Is it legal to include trademarks in 3rd party icon sets?
<p>From my current limited research, I have come under the impression that some companies do not like it when their logo is modified. For example, in the Twitter Trademark Guidelines (which can be retrieved <a href="https://about.twitter.com/en_us/company/brand-resources.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>) state in rule 1:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>You may not alter the Twitter trademarks in any manner, including, but not limited to, changing the proportion, color or shape of the Twitter trademarks, or adding or removing any elements from the Twitter trademarks. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Which brings me to my question: is it legal for sites like Flaticon to distribute <a href="https://www.flaticon.com/packs/search?word=social%20media" rel="nofollow noreferrer">social media icon packs</a> that seem to break this rule? Especially since this website has a "no attribution required" subscription perk. Like do they make money off this? If so how are big media companies not all over it?</p>

<p>It doesn't look like FlatIcon is altering the Twitter trademark, so it is not in violation of the rule you quote. Neither are they using the trademark by pretending to be Twitter. They are merely quoting it. As such this is not a trade mark violation, any more than my use of the word "Twitter" here.</p>

<p><a href="https://revisionlegal.com/trademarks/trademark-infringement-test/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Trademark infringement</a> would only occur if someone used a trade mark in a confusing way, such as using it to mean a generic set of social media sites (c/f <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin#Trademark" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Aspirin</a>) or in a way that suggested a different business was actually Twitter.</p>

copyright trademark branding