The Gordon Smith font mystery gets a bit more serious

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

For a little Friday fun last week, I posted an item taking note of the similarity between Gordon Smith's campaign graphics and the U of O's graphics.

Well, it turns out it's a bit more serious than I realized.

First, the visual recap:

Over at DuckSportsNews.com, they've got the story. Apparently, it's a well-guarded custom font owned by the University - and they aggressively protect their trademarks:

Even though the “Mike Bellotti” font (”Bellotti Bold” might be its proper name), as it’s called within the Athletics Department, was designed by Nike, it belongs [to] the UO. There might be others out there like it (Eurostile, Blair, Bank Gothic, & Serpentine), but there’s only one “Oregon” font.

And it’s copyrighted. Federally registered. All that jazz.

Here’s one other thing about the font: for designers working with the UO, getting it is a bit of a Holy Grail. Only a few at the Casanova Center have it. Just try getting a hold of it. Good luck. Believe me. Because I’ve tried. And then try using it and see if you don’t get a call from the Trademark Management office.

On a bit of a lark, I decided to call Gordon Smith’s campaign headquarters to see if they had in fact used the Oregon font for the logo. And they said, “No.”. (You be the judge on that one. Although, I doubt a staffer is going to know if a certain font was used for the new logo.)

Then I called the Oregon’s Trademark Office to see if Oregon did own the font. And I was told they did, along with all that other stuff about copyright and it being federally registered.

But the Trademark Office also told me something else. I had not been the first to call. Looks like The Oregonian called yesterday. We’ll see where that goes. ...

In particular, DuckSportsNews.com identifies some serious implications:

- If U.S. Senator Gordon Smith’s campaign is using the Oregon font for his logo, he’s using a copyright-protected font for his campaign. (And, yes, on occasion we use copyrighted material, as well. However, we are not United State Senators running for re-election.)

- If the campaign is using the font and is called on it (and I don’t think it will be), he’s going to have to sink some money into changing up some of his materials. It might be just on the commercial. I don’t know. But if the campaign is producing a bunch of collateral material such as signs, banners, brochures, he’s going to incur some costs.

Hmmmm...

Comments

  • Ted Pikes (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am an alumni of the University of Oregon and am appalled at the use of the Bellotti Bold font by Senator Gordon Smith. It makes me want to work that much harder for Merkley.

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Don't be suprised if someone with Smith's group of followers tell us that they got the font either through some serious 'reverse engineering' or from doing some crazy photoshop techniques. This could be a serious issue for Smith as some people could erroneously assume that the U of O endorses Smith simply because of the use of the font. In fact, I know some OSU grads that had a coronary seeing the graphics above because they mistakenly thought that the U of O had sold out...which they haven't (of course).

  • (Show?)

    Kari, have you tried peddling the "parody" excuse to Smith's people? It didn't work for you, but maybe they're more sophisticated.

  • (Show?)

    When this story ran the first time, I was curious to see what font it was. The closest I found was Handel Gothic Bold. Some of the characters are right on. Most are at least somewhat stretched. Some are lower-case made bigger for caps (N and M). The R has a new tail. The E has the upper left squared off. It became apparent to me that this was probably a custom font (though I'd be willing to bet the designer started with Handel—there are simply too many similarities).

    Now we know that this is a unique font owned wholly by the U of O. I hope they look into this and pursue all available legal options. There's also an interesting question of how the Smith campaign got the font. Custom fonts like that don't tend to just float around the Internet...

  • (Show?)

    Don't be surprised if someone with Smith's group of followers tell us that they got the font either through some serious 'reverse engineering' or from doing some crazy photoshop techniques.

    They might try. In fact, I hope they do, because it's admitting responsibility. In addition, it's easy to refute. The anti-aliasing on the Smith ad is clearly set to a finer pitch than it is on the Oregon Ducks logo, at least in Kari's example. Yet even using MS Paint, it's easy to see how they match up perfectly.

    This means the campaign's source for the font had to be something other than what's out there on the web, and yet clearly, was cribbed from the U. of O.. Which means some campaign insider or consultant had access to a much higher resolution version of these fonts.

    Mysteriouser and mysteriouser.

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "There's also an interesting question of how the Smith campaign got the font"

    Here's another question - if it is the Handel Gothic font, why is Smith and his followers using something that is 'simular' to UO's font? Do they really think the U of O wouldn't notice this and let Smith get away with it?

    We are not as dumb as they think we are...

  • Bob R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Is the U of O font covered by a design patent? Trademarks of fonts generally protect other people from using the same font name, and design patents, harder to get, cover the shape itself.

    Under many circumstances it is OK to design a font which looks just like another one, so long as you don't try to pass it off by the same name and you don't use the original outline files as a basis for making your own font -- you have to do it from scratch or start from a font which is free to use and modify it.

    Depending on what the U of O actually did, they may not have legally-enforceable grounds to protect the use of a similar-looking font (even if it is nearly identical), so long as the Smith campaign isn't working from an unauthorized copy of U of O's actual font files (which we don't know just yet, and the Smith campaign owes the public an explanation...)

  • TheOandtheS (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's the same font.

    Ask any designer.

  • JTT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You guys just don't get it. It's ok for Gordo to steal other people's intellectual property because he's a moderate who works across the aisle (hahaha).

    But seriously, isn't it a little hypocritical for Kari to cry foul on Gordo for stealing other people's work when he does it himself? Oh wait, I forgot...it's a "parody" when you copy and paste. So here's my question, if someone breaks into your car and steals your CD player...puts it into their car and changes the programmed radio stations...why is that still theft and not a "parody"?

  • (Show?)

    TJ, just for my own info--exactly how long will we be enjoying the squeezings of your sour grapes?

    (Kari, have you tried peddling the "parody" excuse to Smith's people? It didn't work for you, but maybe they're more sophisticated.)

  • (Show?)

    I'm not interested in re-arguing anything related to the Novick/Merkley campaign, so I'll leave well enough alone - especially since all that stuff went away as soon as the primary is over (so we'd just be arguing over memories.)

    But I certainly don't see anything that looks like parody here from the Gordon Smith campaign.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    He could have gotten his hands on the font, but now I'm leaning toward him just ripping off the glyphs directly from the "OREGON DUCKS" logo and rearranging them to get the glyphs for "GORDON SMITH." He's got "GORDON S" right there already. The "M" could be easily created from the "N," the "I" could come from any letter with a vertical stem, the T would just add a horizontal arm to that, and the H would put two vertical stems together with a horizontal arm. It really wouldn't be difficult to rip off at all. That would, of course, be in violation of the copyright.

