Copyrighting Colours?
In a follow up to my previous post regarding the limit on creativity, I came across a great post about colour in the design world.
Can colour be owned?
In one word, yes. If you have ever taken a look at a colour swatch book you will know there are seemingly endless amounts of options, but those options are quickly becoming limited. For example:
The colour magenta is fully owned by T-mobile. Is this for real? Yes. Deutsche Telekom, parent company to T-mobile, has the full rights to the colour and has taken legal action against a book-on-demand publisher, and the above logo, engadget mobile for the use of it.
What’s Next?
Think about some of the great brands of the world. Think about the colours associated with them. What happens if all of these colours get trademarked? Forget about coming up with new ideas, how are designers supposed to come up with new colours? Their hands will be tied in almost everything they do.
Copyrighting colour is as futile as the copyrighting of a celebrity’s names.
I’ll leave you with a quote from an article on Six Revisions.com (be sure to check out the Six Revisions for a more in-depth analysis on color in design):
Marketing research has found 80% of visual information is related to color. It’s not just a green, a red, a blue, or a magenta. It’s “Starbucks Green”, “Coke Red”, “Gap Blue”, and “T-Mobile Magenta.”
Carson Shold is a freelance graphic and web designer born in Victoria, BC and living in London, Ontario. He is a ‘for hire‘ designer that wants to help your business stand out – the right way. You can connect with him and his thoughts on twitter or check out his portfolio at carsonshold.com.
I feel that while colours should most definitely not be trademarked, they could be labeled (eg: “Home Depot Orange”). If anything, these brands should be grateful for the added exposure this would bring any time someone uses their specific shade, instead of trying to restrict and punish people for it.
If this type of practice escalates, the potential backlash of negative word-of-mouth response will surely far outweigh the gains sought through legal action.
I agree, Kevin. Copyrighting a colour is like Apple trademarking anything remotely resembling an Apple.
If I’m reading it correctly, a company could own the colour but anyone could use it? If that’s the case, I like it. The owning company would get the exposure and would not limit other designers.
Great idea.
I feel that while colours should most definitely not be trademarked, they could be labeled (eg: “Home Depot Orange”). If anything, these brands should be grateful for the added exposure this would bring any time someone uses their specific shade, instead of trying to restrict and punish people for it.
If this type of practice escalates, the potential backlash of negative word-of-mouth response will surely far outweigh the gains sought through legal action.