Branding

The request was refused by Ministry of Defence.

Dear Ministry of Defence,

These questions pertain to your logo.

— When was your current logo, corporate style, graphics and
branding implemented?
— Who designed it?
— How much were the designers paid for their services?
— Were other designers consulted? Was there competition? If so, who
was involved, and was any payment made to unsuccessful firms?
— Are there any "alternate" versions of the branding (as in, any
which were designed but not taken up), and if so, please supply an
electronic copy.
— Please provide me with a copy of your logo guidelines, branding
manual or equivalent document, in an electronic format which is not merely a paper copy scanned in.

Yours faithfully,
Steve Elibank

Dear Ministry of Defence,

You have not yet acknowledged my request send last Friday?

Yours faithfully,
Steve Elibank

Dear Ministry of Defence,

I have copied below a Freedom of Information request I submitted on February 25th and which you have not yet acknowledged. Please do so.

"These questions pertain to your logo.

— When was your current logo, corporate style, graphics and
branding implemented?
— Who designed it?
— How much were the designers paid for their services?
— Were other designers consulted? Was there competition? If so, who
was involved, and was any payment made to unsuccessful firms?
— Are there any "alternate" versions of the branding (as in, any
which were designed but not taken up), and if so, please supply an
electronic copy.
— Please provide me with a copy of your logo guidelines, branding
manual or equivalent document, in an electronic format which is not
merely a paper copy scanned in."

Yours faithfully,
Steve Elibank

DMC-Parliamentary Business (MULTIUSER),

FOI Ref: 25-02-2011-105743-003

Dear Mr Elibank

Thank you for your email of 25^th February requesting information about
the MOD logo branding guidelines. I apologise for the delay confirming
receipt of this request.

Your request is being dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and will be answered within twenty working days.

If you have any queries about this request do not hesitate to contact me.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

Yours sincerely

Directorate Media and Communication

DMC-Parliamentary Business (MULTIUSER),

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Elibank,

Thank you for your email of 25 February 2011 about the Ministry of Defence
Logo. Your letter has been treated as a request for information under the
Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000, you asked:

These questions pertain to your logo.

-- When was your current logo, corporate style, graphics and

branding implemented?

-- Who designed it?

-- How much were the designers paid for their services?

-- Were other designers consulted? Was there competition? If so, who

was involved, and was any payment made to unsuccessful firms?

-- Are there any "alternate" versions of the branding (as in, any

which were designed but not taken up), and if so, please supply an

electronic copy.

-- Please provide me with a copy of your logo guidelines, branding

manual or equivalent document, in an electronic format which is not

merely a paper copy scanned in.

The answers to your questions are set out below.

When was your current logo, corporate style, graphics and branding
implemented?

The MOD brand guidelines were refreshed in 2008.

Who designed it?

The MOD Badge was developed in 1942 by Lieutenant Grant of the Royal Naval
Reserve as the Combined Operations badge. In 1964, at the request of the
then CDS, the badge was updated in-house as the MOD badge. The current
version was updated by the MOD Graphics team.

How much were designers paid for their services?

The Graphics team are an in-house MOD resource. Updating the MOD branding
information represented core business for the team and it is not possible
to identify salary costs for this task separately.

Were other designers consulted? Was there competition? If so, who was
involved, and was any payment made to unsuccessful firms?

As outlined above the brand guidelines were created in-house, incurring no
external designer costs.

Are there any "alternate" versions of the branding (as in, any which were
designed but not taken up), and if so, please supply an electronic copy.

No.

Please provide me with a copy of your logo guidelines, branding manual or
equivalent document, in an electronic format which is not merely a paper
copy scanned in.

Please find attached a copy of the MOD branding guidelines. The
information supplied to you continues to be protected by the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the Act). Unless specifically permitted by
the Act, any reproduction of the information, in whole or in part,
requires the permission of the copyright holder. Most documents supplied
by the Ministry of Defence will have been produced by government officials
and will be Crown Copyright. You can find details on the arrangements for
re-using Crown Copyright from the Office of Public Sector Information at:
[1]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/index.htm. Information you receive may
also include third party owned information. Such information must not be
reproduced, in whole or in part, without first obtaining the permission of
any such third party rights holder.

If you are unhappy with this response or you wish to complain about any
aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in the
first instance. If informal resolution is not possible and you are still
dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review by
contacting the Director of Information Exploitation, 6^th Floor, MOD Main
Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail [2][email address]). Please note that
any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of
the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an
end.

If you are still unhappy following an internal review, you may take your
complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section
50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information
Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review
process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the
Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website,
[3]http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.

I hope this information proves useful.

Directorate Media and Communication.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/index.htm
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/

Dear DMC-Parliamentary Business (MULTIUSER),

FOI Ref: 25-02-2011-105743-003

Thank you very much for your helpful response. Now that I have had a chance to read the supplied guidance, I would like to also request a copy of the graphical files referred to in the document. Specifically, all of the .ai Adobe Illustrator files mentioned, plus the high-resolution artwork of the Joint Services badge which apparently exists.

Please also acknowledge receipt of this message.