    The "Common Ground. Common Good." part looks like it's just Handel Gothic stretched out. If he were still ripping off glyphs from the "OREGON DUCKS" logo, he wouldn't have gotten the lowercase "r" and "d" characters that he did. He would have basically gotten small caps.

    The Ducks font isn't Handel Gothic, though it's likely inspired by it. Handel doesn't match the "E," "N," "U," or the Smith "M" at all, and is off on other characters as well. Another close one is Changeling, which misses the "R," "E," and "U."

    And TJ, using someone's visual styling and branding in a criticism of them is at least plausibly debatable as parody and is done frequently. Just ripping off someone's logo for your own with no connection or relation isn't even arguable as parody.

  • (Show?)

    According to Senate Guru "Apparently, Republican Gordon Smith's campaign spokesperson has "suddenly" left the campaign. Why? His new spokesperson says that the "suddenly" departed one left "on his own accord to find work in the private sector." He didn't have another job lined up, it seems, but we're assured he chose to leave. Seems odd. Wonder if anything will come of this. " This may be a bigger mystery than the Font!

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Actually, it looks like both the Smith logo and the Ducks logo come from Handel glyphs. The M and N are just enlarged lowercase glyphs, while the E uses part of another glyph, possibly an upside-down F, with an additional bar or bars overlaid. I'll create a very crude image based on the Bitstream TTF version of Handel Gothic soon. (There are various font houses that have a Handel Gothic, each looking a bit different, and each can publish in multiple formats, such as TrueType, PostScript, or OpenType.)

  • (Show?)

    "TJ, just for my own info--exactly how long will we be enjoying the squeezings of your sour grapes? "

    I dunno Jeff--for MY info, how long will you be deftly avoiding substantive argument (as corroborated by JTT above with regard to hypocrisy, and darrel and Stephanie previously with regard to legal qualifications of "parody") by relying on the easy, dismissive trope of "sour grapes?"

  • (Show?)
    I'm not interested in re-arguing anything related to the Novick/Merkley campaign, so I'll leave well enough alone - especially since all that stuff went away as soon as the primary is over (so we'd just be arguing over memories.)

    As if. You do realize this is EXACTLY the same rationale employed by the Bush administration to deflect concerns about them having lied us into a war...right?

    Sorry, you don't get to lie and steal in a campaign, and then magically have it "all go away." You must think your readership are complete dolts to buy that. For heaven's sake, JFK has been DEAD for 45 years, and Republicans still remember Daley's machine rigging votes in Chicago for him (although they don't seem as keen to recall the machinations that took place downstate for Nixon!).

    Winning an election does not wipe the slate clean, much as you might hope. You stole your opponent's intellectual property, tried a terribly lame angle that you were somehow parodizing Novick's page--and then quietly changed it when it was clear that was a bogus excuse.

  • (Show?)

    "And TJ, using someone's visual styling and branding in a criticism of them is at least plausibly debatable as parody and is done frequently. Just ripping off someone's logo for your own with no connection or relation isn't even arguable as parody."

    Visual styling and branding, perhaps. But the full CSS code, verbatim? Perhaps if Kari had constructed something to look very similar to Novick's on his own, there'd be more latitude for discussion. But the CSS matched exactly.

    Also, it has to be plausibly viewed as an attempt to lampoon true information with (usually absurdly false) information. Falwell talking about fucking his mom in the Dewar's ad is a good example; the ruling was that no one could believe what was said because it was so obviously unsubstantiated. What was at NiD.com was neither false nor implausibly so--if it were true, it would be neither funny nor implausible.

    Finally, the imagery needs to be widely recognizable, such that few to none would mistake it for original work. A site that ripped off LO's look for a site in New Jersey wouldn't ring any bells out there. And even though Oregon voters might well have seen Novick's web page, the idea that it was recognizable to more than a tiny minority of them strains credulity.

    To sum, if I had been caught doing something pretty obviously beneath contempt, I would avoid leaving myself open to legitimate criticism by railing against other examples of what I myself had been caught doing. We're finding out just how far a lack of shame will take you in politics, however.

  • Fred Leonhardt (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wow. Kari. When you're not trying to convince "John" to run for president, you're the Font Police. You are the man.

  • (Show?)

    "According to Senate Guru..."

    Mistake!

  • (Show?)

    Sorry, you don't get to lie and steal in a campaign, and then magically have it "all go away." You must think your readership are complete dolts to buy that. For heaven's sake, JFK has been DEAD for 45 years, and Republicans still remember Daley's machine rigging votes in Chicago for him (although they don't seem as keen to recall the machinations that took place downstate for Nixon!).

    Everybody has their own perspectiveon this, apparently. I was personally less-than-impressed with some of the shit coming out of the Novick campaign (which I'm not going to re-hash, so forget that). But had Novick had won, I was ready to see the bigger picture--electing a progressive Democrat to the U.S. Senate.

    Apparently not all of us have that mindset.

    Many of us had a dog in this hunt. Some of us were more vested than others. But make no mistake: myopically insisting on a constant picking at this scab is counterproductive for everyone but Gordon Smith.

    Its pretty asshole-ishly childish, IMO. You obviously have the right to BE asshole-ishly childish...but it doesn't make it right.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    CSS is styling. It's not content, just styling. Novick's own styling was used in commentary about him. Like I said, we can debate it, and I'm really not interested in debating it, but it is definitely something that is debat-able as parody.

    Here's the image. It's very slapdash and crude, and I even forgot to readjust the opacity of the Ducks logo, but you can see that the shapes all seem to come from Handel. I didn't bother making the "K" look exact, but it wouldn't be difficult to break it in two and push the two pieces together. I also think more was done with the lowercase "r," just because it looks kind of ugly in Handel, but to fix it, you'd just have to elongate the arm and clip the shoulder.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Also, since it looks like the Smith logo comes from Handel, there's nothing wrong with it, as long as they used a licensed copy of Handel. Even if the Ducks used Handel, and Smith used Handel because the Ducks used Handel, it's fine: they both (presumably) had licenses to use Handel however they wanted.

  • (Show?)

    I was pondering along the same lines as Phil. Hammond's sudden departure is probably just a coincidence. But... it's a very interesting coincidence if that's what it is.

  • (Show?)

    James X, your observations are interesting, and it's helpful to understand better what might have happened...but it doesn't really prove anything.

    Copyright law and trademark law are pretty complex -- and I'm certainly nothing like a lawyer. But when you're prohibited from copying something, that extends far beyond digitally copying it; for instance, if you were to use a font that's entirely in the public domain, and software thay you'd written yourself, to reconstruct something that resembles a trademarked logo, you'd still be in the wrong.

  • (Show?)

    So who wants to set up the fund to buy TJ some quality session time with the mental health professional of his choice?

    At this point I'd be more than happy to pitch in a few bucks if it'd mean that we don't have to be subjected to his Sour Grapes of Wrath for the foreseeable future.

  • Brian (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Its pretty asshole-ishly childish, IMO."

    Sure seems that way, flavored with a smug douchiness many seem to find increasingly repellent. The primary is over, Dude. Your guy lost. Man up.

  • (Show?)

    "Everybody has their own perspectiveon this, apparently."

    Whether warranted or not, apparently. There's no perspective on documented lies and thefts. Facts are simply facts. We know Merkley lied about Novick's position on the war, even after being told he was incorrect. We know the campaign stole intellectual property from the Novick campaign. We know his media consultant lied about a conversation with the Exec Director of PDA. These are not opinions; they are all verifiable and of course have been verified.

    And...

    "Many of us had a dog in this hunt. Some of us were more vested than others. But make no mistake: myopically insisting on a constant picking at this scab is counterproductive for everyone but Gordon Smith."

    How sad that you continue to see winning elections as more important than ethics or truth. Is it really worth it? You seem to think so. THAT is what's counterproductive. You're asking for a pass on misdeeds so we can get rid of a crappy Senator. That's just same old politics, which makes claims of "change" ring hollow.

    And if you don't want picking on the scab, tell Jeff's media consultant not to shove the already-bloody scab in everyone's faces.

    You reap what you sow, Carla.

  • (Show?)

    "CSS is styling. It's not content,"

    CSS creates styling, and utilizing that styling is where the infringement occurs.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Seriously?

    The font in his ads?

    Seriously?

    Oy-vay!

  • (Show?)

    "So who wants to set up the fund to buy TJ some quality session time with the mental health professional of his choice?

    At this point I'd be more than happy to pitch in a few bucks if it'd mean that we don't have to be subjected to his Sour Grapes of Wrath for the foreseeable future."

    I'm not the one who keeps avoiding issues while attacking the messenger. Ad hominem is so tired.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    TJ, "we" don't know those things.

    Also, the primary was not a battle of good vs. evil.

  • (Show?)

    I dunno Jeff--for MY info, how long will you be deftly avoiding substantive argument (as corroborated by JTT above with regard to hypocrisy, and darrel and Stephanie previously with regard to legal qualifications of "parody") by relying on the easy, dismissive trope of "sour grapes?"

    I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. The petty grievances you've been bitching about for 9 months have LONG AGO ceased to interest me, and I tuned you out. But man, the race is done. What kind of restitution do you want and how long can we look forward to the snide, off-topic asides before you grow tired of it or feel restituted?

  • (Show?)

    Okay, I'll admit that that read way harsher than I intended. Could have been the two IPAs dulled my sense of humor ... and my judgment. Sorry, TJ.

  • bobo (unverified)
    (Show?)

    James X, your observations are interesting, and it's helpful to understand better what might have happened...but it doesn't really prove anything.

    Copyright law and trademark law are pretty complex -- and I'm certainly nothing like a lawyer. But when you're prohibited from copying something, that extends far beyond digitally copying it; for instance, if you were to use a font that's entirely in the public domain, and software thay you'd written yourself, to reconstruct something that resembles a trademarked logo, you'd still be in the wrong.

    Forsyth is wrong about the interpretation of copyright law. In the case of fonts one can only copyright the exact image of each letter. In fact, if U of O/Nike is claiming to have copyrighted simply what clearly is a trivial distortion of a standard font, they either have an invalid copyright.

    For amateurs in the IP field like most of you obviously are here, in the U.S. copyrights are not reviewed before being granted like the claims in a patent. They are "secured" as soon as someone "creates" a copyrightable work. One just files a notice with the U.S. Copyright office if and when one wants to "register" their copyright. No one reviews the registration image(s) to see if they conflict with another registered copyright. It is solely up to a copyright holder to challenge in court whether another party is violating a copyright, registration being incidental.

    In this case if the Smith office can point to other fonts they have a right to use and their representations as simple mechanical enhancements --- like scaling --- U of O's copyright will be ruled to be non-existent. Probably something that would benefit us all since a fundamental tenet of our party is preserving the commons, intellectual and otherwise.

    Hopefully the O will contact an out-of-state IP law firm to get accurate info. Oregon's legal community is actually weak in this area (although stronger in patent law), much like the intellect and integrity of a lot of you losers.

  • (Show?)

    For amateurs in the IP field like most of you obviously are here

    Why does an informative (and appreciated) explanation have to be prefaced with an unneccessary insult? What exactly is the point of that?

  • (Show?)

    ...and then magically have it "all go away." You must think your readership are complete dolts to buy that

    Sorry, TJ, I guess I wasn't clear. By "all that stuff went away" I was talking about the website I built. I'm highly aware that your criticisms haven't gone away.

    I'm choosing not to participate in re-arguing old arguments. You're certainly welcome to make the other choice.

  • bobo (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Why does an informative (and appreciated) explanation have to be prefaced with an unneccessary insult? What exactly is the point of that?

    Because petty people here with big egos and little brains need a well-deserved dressing down.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I enjoyed the "you losers" part myself, coming from someone who just geeked out about intellectual property law in a blog comment.

  • bobo (unverified)
    (Show?)

    And oh yeah, if someone or the U.O. claims Smith is violating their copyright on their logo --- which is the entire composition --- as Forsyth made the point of his claim they have no case at all. It's pretty clear no one could mistake one for the other.

    It does us nor the progressive cause any good to have idiots like those whose comments we read here pushing a point that solely turns on their ignorance. (That's the rest of the answer for you Oregonian37. Some of us need to start saying we have no time or patience for this kind of foolishness.).

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Not that our visiting friend exhibits any egoism or pettiness.

  • bobo (unverified)
    (Show?)

