One Major Road Block To Bridenstine's Advertising Ideas
Why NASA Needs a New Logo, Space.com
“The logo looks more vintage than victorious, according to the designers I interviewed. (Disclosure: None of the designers I spoke to works for, or has worked with, NASA. They are all experts, however, regarding branding campaigns for major public or private organizations.) The logo is an anachronism. A new logo should appeal to the entire nation, since NASA works with scientists and engineers throughout the United States and is funded by American taxpayers. It should show us where the agency intends to go, with our flag planted not in conquest but in camaraderie, with satellites among the stars and our spaceships as vessels of peace and goodwill.”
Understanding NASA’s Global Reach, earlier post
“You would think that NASA would want to capitalize on such a potent branding strength. To be certain, they try. Due to Federal regulations the NASA logo cannot be used for commercial purposes or to imply any endorsement without formal approval by NASA. While this limits its use to some extent NASA is able to control its brand – something that is very important. But the one thing that you would think that NASA should be able to do i.e. use that logo in overt advertising and promotion, is banned by Federal law. Congress seems to think that NASA promotes itself too much. Yet they simultaneously chide NASA for not explaining itself better.”
Keith’s note: This Space.com article by Michael D. Shaw needed more research. NASA had a logo. Then they got a new one. Then they used the old one again. Impact? It’s silly to try and get yet another logo for improved advertising and PR purposes when NASA is overtly prohibited by law from advertising. After more than 20 years of re-use, the NASA meatball logo is one of the most recognizable brands in the world. NASA’s problems have nothing to do with brand visibility. It has that. Rather, NASA needs to find a way to get its mojo back again. Playing with logos will not accomplish that.
FWIW the interest by @NASA Administrator @JimBridenstine in advertising and promotion by #NASA is not going to go anywhere unless he gets Congress to change the existing law that specifically prevents NASA from doing this.
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) September 20, 2018
It will be easier to just create a Lunar Development Corporation and allow it to advertise, retain control of IP. do joint ventures, issue bonds, etc.
“… NASA had a logo. Then they got a new one. Then they used the old one again. …”
Yeah, I still remember it, no matter how badly I wanted to purge my memory of it. That bloated crimson WORM. A “hip” and “mod” design, made by that era’s own “experts”.
LOL. I think the worm is awesome. I love both.
Worm, yes, Designed by graphic artists, winner of awards, beloved by Hollywood production designers — you know, people who make a living by knowing how to communicate visually — not dragged out of the grave and given a monstrous, new lease on life like some 1950s meatball.
A new logo will not help NASA, will not engender new and sustained imagination growth. The ONLY thing that will advance NASA and its impact on future generations is through its ACTIONS. Do great things and greatness is shared. Do boring or unpublicized actions and very few really care much act on those cares themselves. More people really need to learn and understand how human motivation really works; and just because you are a human does not mean you already understand how humans work.
2 days ago I saw a t-shirt for sale at Target with a big NASA logo on it. There is no tag or identifier that claims it is an authorized use. Maybe they did the basic request like was described in that article with the $xxx hundred dollar NASA t-shirt, and maybe NASA allows it frequently for stuff like that, but I don’t really know.
I think there are two different issues here. NASA can not legally endorse products or receive money for the use of the NASA logo. But government agencies, as I understand it, can not copyright, trademark or patent their work. That means selling a t shirt with a government logo is legal, without any agreement or permission from the government agency in question. On the other hand, paying NASA to make product endorsements is also illegal.
But they can explicitly prohibit the use of official seals, badges, insignia, logos (“logotypes”) and identifiers. And they do.
14 CFR § 1221.110 Use of NASA Insignia:
(c) (4) Items bearing the NASA Insignia such as […] clothing and similar items […] may be manufactured and sold only after the NASA Insignia application has been […] approved by the [Assoc. Admin PA, NASA HQ]
(d) Use of the NASA Insignia for any other purpose than as prescribed in this section is prohibited […]
18 USC § 701 Official badges, identification cards, other insignia
Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any […] insignia, […] of any department or agency of the United States […] except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
NASA can even define program identifiers, such as Apollo, the Shuttle Program, etc, which then are part of NASA’s official insignias and thus equally controlled.
That’s somewhat odd, since NASA and JPL shied away from using the name “Cassini”, and started using “Cassini-Huygens”. The explanation, told to people in the project, was that a lawyer for the fashion designer, Oleg Cassini, complained. The statutes you quote imply that NASA could just slap a “program identifier” on the name and use it as they liked. So I’m going to guess there are some legal subtleties which are escaping us.
I just found that too. It’s not covered by copyright, but they have a separate rule about government logos and such.
https://www.usa.gov/governm…
That makes sense to prevent misrepresentation, like people pretending to be the IRS or have endorsement from a gov’t agency to steal or otherwise gain advantage.
I guess try reading that page when thinking about the Cassini issue since it covers more than just logos.