Out of the submissions we have I’d vote for the last one with the top bit removed, so it is no longer a padlock. I prefer it as a suggestive shape that can be seen as an ‘S’, a kind of ying and yang sign, infinity symbol, nodes etc.
As above though, none of them really do it for me.
I think we should just learn our lesson here, award the prize, then hold it again with a broader brief that encourages a wider range of designs. It does seem like a great value way of getting a lot of designs created quickly, even though we didn’t get what we wanted first time around.
I have to agreee. Remember SAFE isn’t just for keeping your data secure but also for making your data public as well. It’s a transceiver array as well as a vault. So I think the emphasis should be on decentralization and interconnection rather solely on security.
I passed this page on to my son, a graphic designer/creative director here in New Zealand. He picked #235 as the best of the finalists, with the following comment: “I think that icon will work best down small on apps and in web environment which is where is will be seen most.”
Yeah, #235’s been growing on me quite a bit. I originally listed #6 as my favorite, but I hear what others are saying and even though I don’t agree quite as strongly, I think a lock image might conceptually tie our hands (esp. down the road) in a way that something like #235, by being abstract, avoids. Given the evolutionary potential of the Network, going for a strong, abstract image makes sense IMO.
I can´t say that I find any of the final designs stand out. I was a bit disappointed when I looked at all the suggestions during the competition. There where so many locks and S:s, and so few abstract network symbols. Among the final designs I think I like number 15 the most. Probably, because it reminds me of all the polygons I´ve been tweaking in 3d modeling tools. It´s abstract, and that is good. Number 110 is an abstract network symbol, but I´d like to see a more organic design.
I finally got time to check the Logo competition. I wished I joined but oh wellz… I don’t really like any of them and I think it is too soon. It should be ongoing challenge, if you catch my drift.
With that being said, I like #235 out of the bunch.
I can’t understand the attraction to 235. With all due respect, it looks like the generic, web-template offspring of Chase and The Boys and Girls Club.
6 - the lock theme is expressed well I think - its still welcoming and universal due to its roundness. This logo might be interpreted as an ‘safe online’ software eg parental controls for protecting children online
7 - I’d say this was the weakest. The lines don’t communicate ‘network’ to me and the lock looks like a broach.
15 - This one has promise, but it needs work. Experiment with type, colour, and make it flatter.
110 - This one needs work. There is too much white there and its doesn’t look modern. The central node should removed or change. Maybe the lines should be thinner or a node hollowed out. Node shapes could be experimented with.
235 - This is a little boring, but I’m not ruling it out. I tend away from chunky designs and towards more whitespace - as this gives the appearance of being more modern - maybe experiment with thinner lines?
268 - I don’t have any suggestions for this one. I’m not sure how to improve it.
I think the padlock symbolizes the need to lock up something and that is a fear based action.
I would love to live in a world without locks, where people do not need to lock even the front door of their house.
What safenet should not be is a world full of padlocks (as in everybody has locked their front door) but of a world where padlocks don’t exist as in there is no need for them (the possibility of theft is eliminated, which is what safenet is trying to do).
I said that 99design is a nest for plagiarizers, and I hoped people would research them.
I will do that task for you, now. Some designs should be disqualified from the contest:
Besides, these subtle shades with volumetric effect are gone once it is converted in monochrome.
#4 Finalist (Logo #110): Generic
Nodes and Graphs are too generic. Even Storj added some uniquely identifiable feature (a little cloud in the middle).
Having just nodes and links is the opposite of being uniquely identifiable.
The #6 (Logo #268) seems to be original, I haven’t seen anywhere an hexagon with a circuit in negative space forming a diagonal S. If anyone else finds evidence of plagiarism or derivative work, please post it.
If this is original work, it is quite clever.
My personal opinion is that I would ditch the “shackle” and just keep the hexagon.
So from these logos, my choice is #6. Sadly not because it is the best, but because it is the only choice available.
Thanks for the research @piluso and I hope everyone here (especially those in the logo committee) take these revelations into account when determining the contestants who will be entering the final poll.
Also, I would consider @Artiscience’s entry as well if no one objects.
Even though I love the creative process of @Artiscience, that zig zag pattern has been used before in other kind of logos as well.
I don’t remember where I saw it, but I swear that I saw it somewhere, with the slight difference that the oval “nests” were circular nodes, but the angles and positions of the links were exactly the same.
Thanks for doing this research. We did do some of our own, but obviously not as well as you did. I’m sad to see that some of the logos are almost exact copies, especially the S-shaped logo that seems to be an exact copy.
I do think though that an entirely unique logo is very hard to created. Most shapes, colors and patterns have been created and used before. My opinion about each of the six:
Number 6: Yes, they look similar for sure. I’m pretty sure that the open source logo is made up of elements previously used in other logos. We actually did dismiss another design that was almost an exact copy of this.
Number 7: This seems to borrow it’s unique property from the logos that you posted. We’ll probably have to drop this one, but I can’t take that decision on my own.
Number 15: Yes, the pattern is similar but I don’t see that as a major issue. I’m still curious to see what this designer comes up with. As mentioned before it’s a wildcard. As for the monochrome, I’m don’t see how that is an issue for a logo that will be digitally used?
Number 110: As said before I don’t think it’s a 1-on-1 copy of the Storj logo and we asked the designer to come up with a different design. We specifically mentioned the Storj logo and told the designer not to go in that direction.
Number 235: A 1-on-1 copy for sure, we’ll have to disqualify that one in my opinion. Will need to consult the rest of the team though.
Number 268: No argument here it seems, would definitely be an option to ask for a variation without the shackle.
Finalist #3 (logo #15) is weak. Logos should be simple, that usually means no special effects, no gradients, no shadows.
This is a typical rookie mistake, I used to make logos like these when I was in high school, which I thought were cool until a graphic designer shook his head and told me why it is not good. It is not future proof, and the lack of simple and clear shapes limits the different mediums where these logo could be used in the future. What if you make t-shirts or you have branded stationery? What if they are exposed to the sun and the colors fade away? Will that make it unrecognizable?
My own rule of thumb is: if it can’t be easily stenciled, it is not simple enough.
Besides that, the pattern is not unique, you don’t want a generic template background as your logo.
This particular background pattern is a iOS wallpaper, and I don’t think that is the free association you want to have…
On Finalist #2 (logo #7), the two samples over there (hearts and shield) are from the same user on fotolia, check the shape of the shield with the shape of the proposed Safe Network logo. It is a perfect fit.
On Finalist #4 (logo #110), I wasn’t suggesting that it was copied from the Storj logo, I said that EVEN in Storj they attempted to add some originality by adding some extra detail from their generic graph template.
btw, @Josh I hope you are trolling me…
If that doesn’t seem to be an almost identical clone, how about this one?
There are hundreds of the same shapes with different variations of it, it must be dropped.
I think the others look like crap but this at least could be turned into a texture for 3D modeling of some sort. Might be interesting. Although honestly modeling the crystal facets from scratch might actually create a better render.