    James X, your's was the only comment I thought had some merit because you provided an object lesson in how an average person using just a little common sense could in fact see why there may not be any copyright violation here. Too bad attempts to provide some serious information to a bunch of children slinging accusations based on things they obviously know little about is regarded as "geeking out". Maybe the biggest problem with our side is that we are so "elitist" that we criticize those among us who let the world know that too many our positions really are just empty posturing.

  • (Show?)

    We know his media consultant...

    For the record (and I've said this way too many times), I am not a media consultant - Jeff Merkley's or anybody else's. The "media consultant" produces TV spots. I am an "internet strategist" or "website developer".

  • Bob R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's a little late in the discussion, but I'd like to offer up a constructive suggestion here.

    While I'm inclined to feel that the whole issue of mimicking the U of O's logo isn't a major issue, and probably isn't a big deal legally, especially compared to the real sins of Smith on policy, this CAN be used in a substantive manner to criticize the smith campaign. Consider framing a criticism like this:

    "Gordon Smith wants you to believe he represents Oregon values, but in reality he voted for (insert horrible thing here). Gordon Smith is out-of-touch with Oregon voters -- like a duck out of water".

  • Bob R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    James X, your's was the only comment I thought had some merit

    What, not mine too? Aww, shucks.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am an alumni of the University ...

    and another of millions of university graduates who don't know the difference between alumnus (singular) and alumni (plural).

    As for Gordo snitching copyright material, after reneging on his oath to uphold the Constitution and being complicit in the subsequent crime against humanity in Iraq, what's the big deal?

  • (Show?)

    Big picture time folks. Let's just all calm down, everybody send Merkley's campaign ten bucks or more, and we'll kick Slick Gordy's "moderate" pea-picking ass back to Pendleton.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bobo, I'm a geek, too, clearly. I'm just not calling people ignorant/small-brained egoistic petty elitist loser children about it.

    Also, when you speak of "we" elitists whose positions are empty posturing, are you speaking as a fellow progressive or as Non Oblitus from NW Republican?

  • Jay Jones (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari -

    Jay here, from Duck Sports News.

    Interesting discussion.

    Even though I'm not a fan of Smith or Merkeley (and that doesn't mean I'm a centrist), I do have one question for Smith's campaign in regards to their use of the Oregon font (and believe me, it is the font): why? Why go to the trouble? Why not use another font that's close? Why use that font?

    It's all very strange. And I'm not sure what they were thinking (because I actually think they were thinking and made a deliberate decision). Then again, that could be said about a number of things.

    Jay Duck Sports News (and Beaver Sports News, Beaver fans)

  • Jay Jones (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari -

    Jay here, from Duck Sports News.

    Interesting discussion.

    Even though I'm not a fan of Smith or Merkeley (and that doesn't mean I'm a centrist), I do have one question for Smith's campaign in regards to their use of the Oregon font (and believe me, it is the font): why? Why go to the trouble? Why not use another font that's close? Why use that font?

    It's all very strange. And I'm not sure what they were thinking (because I actually think they were thinking and made a deliberate decision). Then again, that could be said about a number of things.

    Jay Duck Sports News (and Beaver Sports News, Beaver fans)

  • Jay Jones (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari -

    Jay here, from Duck Sports News.

    Interesting discussion.

    Even though I'm not a fan of Smith or Merkeley (and that doesn't mean I'm a centrist), I do have one question for Smith's campaign in regards to their use of the Oregon font (and believe me, it is the font): why? Why go to the trouble? Why not use another font that's close? Why use that font?

    It's all very strange. And I'm not sure what they were thinking (because I actually think they were thinking and made a deliberate decision). Then again, that could be said about a number of things.

    Jay Duck Sports News (and Beaver Sports News, Beaver fans)

  • (Show?)

    Actually, I appreciated Bobo's intro -- I acknowledged in my own post that I'm an amateur when it comes to IP law, it struck me as a mere statement of fact. (And the "you losers" thing, for that matter, is way too general to be offensive.)

    But I'm confused by the content of the post. Bobo, you say I'm wrong, but then you respond as though I made reference to copyright law in my example. I didn't -- I explicitly referenced trademark law. It's entirely possible I was wrong about something there too, and if so I hope you'll point it out.

    But I didn't make the mistake you claim I made.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's not the same font!

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Peter, can you point to a letterform in particular that is off? As I said before, there are different versions of this font from different typographers and in different formats. You can see some of the differences here.

  • (Show?)

    Besides being insulting, Bobo is flat out wrong in at least one major statement: "In the case of fonts, one can only copyright the exact image of each letter."

    That is false. Not only does copyright cover the work of art itself, it also covers what are called "derivative works". If the U of O created that font, or obtained sole right to use it, then no amount of scaling, warping, recoloring, or other derivative process employed by the Smith campaign would render the copyright invalid.

    Nor does Gordon Smith have any leeway at all to claim fair use, as Kari did in the case of the Novick campaign. Smith is using the work for his own purpose, not to make political critiques of the U of O.

    Bobo is correct in at least one regard: it is the responsibility of the copyright holder to actually enforce their copyrights. And certainly most Universities don't have the money to do so (though I'm not sure about football programs). But at most, all that would happen at the worst is for a letter to be written, and the Smith campaign quietly changing their materials.

    Still, we can make fun of it - as we'd do with anything else, like, say, finding out some high Republican poobah has a collection of downloaded pirate music on their PC. (Which I'm sure more than a few do.)

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hold on while I get my Photoshop in gear...

  • (Show?)

    like, say, finding out some high Republican poobah has a collection of downloaded pirate music...

    Bingo.

    George Bush: Music Pirate? George Bush vs. The RIAA? Bush's iPod filled with infringing goodness

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here is a comparison of two of the shared letters:

    http://www.tyger.cc/analysis.jpg

    You can see pretty evident differences in the letter formations, not simply differences due to italics, bold, etc. They are different fonts.

  • Andy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, I was doing my own photoshop comparisons and I wondered if you are you at all related to the Beetlejuice star Glenn Shaddix?

    Click here for a photo comparison of my own

  • (Show?)

    (cleaning beer spittle off my monitor)

    OK, time to log off BlueO for the night. Thanks Andy!

  • (Show?)

