Friday, March 03, 2006
Earthflower
The Green Party National Committee is considering regulations to control use of the party's "Earthflower" 
logo.
I think that's a mistake. To find out why I feel that way, and to send a note to the National Committee, click the "Read more!" link...
This proposal, made by the Steering Committee, sets up a variety of hoops someone must jump through before being allowed to disseminate our message. Think about that for a sec. Our steering committee wants your local chapter to have to fill out paperwork, which will then be evaluated, and a decision made which requires three signatures...before your chapter can put the logo on your chapter's letterhead.
The proposal, Proposal 207, seems to fly in the face of the ideology many of us adhere to, the "open source" movement. The entire contents of this website, for example, is covered by a "Copyleft", the details of which can be found by Clicking Here. Any attempt by the Green Party Steering Committee or National Committee to control the use of the logo will only serve to make the logo worthless as a tool to create name recognition for the Greens.
One might question the value of the logo, as it does seem to continue a focus in the public mind of Greens as environmentalists and nothing more. Even if, and perhaps even more if you believe the logo to be a good way to communicate the Green message, the National Committee must reject this attempt at control, and embrace allowing freedom to be our watchword. What are we actually going to do if some local hippy store steals our logo, sue them? Call the cops? Who is going to enforce this, and do we even want the Greens to be engaged in attempting to control an idea, which is exactly what the logo is, an idea.
If we believe that this image, the earth as living being, is the symbol we want to present to the nation, we should seek to spread it as wide and far as possible, regardless of who is doing the spreading.
To let the National Committee know your opinion on this, or any other issue, click here
logo.I think that's a mistake. To find out why I feel that way, and to send a note to the National Committee, click the "Read more!" link...
This proposal, made by the Steering Committee, sets up a variety of hoops someone must jump through before being allowed to disseminate our message. Think about that for a sec. Our steering committee wants your local chapter to have to fill out paperwork, which will then be evaluated, and a decision made which requires three signatures...before your chapter can put the logo on your chapter's letterhead.
The proposal, Proposal 207, seems to fly in the face of the ideology many of us adhere to, the "open source" movement. The entire contents of this website, for example, is covered by a "Copyleft", the details of which can be found by Clicking Here. Any attempt by the Green Party Steering Committee or National Committee to control the use of the logo will only serve to make the logo worthless as a tool to create name recognition for the Greens.
One might question the value of the logo, as it does seem to continue a focus in the public mind of Greens as environmentalists and nothing more. Even if, and perhaps even more if you believe the logo to be a good way to communicate the Green message, the National Committee must reject this attempt at control, and embrace allowing freedom to be our watchword. What are we actually going to do if some local hippy store steals our logo, sue them? Call the cops? Who is going to enforce this, and do we even want the Greens to be engaged in attempting to control an idea, which is exactly what the logo is, an idea.
If we believe that this image, the earth as living being, is the symbol we want to present to the nation, we should seek to spread it as wide and far as possible, regardless of who is doing the spreading.
To let the National Committee know your opinion on this, or any other issue, click here
// posted by Gregg Jocoy @ 1:40 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
You hit the nail on the head here Gregg. This micromanagement of the GP 'brand' and message is what is stifling our growth. It too is indicative of the top-down structure of our national organization.
Perhaps Green bloggers should just put the logo on their sites. Yours in particular could use some more GP links and icons.
I'd also like to say it's good to see you back to blogging.
Perhaps Green bloggers should just put the logo on their sites. Yours in particular could use some more GP links and icons.
I'd also like to say it's good to see you back to blogging.
I think you are missing a few things on this subject.
For instance in my state the group (or person) that has the right to use the name Green as in Green Party, is the one that has been using it. In the past we have have people from other parties calling themselves the Green Party. (When I moved to my area, the local Green Party contact was the current Independence Party Secretary.)
While the Green Party in NYS has rights under election law to the GP name, if GP-US just let anyone use it we could loose right to it in some (or many) cases. And history has shown that many people have wanted to use it (we have successfully fought of a number of Dems and Republicans that tried to take the line, and have been unsuccessful in other cases).
So you see tossing the GP name to the winds could have negative practical repercussions to the GP.
--
Roger
Post a Comment
For instance in my state the group (or person) that has the right to use the name Green as in Green Party, is the one that has been using it. In the past we have have people from other parties calling themselves the Green Party. (When I moved to my area, the local Green Party contact was the current Independence Party Secretary.)
While the Green Party in NYS has rights under election law to the GP name, if GP-US just let anyone use it we could loose right to it in some (or many) cases. And history has shown that many people have wanted to use it (we have successfully fought of a number of Dems and Republicans that tried to take the line, and have been unsuccessful in other cases).
So you see tossing the GP name to the winds could have negative practical repercussions to the GP.
--
Roger
<< Home
