I appreciate your dedication to delivering value, however it's also worth considering the emotional connection people make with your product. A logo is essentially a mental shortcut to your offering, your story, and your value proposition. A distinct logo compresses all the meaning behind what you do into a simple reminder, a mental shortcut. Great logos are unique and memorable.
Your pitch is important, and tone of your copy is important in framing and expressing this. For example, if you're asking me to download an executable you need to gain a certain degree of trust on behalf of the user. Trust is an emotion. Good art & copy can go a long way to building trust.
Branding is really the emotional connection you make with your user base, and emotional connections aren't rational things. This is why excellent products sometimes lose to less functionally valuable products - because we've distilled the rational meaning down to something which is irrational.
To "like" Apples products, for example, is not rational - it's emotional. The meaning behind Apples brand is more than the functional value of it's products. It represents something different to each of us, even though we're all using the same product. For some people, Apples brand represents a part of their own identity - this is about as emotional as it gets. Apples brand communication has touched these people in a strong way. Do you think Apple could have built such a loyal following with a MS Paint logo and terrible copy?
To put it another way, branding could also be thought of as packaging - and it's well known that packaging is extremely important to product success.
Well said, it's the product and the execution what matters, not the product logo and name. Heck, you could probably use a ridiculous name with a logo designed in MS Paint and as long as the product delivered amazing value people would just get used to it.
That's not to say there's no value in well made branding, but it's just not something that an early startup should care about much.
Good luck! I work at a company where the logo is the founder's last name, in Arial Black, the aspect ratio slightly squished because the original designer was an ME with no software experience to know how to preserve aspect ratio. Now that logo is on 20 years and tens of millions of dollars worth of machines, so it would be hard to change, but it's fine.
Design isn't an all-or-nothing thing. Many of the companies we respect for design came from quick and dirty roots, and if this helps someone get there more quickly, that seems like a plus to me.
I wonder if the OP has ever even seen Pentagram's earlier work. This assumption that all branding has been slaved over, or that no one has ever come up with a good brand in a short period time, show a lack of understanding about branding AND logo design. Sometimes the quick ideas are the best ones.
You got all that from my post which said nothing about a logo needing to be "slaved over"? It does, however, take some thought.
Perhaps you were referring to my comment about Mayer, whose creative output amounted to a collective shrug, as she (and, sure, the design team she micromanaged) produced a logo that did nothing to communicate a new strategy, vision, or purpose.
Which is perhaps appropriate for Yahoo, after all.
Perhaps being so dismissive about something that is potentially very useful for seeding new ideas about identity wasn't the ideal way to present yourself. Unless that's your personal brand voice, I guess?
Plenty of companies pay lots of money for logos that don't actually reflect their individual company, message, or values. This just lets people with no money do the same.
If you're serious about your brand, they seem to offer a custom solution. This is however great for having a quick placeholder to get you going. Don't think it devalues design at all. In fact, it clearly states these are designs that were unused and instead of just having them sitting idle, they are opening it up for those that need quick placeholders.
Heard the same sort of refrain about PHP, WordPress, jQuery, Bootstrap, etc. as they were gaining popularity. Each of them somehow devalued something or made people think they were experts...
Because every side project should spend thousands of dollars getting a "proper logo from a proper designer"? There are people on HN who have talked about their side projects existing on $10 Digital Ocean droplets, should they be dropping $500 for a properly-branded logo from a low-end designer?
Thanks for this! These could be really useful for folks creating design templates. There's tons of stock photos, icons, videos, etc available, but not a lot of logos.
I don't see any information about a license, though? This article might be helpful:
I like this, but I'm trying to understand the consequences of more than one person using the same one. I think the answer is, nothing until two or more users start to clash. At which point it will come down to who trademarked it first. That sounds reasonable, since you are probably dealing with small use cases wouldn't bother trademarking such a thing. They would get their own unique one first.
One the other hand, I suppose a new type of "trademark troll" could hypothetically arise from paying to trademark these, and then suing you for using them. Although I would like to think that a reasonable defense in court would be, "look I just got it for free from this site, and I willing to stop using it". ... and on the third hand, we see actual out of court settlements for patents that have less to stand on than that.
So I guess it's more of a "who gives a damn", and "quit worrying so much" thing.
1) I really like this!
2) How to make it better: Design your own quick-and-dirty logo.
2a) Upload a photo.
2b) Apply a filter.
2c) Overlay a simple icon.
2d) Bonus: combine filter and icon to create a favicon!
These logos aren't good. A logo should have some degree of symmetry, simple enough to draw, original, and not readily resembling something in real life or a prior logo.
> and not readily resembling something in real life or a prior logo.
I appreciate some of your other points, but I particularly disagree with that one. Counterexamples right off the top of my head: Apple, Lacoste, Shell, Camel, Pringles, McDonalds, Schwarzkopf, Puma, Interflora....
Let me un-ellipses the quote so we can make some sense of things.
> A logo should (...) have some degree of symmetry, simple enough to draw, original, and not readily resembling something in real life or a prior logo.
Symmetry is valued by us humans as a positive aesthetic.
They're all just geometric shapes that anyone could throw together. Really, you're pretty damn lazy or uninspired if you can't put together a stop sign outline with 2 circles on either side of it!
Do you realize how many company logos are just the Helvetica font? You can't get any more basic than that. When you're just getting started, especially a one man operation, anything to get your product up and running quicker is a good thing.
Yes, but thought, money, and man hours went into them. They didn't just grab rejected logos from the "commodity" bin, which is what we have here. Seriously, if you can't put some design effort into your logo then something's wrong.
This form of criticism is along the lines of "The Gettysburg Address is just words anyone could write." The important part of creative work is not the potential but actually doing it. There's no such thing as "a design in my head."
Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that the logos are cultural artifacts of high calibre. But that what they share with such works is actuality. Their creator can get better in ways that everyone who could but doesn't can't.
I could not throw anything together of this quality. If I were to create a product by myself, using one of the ones available would certainly be a step up.