    James X., I don't know what distinctions count enough to make for a different letterform, but here's what I see that makes me wonder if Peter Bray isn't right:

    1) When I type Gordon Smith into the Handel Gothic text box at the link you provided, it comes out looking substantially different in all the letters with rounded interior spaces, essentially circular & not lozenge shape, with no differences in line thickness. Likewise on other letters, what would be the down strokes in calligraphy are thicker than the cross strokes which is not true in Handel Gothic. All of the variant examples on the Handel Gothic page also appear to preserve the same proportions between height and width in individual characters, which are much narrower relative to height than either of the Oregon examples.

    The contrast to the Handel Gothic examples provided do make the Smith ad & the U. of O. font look more similar, though.

    2) Even so, there also seem to be differences between the two Oregon fonts. Although it is a bit hard to tell because of the smaller size on the U. of O. logo, the letter O, which is perhaps particularly significant, seems to have a different outside line (more slanted as it declines, which a slight squaring at the vertical point, compared to a rounder line on the Smith ad) and a quite different interior line producing a different lozenge shape, with considerably less white area inside the Smith version, due to generally greater line thickness but more particularly greater horizontal line thickness. Similar comments apply to the D and the R and to a lesser extent the G.

    It is hard to say more without seeing more letters, but if Times and Times New Roman count as different fonts, or Arial and Helvetica, I'm unsure whether or why the differences I see here would not distinguish these fonts.

    Clearly they are quite similar, as the more marked contrast to Handel Gothic shows, even in terms of the smoothing out of places where curved and straight lines meet and certain sharp corners that they all share.

    Can someone who knows explain what characteristics determine different fonts as opposed to variants within a font family that are "essentially the same font" as has been argued? What is it about the difference between say Arial and Helvetica that makes them different fonts, that would not apply to the differences here?

    Thanks.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Peter, that just looks like differences in how far they stretched Handel.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yes, exactly. Gordon Smith's font is Handel Gothic with an upside down U for an N. Oregon's customization is stretching the letters, screwing with the E, and flipping the U.

    Next you are going to be telling me that Smith is copying United Airlines old logo? (Which does the EXACT SAME THING.)

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Take a look at this:

    http://www.thelooniverse.com/movies/west/saulbass/logos/UAlogos.gif

    Is Gordon Smith and/or UO copying United Airlines circa 1973? The fact of the matter is that this is not a unique font nor style... in either case.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here:

    http://www.thelooniverse.com/movies/west/saulbass/logos/UAlogos.gif

    This is 1973 by Saul Bass... come on folks, this is idiotic.

  • (Show?)

    Fun fact about the capital O letterform in the Ducks' font: the outer perimeter is in the shape of Autzen Stadium, and the inner perimeter is in the shape of Hayward Field.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chris, Handel doesn't look the same because the Smith and Ducks logo are stretched out more. That makes vertical lines wider than horizontal lines, and similarly distorts curves. The Smith and Ducks logos do not stretch the letters to the same width, so they have different shapes, but they are based on the same form.

    As for what makes a different version vs. a different font, they're really all different fonts, but some are explicitly based on the same source. Many fonts we use on computers are digitized recreations of fonts that originated as liquid metal poured into molds. That's one reason why there are multiple typographers that have a Caslon or whatever. (That's not the only reason. Licensing deals are another.) Times, Times New Roman, and Times Roman are all based on the same font created for The Times of London in the 1930s.

    Also, quality fonts typically take at least a year to create. (Times took 14 years, but that was pre-digital.) Part of the reason is because a complete font set can contain thousands of letterforms. There's also things like kerning and hinting that I don't want to go into here. A license for a full font family, consisting of all weights, italics, alternate letters, etc., can easily cost hundreds of dollars. Creating a new font isn't as simple as it may seem. Now, creating something ad-hoc just for a logo is different. And splicing the anatomy of a bunch of existing letterforms together to create something new is not unusual in logo design.

    There are other ways to restyle a font for a logo besides stretching and splicing. For example, the Jeff Merkley logo is a font called Avenir (or else I'll eat my shoe). But if you look at Avenir (and feel free to click the links to see the italic form in various weights), you'll notice that none of the variations quite seem to match. Check out the Merkley "k," for example. In Avenir, the point of the "k" just barely touches the stem, but in the Merkley logo, there's a lot more connection. What I'm willing to bet was done is that an outline was added, making all the strokes thicker, and turning that barely touching point into a thick connection.

    I could continue this comment, but I'm tired.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Also, the sample was too low-res for me to be sure, but it appeared that the Ducks logo may have disproportionately stretched the x-height vertically. That basically means that with a letter like "R," "E," or "S," the top part looks slightly shorter than the bottom part.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Okay, so we can agree that Gordon Smith's campaign is not "stealing" anything. He is using a well-known and frequently used font. It just so happens to be the font that UO has customized to their own purposes. He has not adopted any of their customizations.

    Given the OSU/UO rivalry, it would seem that this was almost certainly accidental. As it is, this font has frequently been used to express "the future".

    A tempest in a teapot.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Peter: "Designed by Don Handel in the mid-1960s, and used in the 1973 United Airlines logo developed by Saul Bass, Handel Gothic was an instant success when released to the graphic design community."

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sorry, Peter, I guess I misread you. When you said "It's not the same font!" I thought you meant that they weren't all Handel.

  • Harry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Maybe Senator Smith outsourced his font work to Dan Rather and his font gurus... who were the font experts who broke the Microsoft fonts used by the Texas Air National Guard to excuse George Bush from Viet Nam combat.

    I do miss Dan. Katie is just not at all like Dan.

    Courage verus Perkiness

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ugh, don't get me started on the nonsense from that case, Harry. People were claiming the font was Times New Roman and that the documents were printed with Microsoft Word. It was preposterous, but all these people on a blog called Little Green Footballs were sure of it. Meanwhile, the documents showed broken letterforms on a baseline that moved up and down, a dead giveaway that it was done on a typewriter. People even created overlays of Times New Roman on the documents and said "See? The same!" when they were, in fact, completely different shapes, and the overlays exposed it. It was an embarrassment for journalism that such nonsense from people who nicknamed themselves after snot was taken as gospel. Meanwhile, there is still no record of Bush ever showing up for service in the Texas Air National Guard, and nobody who did serve has claimed to have ever met him.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sorry, Peter, I guess I misread you. When you said "It's not the same font!" I thought you meant that they weren't all Handel.

    The font is clearly different. The typeface is the same.

  • (Show?)

