CAP / USAF Logo

[Eclipse]

My main argument is why we, as the official Auxiliary of the USAF, not take advantage of the widespread recognized symbols of the USAF with CAP modification. The same way our CAP seal and other emblems do.

We did, they told us to stop.  Why is irrelevant.

[winterg]

My main argument is why we, as the official Auxiliary of the USAF, not take advantage of the widespread recognized symbols of the USAF with CAP modification. The same way our CAP seal and other emblems do.

We did, they told us to stop.  Why is irrelevant.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the logo we were told to stop using was the actual USAF logo with our organizational emblem cradled. This is not that logo. And I always like asking why. 

[SarDragon]

What you proposed would be what could be considered as an unacceptable modification. It's their trademark, and cannot be used i any manner without their permission. We do not appear to have that permission. Given their view on what was a modification otherwise within the rules regarding sizing, spacing, etc., I doubt your version would gain approval.

[Luis R. Ramos]

It may not be that logo we were told not to use but to the unaided or untrained eye they are too close. Thus it requires their permission to be used in any way, shape, or manner. Given the Air Force mindset based on several decisions they have made, the "powers that be" will say NO!!!!!!!!!!!

What you propose is what in a private corporation is using as a trademark something that sounds or looks like another being used already.

For instance, I find a store using Tradewands as their store name. I find that I like that name but of course I cannot use it so I modify it to read Tiradewinds. I will be in court as fast as that other store finds out.

Flyer

[winterg]

As I stated already, I have in no way, shape or form proposed that this be used without any approval.  Nor have I made any mention of seeking said approval.  I'd like it, but that's just me.  I know how trademarks work and I would not try to use an unapproved emblem.  If my previous statements to this effect have not put that to rest, hopefully this one will!   

The reason I posted this is:  Since CAP takes it's cue from the USAF for our branding, as is evident in our seal, uniforms, rank, titles, organizational emblems, etc. ad nauseum,  I wanted to see what a CAP version of the current USAF logo MIGHT look like if the powers that be ever followed past practice for our branding and incorporated the CAP logo into the stylized Hap Arnold wings.

Love it or hate it, the new AF wings are a fact and CAP could (and has) do a lot worse for our branding.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the logo we were told to stop using was the actual USAF logo with our organizational emblem cradled. This is not that logo. And I always like asking why. 

My own opinion is that the Air Force wanted a further distancing from us  , and that the Corporate side who have been a big influence in CAP for almost 20 years wanted to further de-emphasise our military connections.

That is why, I believe, they came up with the horrible triangle thingy:



Which is, of course, a corruption of a symbol full of CAP history:



but which, of course, conveniently omits any mention of our Air Force heritage.

Another example is our former MAJCOM shield:



There was absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Now, of course, we have to wear one conveniently excised of all Air Force connections:



I don't believe one must be clairvoyant to see a pattern.

[winterg]

Cyborg, unfortunately, I don't believe you are far off.  I wish I knew the answer to reverse the trend.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Cyborg, unfortunately, I don't believe you are far off.  I wish I knew the answer to reverse the trend.

I do not believe there is one...it is just a question of "when," not "if," we lose our AF connections entirely.

[winterg]

Cyborg, unfortunately, I don't believe you are far off.  I wish I knew the answer to reverse the trend.

I do not believe there is one...it is just a question of "when," not "if," we lose our AF connections entirely.

I refuse to believe that. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Cyborg, unfortunately, I don't believe you are far off.  I wish I knew the answer to reverse the trend.

I do not believe there is one...it is just a question of "when," not "if," we lose our AF connections entirely.

I refuse to believe that. 

I hope you are right.  Sincerely.

[Eclipse]

There's no "pattern", if anything, we, as usual, caused our own problems using the USAF's wings.

The top two above are a hot mess, incorrectly scaled, incorrectly colored, pixelated like they were done in MS Paint.
Violating the style rules all over.  They are an embarrassment, and of course, are all over collateral, websites and insignia.

The original MAJCOM violated the rules in regards to how the organization is to be named and indicated.
Specifically, "CIVIL AIR PATROL" is >always< supposed to be first in stationary, insignia, etc.  In the case of the
MAJCOM, it doesn't say it at all.

