Doesn't work, though https://logo.clearbit.com/ycombinator.com does.

How so?

Seems to work fine if you put in a domain instead of just a name:

https://logo.clearbit.com/taodyne.com

https://logo.clearbit.com/taodyne.com works

Nope, trademarks are used to distinguish brands and ensure their authenticity, and that's exactly what is happening here. If people used this to impersonate another company (e.g. to pretend they had gotten their endorsement) then that's a problem. But as long as this is used as part of a directory (or similar) service there is no copyright or trademark problem.

I would argue opt-in for having your logo with the service, rather than opt-out, but it might be difficult to come up with a benefit that's enticing enough.

There's maybe some value in the logo owner being able to get information on who's using their logo (service not yet provided).

From the logo-consumer standpoint, it's pretty cool, though, it would be difficult to know if the logo is current enough.

I don't think they'll have copyright issues, it'd probably be considered fair use.

As for the McDonalds logo, I suspect the turquoise is because that's the current background colour of mcdonalds.com

I don't see any red backgrounds in your link.

It looks like that's the Debian icon on Twitter.

> Wouldn't you be offended if someone said a basic algorithm could eliminate your job?

Of course not. In fact, I spend quite a large portion of my time automating most of my work, so I can do other, more interesting things.

Besides, if a company looked for and used a "free logo generator", would that company really be the type of client you wanted to pick up?

I'm a designer, too, and there are those of us who believe that not only is design automation possible, it is likely, and we will be much the better as contributors and society for it.

Google's Mathias Duarte advocated as such at UXPA last year in his keynote.

Think about it this way - design trends are just manifestations of a particular temporal affinity towards one aesthetic or another. Machines can measure this and expound as well as react to it at a much faster scale than the human mind can.

Design isn't art. There are way too many designers out there who think it is. Art is art. Design is about solving problems. You can and totally should automate as much of that as possible.

It's only degrading to your profession if it's actually true.

I was a software developer for many years, and I've seen hundreds of claims for software to automate (in one guise or other) that job, replacing the need for coders.

None of these claims offended me. The vast majority have been comically useless. The rest have just helped remove some dull bit of grunt work out of the job, allowing me to focus on something more valuable.

I agree, and to amplify: while there are surely aspects of design that can be automated, the part that's difficult is that a design should actually mean something. Having an algorithmically designed logo tie the room together -- crystallize a company's business and culture, and provide a memorable rallying point -- that's the hard part. Computer-generated design is like a ghostly thread of expression of the design sensibilities of the writers of the software from which it emerges.

Consider the hidden arrow in the "Ex" of FedEx, when they rebranded from "Federal Express"; the rational propeller of BMW; even something as simple as the Burger King logo being sandwiched in a hamburger bun. Granted, logo design is just one small corner of design in general, but algorithmically generated logos do indeed result in a herd of swooshes, globes, and rings orbiting bold text (notwithstanding the similar designs of many humans who fail to recruit sufficient creativity or inspiration). Some of these can even be aesthetically pleasing, but it's so much better when a logo is retrospectively obvious and actually means something.

If someone is willing to use a free logo generator, they already don't care about design and would not be happy with any money they are spending on your services.

It's the same as a software engineer being offended that a free website generator exists.

Eh, Lucent for a while had a logo that was (nearly literally) a sample brush from Painter or something. Painty red circle. And many other logos are pretty much like that and can definitely be generated by algorithms. I'd be shocked if some large logos were picked with far less thought than you're describing here.

Also, offended? It's like photographers getting upset over people giving stuff away, or the influx of rather good amateurs killing their market.

I'm just checking out Tailor Brands, and I can say with certainty the output is similar to what I've seen professional designers offer, on occasion.

I sympathise with your perspective, but surely some of those needs (colour theory, contrast, etc) can be solved algorithmically and others (public perception and brand "feel") could be automatically tested by a site/script surveying users in the target segment.

"You can't just pick out some basic shapes and text for your logo. You need color theory, contrast analysis, a brand strategy, a well developed concept, etc."

Maybe let the entity decide for themselves what they want?

> Wouldn't you be offended if someone said a basic algorithm could eliminate your job?

Hey, some of my best friends are basic algorithms!

Not really, for two reasons:

1. You don't have the users to test yet.

2. This is what really makes it untenable - what is the logo for, what does effective mean, 90% of where? This is why brand creation is expensive as hell. There's a lot of work involved and by definition it is bespoke and without shortcuts. That's the whole point or it wouldn't be brand creation in any sense. When you see a logotype, it's just the tip of the iceberg.

I suspect that a lot of people might think of branding as including these cheap services where an underpaid young offshore photoshop whizz throws together an infinity symbol, dolphin, or generic swoosh and even goes so far as to hand kern some text (and bear in mind that even this kind of junior typographic task can't be automated yet).

I would argue that this isn't a ghetto version of the kind of branding that a large company does, but a cargo cult version. The logotype part is highly visible but is the tiniest component of branding - it is superficial and meaningless in isolation. Very much unlike this process, real branding is about discovering and generating an extremely high input of info and ideas and turning this into a very small and focused output, articulating the essence. (And of course a big part of the cost for a large org is that you often need to cover things like web, print, letterheads, reports, sides of trucks, and so on. All whilst maintaining brand consistency.)

Assuming you can't afford to pay for full branding, I think the best solution is to do just enough (e.g. many here might just need something for digital and business cards) and for it to be done by someone close to the company owner of even the owner themselves, as they will live and breathe what the company is for and what makes it distinct. Even poorly executed, this will communicate a much clearer story and have real value imo (trying to avoid the word authentic here but it's probably applicable).

In fairness, I often see devs highly offended by automated output, including where it makes no difference whatsoever to performance and maintainability (and particularly so if it improves on any of those). There is plenty of frothing out there about hand-tuned SQL vs ORM and hand-crafted semantic HTML/CSS for example.