    Fun fact about the capital O letterform in the Ducks' font: the outer perimeter is in the shape of Autzen Stadium, and the inner perimeter is in the shape of Hayward Field.

    Stephanie, are you sure that's true for the capitol O in the font? I know it's true for the giant O in the logo (which is partially cropped in my graphic above), but is it also true for the O in the type?

    I know this is getting into areas related to your employer, so feel free to opt out of the conversation.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It sounds suspect to me, too, Kari. First, Autzen isn't very round (alternate view). I don't really see the outline of the O in it. Also, Hayward is narrower than the counter (inside part), even if you ignore what's going on with that northeast corner. I know this is popular lore about the logo, but I suspect that it's either an urban legend, or an example of clever marketing by Nike, the logo's creator. (Clever marketing? Nike?) Perhaps the Emerald can investigate.

  • edison (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Okay ... TJ's still pissed about the primary outcome. That's a known known as Mr. Rumsfeld used to say. So am I but I'm gonna support the nominee. But what Kevin said is over the top: "So who wants to set up the fund to buy TJ some quality session time with the mental health professional of his choice?

    At this point I'd be more than happy to pitch in a few bucks if it'd mean that we don't have to be subjected to his Sour Grapes of Wrath for the foreseeable future."

    I'm not attempting to defend TJ, he can take care of himself. But, Kevin, shame on you.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The O appears to have no relationship to the current Autzen stadium:

    http://tyger.cc/autzen.jpg

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Edison, I agree, but I was so into the nerdy typography that I forgot that the part about Merkley being terrible was even in this post.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Please excuse me, I can see how it could fit:

    http://tyger.cc/autzen2.jpg

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Peter, if the O were based on Autzen, I would think it would go on its side and line up more with the edge of the crowd in the lower (narrower) section.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Err, I should say, the alignment would be like the second example, but with the upper edge of the crowd being the guide, not that weird bulging grassy part.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yeah I tried that, it didn't work. The field is even less likely... I think this genesis story is apocryphal.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Interestingly, speaking of possible intellectual property violations, UO isn't exactly sparkly clean:

    The frenzied "charging duck" pumping his fists inside a large, eight-sided letter 'O' was a ubiquitous campus logo for years. It was eventually replaced as the UO marketing machine grew and felt confined by Disney's restrictive contract, which forbids the school from selling items with the Donald Duck logo beyond the Oregon border.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    That doesn't seem like an IP infringement, they had an agreement. Here's a little more on the issue. I did always think it was weird to see "(c) Disney" on the logo, though.

  • (Show?)

    Wow...hardcore font nerds.

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's called "boredom", Carla.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well, yes, but you don't have to be such an ignorant/small-brained egoistic petty elitist loser child about it.

  • bobo (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm only going to respond to Forsyth directly (James X went off the rails with an irresponsible allegation and that is the end of that.):

    Actually, I appreciated Bobo's intro -- I acknowledged in my own post that I'm an amateur when it comes to IP law, it struck me as a mere statement of fact. (And the "you losers" thing, for that matter, is way too general to be offensive.)

    But I'm confused by the content of the post. Bobo, you say I'm wrong, but then you respond as though I made reference to copyright law in my example. I didn't -- I explicitly referenced trademark law. It's entirely possible I was wrong about something there too, and if so I hope you'll point it out.

    But I didn't make the mistake you claim I made.

    Unfortunately, your discussion made even less sense in the context of trademark law than it did in the context of copyright law you said you weren't discussing. In some way I was trying to give the content of your discussion more attention than I guess I should have.

    There are several categories of "mark" and a "registered trademark" is a type of government patent that allows someone the right to prevent anyone else from using a claimed "mark" in specific categories of activity.

    In this case, there are two obvious potential "marks", that a relevant to the discussion about typefaces. The first is the simply the words "Oregon Ducks" rendered in any graphical form and the second is the entire "logo". If we want to talk about the Smith graphic device, either of the two possible "marks" clearly does NOT conflict with either of the two possible "marks" that UO could have trademarked in connection with their graphic device.

    Beyond that, since UO has to specify the categories in which they want their "mark" registered, people would even be free to try to claim the "mark" "Oregon Ducks" in other categories that UO didn't register in. Furthermore, they would only be prevented from using the logo "mark" in those other categories by a claim of copyright by UO.

    Clear as mud?

  • Alex Sencio (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I can't believe this is the topic that's generated more comments than just about everything else on the site recently. Believe me, I skipped through the juvenile vitriole after a few posts....don't you people have jobs???

  • (Show?)

    "Okay ... TJ's still pissed about the primary outcome."

    Not at all. I'm pissed about the behavior and character of the Merkley campaign and its associates, both then AND now. I've moved on from the result, and I'm pretty confident Steve will get another chance eventually. That doesn't change the shameful way a Democratic candidate conducted itself, and it would have been true no matter who won (although if it had been Novick, the problem of Merkley continuing his toxic approach would have been solved, and in this scenario it is not).

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Carrying a grudge isn't healthy, TJ.

  • (Show?)

    "TJ, "we" don't know those things."

    Sure we do. Would you like the documentation?

  • (Show?)

    "For the record (and I've said this way too many times), I am not a media consultant - Jeff Merkley's or anybody else's. The "media consultant" produces TV spots. I am an "internet strategist" or "website developer"."

    Web is a medium. You are a media consultant.

  • (Show?)

    So is clay. Doesn't mean that it makes sense to call a sculptor a "media consultant".

    I can appreciate that I consult on a particular form of media, so I suppose that you're technically correct in applying that adjective to that noun - but "Media Consultant" is a term of art, especially in the world of politics. It has a particular meaning: the guy who makes TV spots.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks bobo, yes it's clear, and helpful in making sense of all this.

    You may now return to your regularly scheduled juvenile mudslinging!

  • (Show?)

    By the way, to the powers that be...I would suggest a temporary (say 2-3 weeks) block on TJ. Not as punishment or anything like that, but to allow discussion of issues to thrive, without getting directed back to personal gripes. Also for his own health -- I doubt he'll believe that I mean that sincerely, but I do.

  • Tiresias (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I second the motion to temporarily rusticate TJ. He's already ruined Loaded Orygun, and he is doing his best to repeat that "success" here.

  • (Show?)

    I second the motion to temporarily rusticate TJ. He's already ruined Loaded Orygun, and he is doing his best to repeat that "success" here.

