London Museum, a history museum formerly known as The Museum of London, is in the middle of a major move and rebranding. As a result of that, the museum debuted a new logo and website, which featured the image of a stark white pigeon with a splat of yellowish poop behind it.
Originally debuted in June 2024, the museum said that the logo speaks, “to a historic place full of dualities, a place where the grit and the glitter have existed side by side for millennia.”
But, while all art attracts a certain amount of controversy, the museum’s rebranding has come under fire for a different reason: allegations of plagiarism.
The allegations come from two Manchester-based artists, Michael Wild and Rebecca May, the founders of May Wild Studio, who claim that the museum’s new logo is a near-copy of their earlier work, Coo Pigeon.
The couple said that they had tried to work with the museum to resolve the issue, but had been rebuffed. According to the museum, they contracted Uncommon Creative Studio to create the logo and the rebrand, and that the design was created independently.
However, Wild and May claim that the logo has created confusion among colleagues and the public. They say that they don’t want any money, just proper attribution.
Wild and May enjoy the support of Anti Copying in Design (ACID), an organization that advocates for the rights of artists and designers.
So, is this story just pigeon poop or is there more to it? That’s a difficult question to answer.
The Background of the Case
According to Wild and May, they first conceived Coo Pigeon in 2012 and it was first made public in 2017, with its national launch a year later at the London Design Festival. The sculpture features a completely white pigeon with a splat of gold-colored poop underneath it.
London Museum has its roots back to 1826 and has been a staple of the city ever since. However, the museum temporarily closed in 2022 in preparation for its move to a new, larger space. As part of the move, the museum rebranded itself from The Museum of London to London Museum.
Part of the rebranding included a new logo and website. For the logo, the museum chose an eerily similar design, namely a completely white pigeon with a splat of gold-colored poop underneath it.
Wild and May claim that they reached out to the museum shortly after the logo was released, but that the museum refused to give them attribution. The museum claimed, and continues to claim, that the logo was created independently by their marketing firm, Uncommon Creative Studio.
Feeling they had no choice, Wild and May took the matter public earlier this month. Backed up by ACID, they allege that the museum’s logo is a copy of their work and that the least the museum could do is to give them attribution.
In addition to the bird itself, Wild and May also said that the museum’s post about the logo was similar to their post about the Coo Pigeon.
For example, the duo’s 2016 post read in part, “Coo bird is a celebration of our cities, representing two sides of them: sometimes run down but sometimes glorious, a pest but also of a creature of value. They are a story of finding beauty and humor in the everyday, in the forgotten, in our common humble pigeon and its good-luck golden droppings.”
London Museum’s post also focused on the duality of the pigeon and the city, saying it is, “a place where the grit and the glitter have existed side by side for millennia.”
But do Wild and May have a point? Does the museum owe them attribution? Those are difficult questions with a surprisingly simple answer.
Similarities and Differences
Looking at the two works side by side, the similarities are immediately clear. They are both completely white pigeons with a splat of gold-colored poop. Neither work is painted, save for the poop, and both have similar messages according to their creators.
That said, there are some notable differences. First, the museum’s version is much more detailed. Wild and May’s work is much more abstract with a simple cone-like beak and few details. The museum’s version, on the other hand, is much more detailed and features eyes, realistic toes, a more realistic tail and shape overall.
One is much more an abstract representation of a pigeon while the other is a more realistic representation of the bird.
As such, there’s not much evidence to suggest that the museum’s version was a direct copy of Wild and May’s work. However, I don’t think that’s the argument that Wild and May are making.
The allegations deal more with the idea and the message, not the specific details of the design. That, in turn, is much more difficult to set aside. Both designs feature a completely white pigeon with no coloring at all. The only color in both designs is the gold-colored poop.
To be clear, this could be a coincidence. However, I don’t think that matters much in this case. Regardless of whether or not deliberate plagiarism took place, the museum never should have put out a logo that was so similar to an earlier work.
The Bigger Problem
With this case, one of two things happened. Either the museum’s marketing firm, Uncommon Creative Studio, got the idea from Wild and May and then decided to use it without attribution, or the idea was created independently and the similarities are a coincidence.
To be clear, there’s just not enough evidence here to make a determination either way. While the similarities are striking, coincidences do happen. We’ve talked about some of the crazier ones before, such as the story of Dennis the Menace.
To prove plagiarism, you have to eliminate the possibility of coincidence and there’s just not enough evidence to do that here.
That said, it doesn’t really matter. Coincidence or not, the museum shouldn’t have used the logo.
Whether or not they would have found Wild and May’s work with a search is difficult to say. Relevant queries today are dominated by the museum’s logo. I can’t say what they would have found two years ago. But, even if it didn’t show up, once they were notified, they missed an opportunity to correct the situation.
Because of its nature as the logo for the museum, their work is going to be one of the most visible and recognizable works of art in the country. Even though the museum is primarily a history museum, it still has an obligation to be a good steward to artists, especially in the UK. Moving forward tramples on the work of a pair of independent artists who could have potentially benefited greatly from the museum’s exposure.
Even if this entire case is a coincidence, the museum should have reversed course after they became aware of the similarities. Simply put, it was the right thing to do.
Bottom Line
If the museum doesn’t back down, there’s likely little that Wild and May can do. From a copyright standpoint, the museum’s logo isn’t likely to be ruled an infringement. One can’t copyright an idea, so no one owns the idea of a white pigeon or golden poop.
Though the UK does give more protection for designs than the US, a pigeon and its poop are things that exist in nature. Furthermore, it’s going to be difficult to prove that Uncommon Creative Studio had access to the original work or that the similarities aren’t a coincidence.
But this doesn’t mean that the museum should plow ahead as if nothing is wrong. Museums have an obligation to the art community and to artists.
Trampling the work of independent artists is antithetical to the mission of a museum, regardless of the circumstances. The fact that London Museum is, primarily, a history museum, doesn’t change that obligation.
Want to Reuse or Republish this Content?
If you want to feature this article in your site, classroom or elsewhere, just let us know! We usually grant permission within 24 hours.