The scrolls, again, were not properly shaped.  Apparently they were cited in several violent OCD incidents when
actual graphic designers saw the "E".

Add to that the "CAP" in the field violates the Heraldry Guidelines for text in the field, not uncommon, I've done it
myself with justification, but not a good idea for what is essentially the "top level" insignia for the organization.

The current version is correct for shape, heraldry, and organizational naming guidelines.

As to the latest version of the triangle, whatever.  It's an attempt to update the look of CAP's logo, nothing more,
nothing less.  Stark flat logos and icons with bold contrasting colors are today's design aesthetic.  CAP has >always< (slowly)
followed trends for their insignia and branding.  Take a look at at the dress uniforms from the early '70's that featured
pieces from WWII uniforms coupled with horrific patches that look like they were designed by a sophomore in high school
who just learned about perspective.

Based on my nearly daily dealings with CAP-USAF, I can tell you they are just as involved, concerned, and paternal
about CAP today as they have ever been in the 15 years I've been a member.  RIFs, BRACs, and draw-downs
have shrunk the military as a whole, and made resources less plentiful and less visible, that has nothing to do
with the actual relationship.

[Panache]

Something I don't say often: I agree with Eclipse.

Especially in regards to the two MAJCOM logos.  The "old" one is just... well, ugly.  Disjointed.  The "CAP" in the shield doesn't belong there.  The new updated MAJCOM flows much better.

In this case, I don't really see a grand conspiracy.

Even on the business card template page, in addition to the triangle logo, they also authorize use of the MAJCOM logo and the seal.  While they prefer that you use the triangle logo, the other two may be used when you feel it would suit the target audience better.

"In accordance with CAP Regulation 900-2, Para 3h, the CAP Logo is the preferred option for the CAP business card; however, the command emblem or seal may be used if it would be more appropriate for the purpose and/or expected audience."

Again, no grand conspiracy.

[flyboy53]

This is what I was talking about: Air Force Hap Arnold Wings  -- It was personally designed by Gen. Hap Arnold sometime in the early 1940s during the reorganization of the Army Air Corps. It is a licensed trademark of the Air Force. I still have the one lapel pin of this emblem given to me as a young airman and a second one (that I still wear) bought at Elmendorf AFB Military Clothing sales back in 1978. It is still worn on the uniform as a button or hat device, or belt buckle. Whether you like or dislike the new re-design of this emblem, which is the one on the bottom, it is a product of a formal vetting process that started in the 1990s, involved a survey where 90 percent of the force approved it, and has a significant heraldry that even me, a purest for things of old, accepts.

The point being is that both of these emblems are registered trade marks representing the Air Force and are used as logos, emblems, symbols, etc., commercially or in service.  Any changes must have CSAF and probably some lawyer's approval. There are even specific colors that are mandated as part of any licensing agreement.

We on the other hand have a three-bladed propeller on a white triangle that is part of our heraldry. We need to stick to it because I'll bet you anything it has just as many trademark protections.

As for the USAF Auxiliary Command patch, I thought the change in the scroll had more to do with you can't have anything 'Air Force Auxiliary' on a uniform when performing things like counter drug or some of the other missions we fly. Then I noticed that the ANG and AFRES went back to wearing their parent command emblems instead of the gaining command emblem, so I'm not so certain that isn't being driven by the Air Force as part of force design.

All of this said, I wonder what the future is for the CAP Command pin?

[winterg]

The scrolls, again, were not properly shaped.  Apparently they were cited in several violent OCD incidents when
actual graphic designers saw the "E".