    All in favor of putting TJ in time-out? AYE

  • (Show?)

    "So is clay. Doesn't mean that it makes sense to call a sculptor a "media consultant"."

    Not really aware of the vast involvement of claymation in politics these days, but maybe you've got an inside view. On the other hand, web pages seem slightly more utilized.

    You're obviously free to label yourself however you like. But I don't think it's inaccurate to refer to you as a media consultant.

  • (Show?)

    Very true - I don't consider myself a media consultant, either. Traditionally the meaning of the phrase is someone who consults on things like tv commercials and such. The person doing the web site work is an internet strategist, internet consultant, web strategist, etc.

  • (Show?)

    "By the way, to the powers that be...I would suggest a temporary (say 2-3 weeks) block on TJ. Not as punishment or anything like that, but to allow discussion of issues to thrive, without getting directed back to personal gripes. Also for his own health -- I doubt he'll believe that I mean that sincerely, but I do."

    Wow, and people call ME condescending. I don't exactly see the typography discussion failing to thrive, so let's dispense with that excuse. Dismissing issues with the Merkley campaign--that many others have also elcuidated--as something "personal" rather than a public concern is similarly insulting. You just don't like someone bringing up ugly details the Merkley campaign hoped people would forget. Think about the precedent you're asking to be set--pretty spurious conditions for squelching speech.

    And yeah, your concern for my health doesn't look so sincere when wrapped in your intimation that what I write is the result of derangement. I'm fine, have been. I was over Novick's loss by Friday the 23rd. But Merkley's primary campaign would be relevant no matter who he ran against, assuming he would have employed the same tactics.

  • (Show?)
    (although if it had been Novick, the problem of Merkley continuing his toxic approach would have been solved, and in this scenario it is not).

    Again with the irony?

    I'd say that there's a fairly high degree of unanimity about the toxicity of YOUR approach both during and since the Primary. But you continue to confuse opposition to your own tactics with some sort of opposition to Novick. Nothing could be further from the truth.

  • (Show?)

    "But you continue to confuse opposition to your own tactics with some sort of opposition to Novick."

    Uh? Where does opposition to Novick come into play at all? It has nothing to do with how the Merkley campaign conducted itself.

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    TJ...If you really feel the Merkley people did any one any real harm to you or anyone else, why don't you take it to the ultimate step of your inane and insane diatribes and have a judge, in a court of law, decide if it was (whatever it is) right or wrong. Otherwise, it's time to stop your shoveling and dig somewhere else.

    It's really not healthy to hold a grudge.

  • (Show?)

    "The person doing the web site work is an internet strategist, internet consultant, web strategist, etc."

    You can see where those distinctions are fast becoming irrelevant though, right? When you start engineering things like text broadcasting and other wireless content, you may or may not be utilizing the internet or the web.

  • (Show?)

    "TJ...If you really feel the Merkley people did any one any real harm to you or anyone else, why don't you take it to the ultimate step of your inane and insane diatribes and have a judge, in a court of law, decide if it was (whatever it is) right or wrong. Otherwise, it's time to stop your shoveling and dig somewhere else."

    Harm to me? What the heck? I wasn't running. But certainly the harm was done to all of us, who were deprived of an honest and ethical Senate primary. If you know of an ethical or moral court that exists, direct me to it. With the exception of the theft of the Novick CSS, no one's ever suggested criminal wrongdoing that I know of. And even if there were any point to litigating that, it wasn't me who was stolen from.

  • (Show?)

    Sheesh! Does every topic have to come to this?

  • Samuel John Klein (unverified)
    (Show?)

    No. It can come to this:

    This brou-ha-ha got a mention in the news feet at Microsoft Typography.

    Which is kind of cool, actually.

  • (Show?)

    Hunh. Seems like a long post on typographic copyright I posted before noon seems not to have made it through the filters. Maybe I've been preemptively rusticated.

    But the fact of the matter is you can't copyright a font design. You can copyright the digital program that describes a font, and it is illegal to use software to extract the point and curve data that defines a font's outline and resell a modified version of that font. But courts ruled in the 1980s -- as digital typography was getting off the ground -- that the image of a font was not copyrightable.

    In any case, if the Bellotti Bold font the UofO uses is derived from Handel (i.e. it's a modified version of a Handel font rather than a completely re-drawn font that looks like Handel) it's the one that would be violating copyright, if it were to be sold commercially. And I think the thing the designers of the Smith campaign materials would be guilty of -- if they acquired a copy of that font without permission -- would be theft of software. If they made text that looked like the Ducks' without recourse to anything but pixels on the screen, then no harm, no fowl.

  • (Show?)

    From Handel to Gordon Smith font in five simple steps:

    http://www.darrelplant.com/blog_item.php?ItemRef=1054

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks Darrel... Great run down on the font.

    Chisholm was wrong on this one. No surprise there. Chisholm is a campaign operative who will do whatever it takes for his client to win. While he may be a Democrat in his private life, on here, prima facie, he is a capitalist who could care less about political leaning. He viciously attacks fellow Democrats and plugs his silly little Web sites more than Howard Stern plugs Howard TV (a lot).

  • (Show?)

    You know, Mr. Bray, I must say, you certainly do have an appropriate name.

  • (Show?)

    Chisholm was wrong on this one.

    Peter, I'm confused. Can you quote back to me the sentence that I wrote that was wrong or inaccurate?

    I'll ignore the ad hominem attacks, though. They're just silly. If I was just in it for the money, I'd be doing something else for a living. There are many easier ways to make a buck.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'd classify this as an amusing curiosity, as well as an enjoyable and nerdy way for me to have passed some time. No need to get upset at Kari over it, he just noted the similarity, and then noted when another blog followed up on it.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Can you quote back to me the sentence that I wrote that was wrong or inaccurate?

    Absolutely:

    Look familiar? It should. It's exactly the same font that the University of Oregon athletic program uses:

    As discussed above, it is absolutely NOT the same font. As Darrel points out in his post (on his site), you should leave typography comparisons and IP to those who are experienced in that field.

  • (Show?)

    Aha. I see. You assert that it's not the same font. I assert that it is. That's a difference of opinion, not a provable fact.

    But whatever.

  • (Show?)

    TJ,

    You are quite wrong, you have disrupted this thread and any number of others, by continually finding the most tenuous connection to your interpretation of the Senate primary and injecting it.