Yours sincerely,
Steve Elibank

DMC-Parliamentary Business (MULTIUSER),

FOI Ref 21-03-2011-154548-001

Dear Mr Elibank

Thank you for your email of 20th March requesting further information
about the MOD logo branding guidelines.

Your request is being dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and will be answered within twenty working days.

If you have any queries about this request do not hesitate to contact
me. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

Yours sincerely

Directorate Media and Communication

DMC-Parliamentary Business (MULTIUSER),

Dear Mr Elibank,

Thank you for your email of 20 March 2011 following your previous request
about the Ministry of Defence Logo. Your letter has been treated as a
request for information under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000,
you asked:

Thank you very much for your helpful response. Now that I have had a
chance to read the supplied guidance, I would like to also request a copy
of the graphical files referred to in the document. Specifically, all of
the .ai Adobe Illustrator files mentioned, plus the high-resolution
artwork of the Joint Services badge which apparently exists.

Your request has been assessed to be a repeat of your previous request for
information. The files you have requested contain images that are
included within the information that you have already received in a
permanent form. This information is therefore exempt from release under
section 21 of the FOI Act - "Information accessible to the applicant by
other means". If the information that has been provided is not suitable
you should explain why this is the case; we will then determine whether it
would be reasonable to resupply the information.

You should note that the intellectual property associated with the MOD
(such as the MOD Logo) is protected by and controlled through copyright
and trademark law. It is managed on behalf of Her Majesty's Stationery
Office and the Secretary of State, as appropriate, by the Defence
Intellectual Property Rights group (DIPR). Commercial use of the MOD Brand
property is controlled by DIPR and a commercial licence is normally
required for such use.

If you are unhappy with this response or you wish to complain about any
aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in the
first instance. If informal resolution is not possible and you are still
dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review by
contacting the Head of Corporate Information, 2nd Floor, MOD Main
Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail [1][email address] ). Please note
that any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working
days of the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has
come to an end.

If you are still unhappy following an internal review, you may take your
complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section
50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information
Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review
process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the
Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website,
[2]http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely,

Directorate Media and Communication

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/
http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/

Dear Ministry of Defence,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Defence's handling of my FOI request 'Branding', FOI Ref 21-03-2011-154548-001.

My first request was for a copy of the MoD's branding guidelines, which do (obviously) contain graphic images of the MoD logo. The copy you sent me contained exceptionally low-resolution images.

The guidelines specifically *refer* to high-resolution Adobe Illustrator files of the logo. It is these that I requested the second time. Section 21 cannot apply because at no time have the Adobe Illustrator files been available to me.

Why would the guidelines state, "The MoD badge is available in seven formats," and, "High-resolution artwork can be obtained from DGMC DefPR..." if that material was itself contained in the document? No, that material is clearly separate, hence the note that one need apply for it separately, as I did indeed do.

The high-resolution files contain further information such as precise colour shades, graphical construction details and so on which the low-res version you have made available within the guidelines simply cannot do. That is why I requested the high-res versions, and that is why the guidelines suggest that MoD users need the high-res versions.

Therefore, I look forward to receiving the material I requested alongisde the results of your Internal Review by May 15th, in line with timescale guidance from the Information Commissioner.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/br...

Please reply to acknowledge receipt.

Yours faithfully,
Steve Elibank

CIO-CI-AccessReview4(Hathorn, Andrew C2),

Dear Mr. Elibank,

Acknowledgement of Request for a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Internal Review

The Chief Information Officer - Head of Corporate Information has asked me
to acknowledge your message of 15 April 2011 in which you raised a formal
complaint about your request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act, reference 21-03-2011-154548-001.

From 1 April 2010, the Department's internal target for completing
internal reviews is 20 working days. Your request for an internal review
was received on 15 April 2011 and we therefore aim to complete the review
and respond to you by 13 May 2011. While we are working hard to achieve
this, in the interests of providing you with a realistic indication of
when you should expect a response, I should advise that the majority are
currently taking between 20 and 40 working days to complete. The review
will involve a full, independent, reconsideration of the handling of the
case as well as the final decision.

Kind regards,

Andrew Hathorn | CIO-CI-Access Review 4

01.N.15 | Ministry of Defence | Whitehall | London | SW1A 2HB

CIO-CI-AccessReview4(Hathorn, Andrew C2),

1 Attachment

Dear Mr. Elibank,

I have now completed the internal review for your request, reference
number 21-03-2011-154548-001, which you can find attached to this email.

Kind regards,

Andrew Hathorn | 01.N.15 | Ministry of Defence | Whitehall | London | SW1A
2HB

Steve Elibank

Dear Mr Hathorn,

Thank you for your Internal Review. You seem to misunderstand the whole basis of the Freedom of Information Act: if your interpretation of Section 21 is that you needn't release materials to a person to an extent greater than they have a license to have them, then why would any public authority ever release anything? The reason Parliament passed the Act was to require government departments to hand over information in situations where they otherwise wouldn't have to.

I also note that you have decided the information should be witheld under Section 31. I did not recall seeing this mentioned at any earlier stage, and have checked; it was not mentioned in your Refusal Notice at all. This suggests either an error on your part or on the part of the person who prepared the original Refusal Notice.

For both of these reasons, I shall be making a complaint to the ICO.

Steve Elibank