That "E" bugged the hell out of me!  :clap:

[SamFranklin]

From the Department of Irony:


Winterg's fun derivative removes the star from the AF symbol. The star represents "one force, one family."   Ironic because the star (should) represent CAP's relationship to the Total Force, though in actuality, AF doctrine still defines the Total Force as Active, Guard, Reserve, Civilian (of a few varieties), and Retirees. The AF doctrine doesn't explicitly place its Auxiliary within the Total Force. Hence why I think it's ironic that the star is missing from this logo, and why its absence, in the perspective of Big AF doctrine, is inconsequential. Go figure. 

http://www.trademark.af.mil/symbol/star/index.asp
https://doctrine.af.mil/download.jsp?filename=V2-D04-Total-Force.pdf

I think the main lesson from this discussion is not so much about what the AF allows CAP to do, or what the AF requires of AF units to do when using the symbol. More important is that an artifact like the symbol is infused with all kinds of meanings by way of all kinds of motifs. Play with it and you alter the original meaning because the constituent parts are no longer there to bring to mind the ideals that the symbol's designers wanted its audience to encounter.

Because symbols matter, I'd never support a design that alters the substance of what a symbol signifies. Granted, I know this design was just for fun.

And because symbols matter, I'd like to see Big AF doctrine formally recognize its Auxiliary as part of its total force.

[SarDragon]

We on the other hand have a three-bladed propeller on a white triangle that is part of our heraldry. We need to stick to it because I'll bet you anything it has just as many trademark protections.

Actually, none of the CAP insignia, logos,emblems, etc. are trademarked. Instead, they are protected en masse by public law -
Title 36 U.S. Code Chapter 403, Section 40306:
The corporation has the exclusive right to use the name "Civil Air Patrol" and all insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, words, and phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.

[winterg]

From the Department of Irony:
Because symbols matter, I'd never support a design that alters the substance of what a symbol signifies. Granted, I know this design was just for fun.
And because symbols matter, I'd like to see Big AF doctrine formally recognize its Auxiliary as part of its total force.

But, aren't most CAP symbols a version of the USAF one that has been altered in a way that changes the symbolism?  How is this one different?  But I agree that it would be nice if we were considered part of the total force. 

[Panache]

From the Department of Irony:
Because symbols matter, I'd never support a design that alters the substance of what a symbol signifies. Granted, I know this design was just for fun.
And because symbols matter, I'd like to see Big AF doctrine formally recognize its Auxiliary as part of its total force.

But, aren't most CAP symbols a version of the USAF one that has been altered in a way that changes the symbolism?  How is this one different?  But I agree that it would be nice if we were considered part of the total force.

CAP predates the USAF.

[winterg]

From the Department of Irony:
Because symbols matter, I'd never support a design that alters the substance of what a symbol signifies. Granted, I know this design was just for fun.
And because symbols matter, I'd like to see Big AF doctrine formally recognize its Auxiliary as part of its total force.

But, aren't most CAP symbols a version of the USAF one that has been altered in a way that changes the symbolism?  How is this one different?  But I agree that it would be nice if we were considered part of the total force.

CAP predates the USAF.

Touche'! 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

CAP predates the USAF.

We do, in the most general terms.  During WWII CAP was assigned to the USAAF, which became the USAF, which CAP became the Auxiliary of.  I am unaware of any time period (other than our initial inception up until we were put under USAAF control) that we were not connected to the USAAF/USAF.

Hence why I think it's ironic that the star is missing from this logo, and why its absence, in the perspective of Big AF doctrine, is inconsequential. Go figure. 

And because symbols matter, I'd like to see Big AF doctrine formally recognize its Auxiliary as part of its total force.

It was once that way.  Things have changed.



Note that the L-16 also carries "U.S. AIR FORCE" on the tail...no way could we get by with that now.  Our birds used to have "USAF AUX" on the tail but we had to remove it.







OK, I have heard the official story about the AF not wanting their titling used while we perform CD/CN, etc., but unfortunately it does create a visual perception (and human beings are primarily visual) of furthering distance between us, especially when ANG aircraft are allowed to wear "U.S. AIR FORCE" titling even when not in Federal service.

It was not always that way; formerly ANG aircraft had to wear their State name (as noted by the images from these MN ANG birds) while CAP was not under such a restriction.





And, no, I am not saying there is some sort of "conspiracy" afoot, but I personally have noticed the distance just since I have been in CAP (1993).  I know I am not the only one.

Yes, as eminent persons such as Ned and Eclipse have noted, at higher levels the connection is still there.

However, the further down the food chain one goes, I believe the ties that bind have definitely loosened/frayed.