3K free SVG icons for popular brands
(simpleicons.org)189 points by noashavit 5 hours ago
189 points by noashavit 5 hours ago
I just don't see the need for sites like this, given that Iconify exists: https://icon-sets.iconify.design
They probably have >90% of all the logos contained on simpleicons, along with nearly any other icon you could ever want or need.
Don't tell the guy who paid $70k for icons about this!
And don't tell them about the browser inspector nor how to copy SVG code using that
What is the story? URL to read? (Search resulted in another CEO's $70K salary thing.)
Is this like Pepsi’s Million Dollar logo redesign?
It’s quite the saga, including the designer putting in their portfolio that they actually completed the project as they were ghosting their client: https://x.com/Shpigford/status/1807802947394588842
$5.00/image. The math on that is absurd unless the artist is cranking what, 20 images an hour?
Feels like they thought they had an edge, probably an LLM, and it didn’t work out.
Also feels like it took $70k to generate 14,000 requirements, or the SOW is actually shit and this is all a disaster.
Disclaimer: I don’t read twitter, if all this was spelled out in the link I apologize
So what, he was asking the designer to re-create already existing icons? Or brand new icons for each stock?
Thats insanely fucked up either way of the designer leading them on like that or to ultimately cheat someone
Re-create existing icons, since a lot of these icon packs are not very standardized (e.g. some icons are full logos, some are actual icons, some have borders, some have backgrounds, etc).
Here is a good tweet from another company on why they made their own logos: https://mobile.x.com/tcosta_co/status/1808174493170344345
Seems like a lot of trademark infringement suits about to come their way. Am I mistaken or is there no way this viable? In addition, nobody has any legal right to put others trademarks (use these) on anything without the trademark owners permission. So even if the site and distribution is somehow OK, nobody can really use them anyway. Right?
You're mostly fine unless you are confusing consumers. The purpose of these marks is exactly to avoid that, so you're going to get into a lot of trouble if you use the marks to mislead people in any way.
Take the Air China logo - if a not-so-bright reader might think you are Air China, you're using this all wrong. But if you use an Air China logo to signify the routes actually flown by Air China on a free world map of international flights on your web site, well, yeah, that's Air China, nobody is misled, even a moron knows the little logos on your map of the world aren't actually jet aeroplanes.
I'm not sure if simply offering a brand's logo would be trademark infringement.
Years ago someone contacted me at the company I worked for claiming in some sorta pseudo legal language that we couldn't have one of our competitor's logos on our website. We had it on a promotional page comparing features across similar products.
Turns out we can do that in the US.
These and others have been online for a while, so I doubt it. There's more here, under the Brands / Social category: https://icones.js.org/
Yes, there are ways someone could use them that would not only run afoul of the trademark, but have trademark holders come after them. However, that doesn't make this useless, because there are proper and gray-area uses of these as well.
It's not trademark infringement to copy or display a logo. Trademark infringement happens when you confuse customers by using a logo or phrase and make them think that you're selling the actual product or that you're somehow endorsed by the original company.
Font Awesome been available since 2013 at least, featuring brand icons https://web.archive.org/web/20130608045113/http://fontawesom...
Seems fine
I imagine avoiding IP legal issues with things like icons could be less about signing agreements with all involved companies and more about having a team that can respond professionally to an inquiry.
Businesses may often not really understand what’s going on and default to being worried about third-party use of their trademarks that they normally must defend. Perhaps they don’t need to worry in this case, where it may actually provide a bit of free advertisement, but if there’s no one on the other side then it wouldn’t help the case.
IANAL
They probably each carry their own licensing and terms of use. I'd suspect there's a good number where reuse in some situations would be permitted, and in others would not. But every single one is going to be different, and just making assumptions is a quick way to blindly assume enormous legal liability.
I assume most brands are happy to see their icons being used/shared on as many platforms as possible. It's just free advertisment.
If someone uses them in a context that's actually problematic for the brand, the brand can still sue them then. But that won't be the common case.
You can usually use the assets which are available on the official website, example for meta it is https://about.meta.com/brand/resources/facebook/logo/.
If you see the official logo it has different colors than the one provided in the website, so you can't that for production use cases.
Supplying the assets is not a problem. Most stock art orgs have brands. I suspect that they can get into "gray areas," if they charge for it.
Using them is the problematic part.
I use these for everything, I've even corrected a couple of them as sites tend to tweak their logos all the time:
Looks like the legal team reached out and said that making monochrome icons isn't allowed [0]
0: https://github.com/simple-icons/simple-icons/issues/11236
I’ve done this. The internal brand center was focused mostly on sales and people interfacing with customers.
I was using it for internal tools though. I’m sure if I made customer facing sites I would need to go through more official channels and make sure all the branding guidelines are followed to the letter.
The first one I downloaded (RTÉ colour) is an invalid SVG file.
Incidentally, what is the third icon on the home page, /e/? There's a name impossible to google.
Is this sarcasm? This seems like an uncommon thing to want.
I did not expect to see AEW (All Elite Wrestling) on the list.
Doesn't have pornhub or Brazzers, not even logo SVG archiving escapes the tentacles of the moral police (keep in mind pornhub it's one of the top 10 most visited sites in the world)
Except I actually looked for the other top 10 most popular websites before making my comment, they are all there (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, et al), as you may know Microsoft.com doesn't even make it to the top 100
Alternatively: https://github.com/simple-icons/simple-icons