    I don't buy your argument about it, because you don't propose any kind of possible resolution, or define any point at which the discussion could possibly stop or any reason why it might. The tenuousness of your hooks (perceived ironies due to the persons of commenters or far-fetched analogies that make the stretching of Handel by U of O / Smith look almost invisible) suggests that the only thing that would satisfy you would be for Jeff Merkley to resign his candidacy, Kari to sell all his computers and Kevin to go live in northern Greenland, to take just a few examples.

    Jeff and/or his people did some things in the campaign I didn't particularly like. So did Steve and/or his people. None of them remotely approached serious unethicality that falls outside the political pale.

    You have said what you have to say over and over and over again. The parts that are persuasive have persuaded people, the parts that aren't haven't, and aren't going to do so because you keep repeating them.

    Just because you think you know something doesn't mean it's true ipso facto, or that others really "know" it too and just won't admit it. It is possible to honestly disagree with your opinions, which are no more than that, and that possibility frequently occurs in reality.

    <hr/>

    Although I've just violated what I'm about to say, I won't in the future. When TJ brings up the Senate primary in this way, we need to "leave him severely alone" and just not respond. This isn't partisan trolling, but it is trolling and baiting, and needs to be treated as such.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, you apparently do not know what the word "font" means. Per Wikipedia:

    In typography, a font is traditionally defined as a complete character set of a single size of a particular typeface. For example, the set of all characters for 9 point Bulmer is a font, and the 10 point size would be another font.

    So you were demonstrably wrong.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Aha. I see. You assert that it's not the same font. I assert that it is. That's a difference of opinion, not a provable fact.

    This is a completely silly statement. Just as you can prove that 5 inches is not 3 inches factually (and not just by opinion), you absolutely can prove whether or not a particular font is the same as another.

  • (Show?)

    you absolutely can prove whether or not a particular font is the same as another.

    Yes, that's true. But you haven't done that here.

    In any case, this was all just some silly Friday fun -- and it's been a week now (with coverage even in the Oregonian sports section! ...not that you would have deigned to read such meaningless trifle...) -- so I'm done.

  • (Show?)
    Peter, I'm confused. Can you quote back to me the sentence that I wrote that was wrong or inaccurate?

    Well, you were passing along bad information about the image of a typeface being copyrightable. I don't know if that counts as "wrong" in the sense that the New York Times passing along Bush administration scams about Iraqi WMD's was "wrong", but it was a bit naive.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Peter, I Googled that and couldn't find it on Wikipedia. While it's true that traditionally a font was considered one size and style, the distinction between a font and a typeface has evaporated in the digital era. When a typesetter had to put pieces of metal into place, there would typically be a bucket full of each letter for each font, and a group of such buckets would be considered a font. 9pt would be one font/set, 10pt another, etc.

    In digital typography, the file your font comes from doesn't have a different set of glyphs for each possible point size. It's one glyph per character that can be blown up or shrunken down to whatever size you like. It's all one file, and the file is called a font.

    Anyway, the specificity of nomenclature within a field isn't always applicable to generic definitions. It isn't even always followed within the field.

  • (Show?)

    darrelplant: Well, you were passing along bad information about the image of a typeface being copyrightable.

    Normally darrel, I refrain from responding to you. But Kari has only talked about fonts, not typefaces. While the whole thing was trifling to start with, because the source was Handel, it was a legitimate question to bring up, because people don't go copying typefaces, and all the standard programs don't use bitmaps of typefaces.

    They use scalable fonts. Which are copyrightable.

  • (Show?)
    I don't buy your argument about it, because you don't propose any kind of possible resolution, or define any point at which the discussion could possibly stop or any reason why it might. The tenuousness of your hooks (perceived ironies due to the persons of commenters or far-fetched analogies that make the stretching of Handel by U of O / Smith look almost invisible) suggests that the only thing that would satisfy you would be for Jeff Merkley to resign his candidacy, Kari to sell all his computers and Kevin to go live in northern Greenland, to take just a few examples.

    One can't resolve things that have already happened, but amends are possible. Admissions of poor conduct and sincere correction are possible, but more importantly a change of approach is one way to "resolve" the ethical problems the Merkley campaign suffers from.

    I'm not sure I follow what you mean by a tenuousness of hooks. I certainly wasn't the only one, not even in this thread, to see the irony of Kari bashing Smith for the alleged theft of intellectual property, just weeks after having done so himself. (And if they were confident it wasn't, why hastily add "parody" to it, and subsequently change the look of the page anyway?) That isn't plucking something out of a comment and stretching it as far as possible to make a point about Merkley; it's responding directly to the theme and subject of the posted article. That seems awfully reasonable to me.

    Jeff and/or his people did some things in the campaign I didn't particularly like. So did Steve and/or his people. None of them remotely approached serious unethicality that falls outside the political pale.

    When one Democrat lies about another Democrat in a primary, that's beyond the pale to me. When one Democrat steals from another Democrat, that's beyond the pale. Let it pass, call it history and say it's just not worth it--that sounds an awful lot like the rationales to avoid impeachment hearings. But all that does is give a pass and encourage the next candidate to do the same, because they know they can get away with it.

    This website was cited repeatedly by members of the journalism (cf WW) AND political class (cf 3 SoS candidates) during the primary for questionable judgement, so we're not talking about fringe concerns. (I'm not saying they were making the same attacks regarding the Merkley campaign; my point is that they'd like to see BlueO held accountable for their performance as well.)

    I don't think it's baiting at all; it's not letting the attempts to divert discussion to the messenger cloud the issues.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The O is based on Autzen... from an old Oregonian article:

    Some faculty and students assailed the O, noting that Nike created the symbol for the athletic department in 1998. The designer -- a UO alum -- copied the O's curves from Autzen Stadium and the track at Hayward Field.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The inside might be "inspired" by Hayward, but the outside is just Handel stretched out. I'm looking at it in Illustrator now.

  • Smitty (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well, since we're all nerding out on this topic, the font in the Oregon logo is NOT "Bellotti Bold."

    The Bellotti Bold font is numbers only, and is used on the current Oregon football jerseys. It's designed to highlight the "V-taper" of the players' torsos from shoulder pads to waist, which is probably why it doesn't work so well with the linemen.

    Here's the Bellotti Bold font:

    http://static.flickr.com/66/171301185_5e6af4e861_o.jpg

connect with blueoregon