Artist logo I'm working on...

[Dana]

to be fair, I do agree that I should remove the fender logos

 

[Darrell]

I'm not looking for critiques from people who aren't even graphic designers by hobby. Just sayin.

That's the perfect attitude to take when asking people what they think of your work.

 

[retro]

He wanted her Jagerstang on the logo, I just did what he asked don't shoot the designer. That is a Jagerstang. I just tried to vectorize it.



Why the fuck must one think outside the box on everything? You go by what your client wants and try to incorporate it. Thats how shit works.

1) It's a Jagstang, not a Jagerstang.

2) Having the name in there twice seems like a bit overkill to me, but that's just personal opinion.

3) Zorak is only partially correct... Fender lost their court case, and they don't have a trademark on the body shapes. However, the headstock is a trademark and cannot be used for this purpose.

It's not a matter of having to think outside the box, it's a matter of you having to adhere to copyright law in the things that you design. Otherwise, the whole thing is too cartoony for my tastes, but that's just personal preference.

 

[Zorak]

1) It's a Jagstang, not a Jagerstang.

2) Having the name in there twice seems like a bit overkill to me, but that's just personal opinion.

3) Zorak is only partially correct... Fender lost their court case, and they don't have a trademark on the body shapes. However, the headstock is a trademark and cannot be used for this purpose.

It's not a matter of having to think outside the box, it's a matter of you having to adhere to copyright law in the things that you design. Otherwise, the whole thing is too cartoony for my tastes, but that's just personal preference.

I only said the headstock.

 

[retro]

I'm not looking for critiques from people who aren't even graphic designers by hobby. Just sayin.

So by that standard, you should be accepting critiques from me. Right?

:willy_nilly:

 

[retro]

I only said the headstock.

Gotcha, I was going off of, "telecaster, jaguar and jazzmaster shapes", so it looked like that was in addition to the headstock comment.

 

[Defiant Tuesday]

That looks awesome!!!

 

[retro]

I finally figured out what the seal in the background reminded me of...

 

[Zorak]

Ah, no, my fault for being unclear.

I didn't know they tried to copyright the bodies as well. There are plenty of strat style copies out there, so clearly they lost lol.

 

[pjbleek]

Ah, no, my fault for being unclear.

I didn't know they tried to copyright the bodies as well. There are plenty of strat style copies out there, so clearly they lost lol.

should just ask Steve Hackett if his can be used...he has one in his collection somewhere....

 

[retro]

Ah, no, my fault for being unclear.

I didn't know they tried to copyright the bodies as well. There are plenty of strat style copies out there, so clearly they lost lol.

Yeah, they tried a while back... but it fell flat on it's face just like Gibson's suit against PRS for selling a single-cut guitar.

 

[Zorak]

Yeah, they tried a while back... but it fell flat on it's face just like Gibson's suit against PRS for selling a single-cut guitar.

lol, well that's just common sense. What's the point of having 10 frets you can't reach.

 

[Dana]

1) It's a Jagstang, not a Jagerstang.

2) Having the name in there twice seems like a bit overkill to me, but that's just personal opinion.

3) Zorak is only partially correct... Fender lost their court case, and they don't have a trademark on the body shapes. However, the headstock is a trademark and cannot be used for this purpose.

It's not a matter of having to think outside the box, it's a matter of you having to adhere to copyright law in the things that you design. Otherwise, the whole thing is too cartoony for my tastes, but that's just personal preference.

My thinking outside the box comment was directed at PJ. I got rid of the Jagstang logo and Fender logo. Am I not supposed to use their guitar? I'd have to talk with the client about that. Possibly obtaining an obscure guitar vector in its place; which I have no problem doing.

 

[Zorak]

My thinking outside the box comment was directed at PJ. I got rid of the Jagstang logo and fender logo. Am I not supposed to use their guitar? I'd have to talk with the client about that. Possibly obtaining an obscure guitar vector in its place; which I have no problem doing.

You can't use that shape of the headstock, that's the bit at the end of the guitar where you tune the strings:

That shape is copyrighted.

 

[retro]

lol, well that's just common sense. What's the point of having 10 frets you can't reach.

Nah, it was because PRS traditionally only sold double-cuts before they introduced the single-cut models.

 

[retro]

My thinking outside the box comment was directed at PJ. I got rid of the Jagstang logo and Fender logo. Am I not supposed to use their guitar? I'd have to talk with the client about that. Possibly obtaining an obscure guitar vector in its place; which I have no problem doing.

You can't have that headstock in the logo... its design is a registered trademark of Fender.

edit: what Zorak just said

 

[Dana]

Thank you guys for the heads up. I got in contact with the client.

 

[Dana]

I finally figured out what the seal in the background reminded me of...

I actually got inspired by The Ramones :surrender

 

[Dana]

Sooooooo can anyone tell me if the taylor acoustic electric cutaway is copyrighted? thats his other guitar...

 

[itsmeJonB]

I'm not looking for critiques from people who aren't even graphic designers by hobby. Just sayin.

then you will never have new consumers.
your attitude sucks donkey dicks