Using CP icons

I think there was a topic somewhere about what we can and can’t use re name and logos, but I can’t seem to find it. :unamused:

Is it true we aren’t supposed to use the CP icon on a site, even next to a statement like "We love and support ClassicPress’? Is it OK then to use the fork awesome icon?

Maybe @BlueSkyPhoenix can give some clarification.

1 Like

I think I can answer my own question, if it’s the same as the WP rules:

…it’s OK to use the WordPress or WordCamp logo as part of a page that describes your products or services, but it is not OK to use it as part of your company or product logo or branding itself.

So, it’s OK to use the CP logo as a stand alone thing on a web page, but not as part of any advertising or in your own logo or branding.

1 Like

Sounds about right. Perhaps you were looking for the Logo Usage Section in the Brand Guidelines page?


Hmm… this just raises more questions. What does this mean…

Third parties are not permitted to use the ClassicPress feather symbol or feather coin on its own without the full primary logo also being present.

Isn’t the fork awesome icon that I have used on exactly that?


Seems likely.


I’m not an expert on it, though… I’m sure @BlueSkyPhoenix can clear things up. :slight_smile:


Here’s a quick list of sites using the logo.

I think it should encouraged, not discouraged. It spreads public recognition.


It’s important to understand that “encouraging use” doesn’t mean “use it however you want.” By specifying the proper use of the logo, its use is encouraged – without guidelines, we’re left to wonder what’s allowed and what isn’t. IMO, 4 of those 10 sites you listed are using the logo in a manner inconsistent with the clear guidelines. I can easily spot the following issues:

  1. Cutting off the logo (3rd bullet point under Logo Usage)
  2. Auto-generated background color (covered in the Secondary Logos section, also 2nd and 3rd bullet point under Logo Usage)
  3. Pixelated logo (3rd bullet point under Logo Usage)

I’m not seeing an issue with the logo usage outside of what I’ve mentioned above, but, again, I’m not an authority on it.

PS. You forgot to add your own site to the list, which also uses the logo… …I see you’ve removed the top logo (which was probably against the terms as it made the site seem like an official ClassicPress offering,) but, I think you’re just within the guidelines with your big graphic, it definitely could be seen as locking up the logo…and aside of the coin itself, the rest of the image has blur and/or jagged edges.

PPS. If your big graphic is within the guidelines, I’m happy to comp the time to recreate it as a resizable SVG that won’t be subject to blur and jagged edges. DM me on Slack if you are interested.


The content of the site logo and the home page image is the subject of ongoing private messaging. The end result is yet to be decided. I did move the WP and CP logos to the outside of the image, instead of next to each other because of the locking issue.

I have had an offer to design an appropriate image, but I will keep you in mind too. Nothing about the site is set in stone yet. In fact the concrete is still wet. I even moved it to a different server today.


It’s great to know people are putting their assistance out there, even behind the scenes. :slight_smile:

That’s a good description of my site, too… I’m thinking the concrete never does dry on these things. :smiley:


Hi all – I’m sorry to have not been more present for this conversation; I am in the middle of two site launches and several other projects in progress at the moment so it’s difficult for me to make my way over to respond.

I’m glad this conversation is happening; the FontAwesome addition definitely changes the game a bit and the guidelines do need to be revised. The first chance I’ll have to look at this is over the holiday, but I’ll add it to the to-do list.

Thank you for discussing it here and for all the work you’ve done in looking at other sites, etc – also thank you for offering to work together toward a solution. This is what ClassicPress Community is about, and I’m grateful.


Back again – really, this is the community’s decision – how do we want our brand to be used? So I’d like to hear from you about what you feel is right. Whatever you decide, we’ll go with.



I think the current guidelines are quite good but could use some specific improvements on what is permitted usage and why. To point out one specific example, the way has used the feather icon seems quite tasteful, and generally “we support ClassicPress [this thing, insert logo here]” is definitely something that we want people to be doing.

Having guidelines around this usage is definitely a good thing though. Some things I think we want to avoid happening, off the top of my head:

  • We don’t want people to think that third-party services are official ClassicPress products or endorsed by us.
  • Our current guidelines are set up to discourage some configurations that just don’t “work” visually, though I don’t really know how to define this, I just “know it when I see it”.
  • We want to avoid any other kind of confusion between our official sites and third-party sites.

Other thoughts welcome…


I agree with James. It would be good to broaden this to include the fork awesome versions in with the allowed logos. I actually think the the WP requirements are fairly clear…

…it’s OK to use the WordPress or WordCamp logo as part of a page that describes your products or services, but it is not OK to use it as part of your company or product logo or branding itself.

Also the logo needs to be used in its entirety and not modified.

I’m wondering if it could somehow be based on intention… ie is the intention of using the logo to promote ClassicPress itself, or is it being used to promote yourself or your business? (This is obviously a very waffly distinction so may not be useful.)


I think branding is the key issue. The CP logo “button”, like the WP one, should become an easily recognized one so people know exactly what you’re talking about.

I don’t think it should be a protected species. If it is, why make it publicly available? People are only going to steal it from somewhere else anyway.

Could you imagine trying to write an article about Coca Cola if you weren’t allowed to put an image of their can in your article?

I think the main thing is to make it plain that you must add a disclaimer on your page or site, saying you are not owned, endorsed or connected to ClassicPress in any way.

Edit: I think, as ozfiddler said, that it also depends on “intent”. Is it simply being used in an article or one page, or is a site trying to trick people into thinking it belongs to ClassicPress? There doesn’t need to be a disclaimer for casual, informational use. But I do agree it should not be modified in any way.


I’m probably breaking usage guidelines with the category links I have on my main blog, but I’d like to think in a beneficial usage:


Another thought… how about a condition that if the logo is used it must include a link back to CP somewhere nearby? or the logo should be a link back to CP?


WordPress Trademark Policy is a nice example. It is common enough to express the main idea, but also descripbes some typical cases in a transparent form. I’d like to have a similar doc here.


Great idea and we can use this and others as a template for our own. Are there any other brand guidelines that seem to get the job done? I used Google and a few others combined to create our original guidelines.

Nike, Apple, and Facebook/Twitter/Instagram may all be good brands to look at since they have icons that are often used without the name of the company.

I’d like to discourage people from only using the icon when possible, because we’re trying to develop brand recognition, as @Aussie mentioned. At the same time, we now have a FontAwesome Icon…

I think policing the FontAwesome icon is going to be a whole lot tougher than policing our brand, and may not be possible at all. The FontAwesome icon may not even (technically) be under our control. Does anyone know the T&C related to having an icon published by FontAwesome (if any?)


While these guidelines are likely to be very polished and professional, which is good, a key difference to keep in mind is that none of these brands are web-based open source projects. These companies all have their own large marketing teams, which means they can afford to use stricter guidelines.

On the other hand, we do want community promotion, so widely used open source projects in the CMS space are probably our best examples for guidelines. Obviously WordPress is one; Drupal and Joomla might be other good places to look for ideas.

Note this is Fork Awesome rather than FontAwesome, which changes the answers regarding T&C and control etc. Same history, different project. A lot happening with forks these days :slight_smile:


I agree with this, I used the other brands as examples without really thinking about the open source aspect.

I don’t have a lot of experience with various open source projects and would appreciate help in getting this right. Is there anyone who can help read through some other open source guidelines and putting together something to help us revise our guidelines & make them more clear and effective?

And – Fork Awesome. Noted. Thanks. :slight_smile: