When taking a look at the Stock Art hullabaloo from last week, I think the immediate lesson to be learned is that in today’s Web 2.0 world, with its instant internet echo chamber, mob mentality can be a very dangerous thing. An equally important lesson involves our old buggaboos – logo design contests, spec work and it’s newly approved corporate label “crowdsourcing”. I’ve tub-thumped that issue for years now (my first anti-logo design contest screed dates back to 2002) and all along I’ve warned about the possibility of business owners selecting a design that’s been ripped off from somewhere else as their new corporate identity. I wondered aloud about how long it would take for a very high-profile incident to occur that would illustrate exactly how dangerous spec work, logo contests and design “crowdsourcing” really are.
Well folks, here it is.
Turns out the StockArt.com vs Jon Engle episode, after all the twists and turns have been investigated, is a powerful anti-spec parable. If we take a look at the artwork and illustrations in dispute, we’ll see that many of the stock images were entered into logo design contests on a website called Design Outpost, a spec driven contest forum that bills itself as “A Different Kind of Design Firm” (you can view some contest vs. Stock Art comparisons here – the original posts and artwork are beginning to disappear from Design Outpost‘s contest forums).
If the overall plagiarism issue wasn’t big enough, it now turns out that several of the submissions were selected by the contest as “winning entries”. That means the contest holders used them for their company logo. And now (in some cases years after the contests were finished), those firms are receiving pretty heavy letters from a well-heeled legal firm, asking them the all important question – “You’re using our client’s artwork in your logo. Do you have the license to do so?”. And if they don’t, a sizable bill is probably on the way. Or worse. Trouble is, there are instances when the disputed designs have found their way onto products, book covers and packaging. Doesn’t matter if the companies involved change their logos now – the damage has already been done. Let’s not mention being connected to this public relations nightmare, as half the internet tries to untangle the story of Jon Engle and his self-proclaimed David vs, Goliath battle.
If, as Stock Art claims, Engle used their artwork without proper licensing and entered it into design contests, then the companies now using that work are on the hook. If, in the increasingly unlikely event, but as Engle claims, Stock Art “stole” his designs, then there’s some companies whose logos are now available as stock art and being used all over the internet and quite likely, the print world too. Either way, it’s a bad scene for the companies involved and in both scenarios, the inclusion of the artwork into logo design contests allowed it to happen.
Lest we be tempted to believe that this is an isolated case, on an isolated website, let’s also take a look at this contest on Chicago-based design “crowdsourcing” platform Crowdspring. While the entries are now ghosted out (the contest closed in February), we can still see that 32 of the contest entries (from two designers) can be tracked back to iStockPhoto, a stock photography and illustration website. Problem is, iStockPhoto strictly prohibits the use of their illustrations as logos. How am I familiar with this contest? When Crowdspring very loudly hit the scene in February, it was one of a few contests that I decided to follow, selecting it from a random link on the Crowdspring home page. I noticed the injection of what appeared to be iStock designs early on, and quickly searched the stock site using obvious keywords. Sure enough, the vector images had been culled from iStock‘s rather large collection.
Not wanting to jump the gun (there was a possibility that the original illustrator was a ‘creative’ in Crowdspring‘s community and may have entered their own work), I found out the name of the original illustrator, and contacted them directly via e-mail. They had no knowledge of the work being entered, and wrote the Crowdspring management regarding the issue. The images were deleted, and then resubmitted throughout the contest until eventually, one of the ‘creatives’ was banned. Trouble is, there was another iStock image from the SAME illustrator, that nobody noticed until I notified Crowdspring, and the other designer, about that one too.
Rather than allowing an ‘ah-ha’ moment to play out (and as much as it would have made great blog fodder), I informed the powers that be (staying mum to the buyer), saving Crowdspring, and their ‘client’ a lot of grief (they can thank me later). It looked like one of the iStock images stood a pretty good chance of winning (as much as one can interpret the goings on of a design contest) and I didn’t want to see some young talented designer get his work misappropriated. I also didn’t want to see a small business owner get hung out to dry because he had decided to farm out his logo to a spec-driven logo contest and picked a winning design that he couldn’t legally use.
None of this is a secret. The staff on Crowdspring know this is a problem, even addressing the issue as a blog post and on their forum. Trouble is, that was 9 months after launch and after God knows how many iStock submissions later (whether the iStock issue I was involved with had any bearing on this sudden interest remains to be seen).
Unfortunately, this is all part and parcel of the spec design model, and a subject that Crowdspring themselves described with a fairly blithe statement – “it does happen” – when asked about it. Yes it does, but it shouldn’t. And it’s why a logo design contest is an extraordinarily risky way to ANY small business to farm out their corporate identity to. Logo design contest sites will blather on how their sites are self-policing and what-not, but in the examples we’re talking about, nobody realized about the iStock submission until I – a Crowdspring critic – started the ball rolling. In the case of Jon Engle, he had been submitting logos into contests that allegedly feature Stock Art material as far back as 2007. So much for self-policing.
Interestingly, as the Stockart.com vs. Jon Engle issue sucked the oxygen out the internet for a few days last week, Mallesh Bonigala, the CEO of Logo Design Works, issued this missive via his Twitter account. Alas, it was more-or-less lost in all the Stock Art noise.
According to the linked post, a ‘creative’ on 99Designs had helped themselves to a crab illustration from the Logo Design Works mascot portfolio, and entered it into a contest on the Australian based 99Designs website. It didn’t win, but it could have. And as this incident happened in the same week as the Stock Art fiasco unfolded, I think it’s safe to say that none of these are isolated events.
Happened to us too, as early as 2004 when several designs ripped from our portfolio ended up in Sitepoint logo contests, with one being selected as the winner before being identified by other ‘creatives’. Who’s Sitepoint? They happen to be the company and website that spawned 99Designs. And it’s not just Sitepoint, Design Outpost, Crowdspring or 99Designs. There’s also this incident. And this one too. I think it’s safe to say that logo contest and design “crowdsourcing” submissions are rife with copied, stolen and unlicensed artwork.
All of this begs the question – when copied or unlicensed artwork gets entered into spec logo contests (and in some cases, even wins), how liable are the design contest sites themselves? What legal exposure do they shoulder for their ‘creatives and to their ‘buyers’? Oh sure, they’ve got disclaimers that tell us they’re not responsible for what goes on in their forums, and that they’re not liable should purloined artwork get passed off on their site. I think the fact that all of these design contests collect money – either as a percentage of the designer’s winnings, a contest fee or a service charge tacked on to the overall prize money, would certainly expose them in some way. I’m not a lawyer, but I do know that even though most coat-check services feature signs that tell us that they’re not responsible should your coat get stolen, the fact that they collect five bucks to watch your coat renders those signs impotent. And finally, what about design “crowdsourcing” sites’ liability to the original designer whose work gets ripped and entered into contests that they’re hosting, promoting and earning revenue from? I think ‘legal quagmire‘ just about covers it. Should also point out that whatever legal protections are being claimed, they only cover the asses of the “crowdsourcing” websites and NOT their buyers, self-labelled ‘creatives’ or the designers who happen to get their work lifted.
In terms of this discussion I do know that The Intellectual Property Group, the legal firm representing Stock Art have tried to contact Design Outpost, but have yet to hear back. Other than that “statement”, any further questions I had were met with “no comment”. Guess we’ll have to wait and see how that plays out. It’s also worthwhile to note that any post featuring Stock Art artwork starting going down the memory hole yesterday afternoon, being yanked en mass from the Design Outpost website. Other than the examples I did manage to find, we’ll never really know the extent of the damage.
If it turns out that he was pilfering Stock Art‘s website to enter their illustrator’s work into design contests as his own, while I’m hesitant to call Jon Engle a victim of spec-work (though I do have some sympathy for him), it certainly looks like spec work might have been a motivating factor. Why spend time developing concepts for a company logo when there’s a high likelihood that the design won’t get picked, nor the ‘creative’ paid for his efforts. Pick an obscure website, incorporate their art into spec logos, enter them into as many contests as possible. They probably won’t win, so no-one should be the wiser. And it they do win, the companies purchasing the logos won’t be in business very long, or will remain small enough, and the internet large enough, that nobody will ever connect the dots. The events of the past week have proven that this is demonstrably not true and a very large issue when the dots eventually do get connected.
If I owned a design contest or logo “crowdsourcing” site, I would quickly be searching all the previous contests to see what unlicensed and ripped-off artwork had already be entered, trying to head off any issues before they arise (though disappearing threads and images is often interpreted as a tacit admission of guilt). I’d also be getting a little more attentive to the frequent IP violation e-mails that are often slagged off by administrators.
If I were a client or ‘buyer’ at one of these sites, I’d be seriously re-evaluating the wisdom of farming out my company logo to a gaggle of unknown designers, many of whom aren’t getting paid and some of whom have zero motivation to actually design original work. On a website that’s legal disclaimer actually tells me that ripped off (or unlicensed) design work is a very real possibility. Is saving a few bucks, or getting a few more poorly crafted logo options, worth what is obviously a very bad risk? If it were my company, I’d know the answer.
If I were a designer on one of these sites, it could break two ways. If I had uploaded material that was, ahm, influenced by someone else, I would be deleting the work as fast as humanly possible, closing up my account and starting anew. If I were one of the seemingly fewer and fewer legitimate designers trying to make a few bucks on spec work or “crowdsourcing” websites, I would seriously reconsider the kind of business model I was supporting. If I were still expending the kind of energy and time required to develop original work, I’d have to keep this in mind – many of the designers I’m competing against, aren’t. While we’re talking about “leveling the playing field and all that”, supposedly the raison d’etre for these “crowdsourcing” websites in the first place.
As far as the hapless Mr. Engle goes, I think regardless of which way his tale eventually plays out, this much is certain – spec work, “crowdsourcing” and logo design contests are at the very heart of it.
Related Posts
- Yet another anti-spec work initiative
- SXSW “Is Spec Work Evil?” panel transcript
- Defending crowdsourcing & design contests. The platitudes of spec work.
- SXSW ’09: Is spec work evil?
- Spec work hackery redux. More of our work copied & entered into 99designs logo design contest
Tags: business, Contests, crowdsourcing, spec, spec work
Thanks for keeping us appraised of how this is playing out. However it works out in the end, I think it’s an excellent cautionary tale about the dangers of spec work. My sympathies to all the people who didn’t know any better and will have to deal with the fall out of this situation – I would not want to be in the position of the companies whose logos are now at issue.
Anlina Sheng’s last blog post..This weekend’s vet visit
[...] The Logo Factor, has published a compelling account of the issue, and turned it into a well-written anti-spec work parable. “…in today’s Web 2.0 world, with its instant internet echo chamber, mob mentality [...]
It is very easy as a designer — especially if you are just getting started — to use istock photo and other stock photo/vector places for logo design work. This is a good article about the dangers of doing that. It’s unfortunate for the business owners who unknowingly get caught in the crossfire. Thanks for the post!
Oh, I don’t know if anyone else caught this… but I thought it was ironic that the “LimeExchange” screenshot from above clearly rips off the “Limewire” logo….
In Jon Engle’s original blog post he mentioned something about being banned from one of the design sites he belonged to (Design Outpost) after stockart contacted them. I think he started the whole story about stockart stealing his work as a CYA so that his plagiarism wouldn’t get him banned from any of the other sites like logopond, since those “crowdsourcing” commissions seemed to be a large part of his business.
Also, Engle has just reactivated his relevantstudio Twitter account:
http://search.twitter.com/search?q=savejon
I wonder if this is the first volley in another bid for public sympathy.
@Anlina – yes, I think this serves as a cautionary tale for small businesses and clients alike.
@David – thanks for the link from your very fine blog.
@Benjamin – I believe that Lime Exchange is owned by the same people that also own Limewire, so I don’t believe the lime logo is an issue.
@Pam – I suspect the Twitter account was snatched by someone else shortly after the original account was canceled. Probably to somehow cash in on the numerous links and replies to the original account. I have no way of knowing, but I highly doubt the ID is being resuscitated by its original user.
@Everyone – Rather than looking further into the personal involvement of the designer in question, we’d all be better served focusing on the bigger picture as it relates to the entire design industry. If there was ever a case about why spec art, design crowdsourcing and logo design contests are bad for EVERYONE involved, this would be it. Accordingly, I’d like other comments to discuss that, rather than talk any more about Mr. Engle , especially on a personal level.
@ Steve Douglas – Yep, solidly agreed on all points. Too bad there’s all that cheap milk out there. The eroding value of illustrators’/designers’ original output is just as big of a problem as piracy. For over 13 years, Stockart has been a class act, fighting both problems tooth and nail.
Just to preface my comment by saying that I have never done this or intend to do this.. but..
If origins of stock art are noted, would it be permissable to design up a concept using clip or stock art under the assumption that IF it wins, the relevant fees would be paid? I’m assuming it IS legal to purchase images from StockArt and use them in a logo, and similar to using watermarked ptock photos in a website concept, it would seem legitimate enough..?
If indeed Jon “borrowed” the designs without payment, I’m guessing this would have made a decent enough case for SOME of them..?
This was a great read, and like many, I am fascinated by this Jon Engle VS stockart saga.
Amongst the solutions for crowdsourcing websites’ admins or their clients, its probably a good idea to run a search on http://www.tineye.com that has a lot of istock’s pictures indexed.
It might not be perfect, but supporting tinEye is probably the way forward to see if copies of a supposedly original work exist on the internet.
Keep up the great research Steve.
Good work, Jon.
About five years ago, I discovered these contest sites, and I liked the idea. I earnestly submitted several different original designs for two companies. One was for a motorcycle racing company and one was for a clubby web site. I was happy with my work, and some of the other designers did some nice comps.
My motorcycle design was rejected. But I liked it so much, I still use it in my portfolio.
The web site contest was a sham, though. My entry was decent, and some of the other entries were fantastic. But before the contest was over, the contest-holder canceled the contest. So in my mind, the contest-holder received a lot of solid, free ideas, and didn’t have to pay a dime for them. I e-mailed the web site company that runs these contests with a detailed complaint, but they never even responded.
These contests are bad news. Even if there wasn’t plagiarism (and it’s clear that there is), designing items for free really hurts and cheapens our industry.
Previously I was on the fence regarding these crowd sourcing sites, I figured “hey, some clients aren’t going to pay more than $200 for a logo anyways. And who is to say where a designer can and can’t make money”
But I must admit this whole Jon Engle event (and logo factory’s great research on it) has pushed me off the fence.
The Bernie Maddof of Design.
Or his anonymous online logo spec contest equivalent. Or one of them, anyway.
Yes, some clients are too cheap to pay for a decent logo. But those clients deserve one hack designing one mediocre logo. With these contests, it’s possible a good design will emerge from the group. And I don’t like that because cheap clients deserve cheap logos.
I had seen Jon’s problem when he first announced it on Twitter, it was a reminder that there are many people who have never been involved in a car accident but they’ve seen a lot in their rear view mirror. I think that the internet with it’s inherent anonymity will always attract the lazy designer who steals… Unfortunately it is everyone else that seems to damage in the fallout.
Much like the banking system, a designers work is bought with the faith that it is well executed and original to each commission, if this sort of thing continues then it will undermine the trade as a whole and devalue everyones work.
Never done spec work personally, and probably never will.
WIth so much design work being posted on the internet, this is a problem everywhere. It doesn’t just happen on contest sites. It happens when dishonest people do dishonest things. In a way – it’s more of a risk to post a stolen design on a contest site because more people are going to see it. ESPECIALLY if it wins.
The best thing that can happen is that designers who are caught have to pay dearly for it. If there is a $5,000 fine for EACH false design, perhaps it will dissuade some “designers” from going down this path.
I also think there should be a blacklist of all designers convicted of fraud and all contest sites should have access to the information. So should potential design clients.
@ Audree – Thanks for your comments, but rather than talking about what ‘might’ happen, I can speak from personal experience on what actually IS happening – our work is constantly being entered into logo contests, and has been for years. It’s one of the main reasons we don’t update our portfolios as often as we’d like to, and why I’m hesitant to focus on making our Daily Logo feature, well, daily.
Those areas of our site should be a pretty cool source of examples for designers and clients alike, rather than a free-for-all logo concept library that they seem to have turned into. Over the years I’ve grown tired of writing polite cease & desist letters, and chose to expose some of the incidents when they occur on our blog and our Copycats feature.
And even then, I don’t write about every incident, because I’ve grown tired of writing blog posts about ripped off work, as much as I suspect readers of this blog have grown tired reading about it. Here’s the funny thing. I’m one of the most vocal critics of logo design contests on the internet. You’d think that these sites would be especially wary of OUR work getting into their contests. They should be aware that I’ll likely hammer them on our website, and while I’m sure they do keep an eye open on designs copied from “that Logo Factory asshole”, our work still shows up on a regular basis.
I think it’s obvious that a ‘crowdsourcing’ platform, with it’s relative anonymity, is much more likely to attract folks who aren’t above cutting corners and helping themselves to other people’s work. It’s a risk vs. reward formula. While someone might risk getting an account banned off this contest site or the other, it’s less likely that someone is going to risk a job, with pay and benefits, in order to palm off someone else’s work as their own.
It’s also a matter of motivation. When people aren’t getting paid for their efforts, or stand very little chance of getting paid (as in logo design contests) they are less likely to spend the considerable time or effort required to come up with original ideas. Quality, pride and attention to detail tends to slide when the remuneration is lessened – this is an economic principle that applies to ALL fields, not just design – and when remuneration is dropped to zero, you can probably pitch ethics out the window as well. That’s not everyone who participate in logo design contests. But it is an awful lot. Design lotteries, contests and unpaid work does not tend to attract people who are the best at what they do, nor people with the purest of intentions. Again, simple, sound, economic principles. Why people believe the design field would be any different to other professional areas is beyond me.
Toss in the growing number of ‘creatives’ on these sites, the anonymity of those participating, and the decreasing likelihood of getting paid for that work, it becomes a formula that’s certain to create situations like the one we’re discussing. Frankly, I’m surprised it hasn’t happened before. But I know it’s going to happen again.
Crowdsourcing and design contest sites have absolutely NO control over who is submitting work, the type of work being submitted or the origins of same. In the iStock example above, I was the sole quality assurance manager for a rather high-profile design contest site (quite ironic when you think about it). On a purely personal level, I know that the work my humble shop produces is original because our designers work in-house, and I watch the logo development happen from concept sketches, right through to file setup on their monitors. If we were to foist copied work onto clients, we would be finished as a business. As would any design firm or established freelancer. The risk for us far outweighs whatever time we’d save on any individual logo design project. Crowdsourcing and design contests get away with it regularly, and with impunity. They download the responsibility to their ‘creatives’ and wash their hands, whereas design firms would have to face the music, as would an established designer. I think the case of Mr. Engle illustrates that very dramatically.
Unless I’m mistaken, you’re a ‘creative’ at Crowdspring (I use scare quotes around creative, not as a personal slight, but because this is a term Crowdspring have come up with because many on their service AREN’T designers). The issue here for you should be that while you’re putting in time and effort into contest entries, a significant number of the people you’re competing against, aren’t. It isn’t even fair to you. I know that you read and participate in the Crowdspring forums, where a great deal of the discussions involve ‘creatives’ stealing ideas and concepts from other participants. See, in a traditional design firm this isn’t an issue because the staff are working together (and all are getting paid). On a ‘crowdsourcing’ site you’re competing against each other (and only one person will get paid). Participants in logo design contests don’t even respect each other’s IP property, including yours. Why should we expect them to respect mine? Or that of my clients.
The idea of logo design contests ‘self-policing’ themselves because of the large number of people viewing the submissions might be true to a point, but the examples above (and here) illustrate that this is hit-and-miss at best, and the number of entries so great, illegal material is STILL getting through.
While your idea of a designer ‘blacklist’ (legal issues notwithstanding) may sound interesting, why would you absolve the design contests, the facilitators of these activities? I’m more interested in what liability they have, rather than some teenager in Scranton who doesn’t know that copying a logo from some website isn’t acceptable behavior. As a client of a ‘crowdsourcing’ site, what responsibility do the owners have to ME if ripped off artwork is submitted in MY contest? Do I get a refund of my service charges? Do the copied designs count towards my ’25 or money back’ guarantee? Will the “crowdsourcing” site shoulder legal, and financial, responsibility should I select a ripped off design, and incorporate it into my company branding?
If I am a designer who’s work gets lifted, what responsibility do these sites have to me? They’re helping dilute my copyright protections to MY work, while ironically, the designer uploading my work onto the design contest server has to agree to transfer a license that they don’t have. On a personal level, I have agreements with my clients that I can display their work on my site – it’s part of my initial contract with them. Idiots that copy work of our site are invalidating MY agreement with MY client. What responsibility do they shoulder for that?
If the logo that is copied belongs to my small business, what about the damages to MY identity, simply by having my company logo on a contest gallery – where it is likely to get pinched again – until such times as I track it down. What responsibility do these contest sites have towards the legal fees I’m going to have to pay, in order to untangle a messy copyright and/or trademark situation, because one of their ‘creatives’ that they so often boast about, pinched my logo from my website.
I know how much responsibility they want to assume. All these sites know that copied work is a potential outcome of ANY contest, and their TOS disclaimers expressly deny any liability for it.
Hi, what about The Logo Factory? I think it also did some ‘behind the screen’ spec work.
@dwi – News to me. Did we win?
Great post! I’m always intrigued by these stories and examples of logo’s being “stolen,” and then offered up on the logo design black market!
As a designer who doesn’t want my work kidnapped, what is the best way to keep track of the designs and make sure that they aren’t being posted on contest sites or used by someone who doesn’t have permission?
Thanks!
@steve: yeah I heard rumour about that. could you please clarify?
@dwi – Sorry, but I honestly have no clue what you’re on about. You heard a rumor? What would you like me to clarify?
[...] after last week’s story about Jon Engle and his blatant plagiarism of stock art and TheLogoFactory.com’s excellent research into the topic of design contest I have to admit my opinion has [...]
[...] anti-spec work parable? The Jon Engle vs. Stockart.com story [...]
[...] An anti-spec work parable – the Jon Engle vs. Stockart.com story … [...]
[...] An anti-spec work parable – the Jon Engle vs. Stockart.com story … [...]
I’d love to hear Audry’s thoughts on your very careful, considered, polite, personal (and long) reply to her…
A very interesting read, thank you. I feel sorry for the original designers involved in this, and also the clients – people may think they’re being cheap using contest websites, but I bet the model seems very attractive to someone starting up, and with a small marketing budget. That doesn’t make it a good system though, and I do fear for the industry if this is the future.
@ James. You’re quite welcome.
@ Amy Dee. Thank you for your comment (yes – I do tend to blather on).
[...] the wake of the Jon Engle copyright case, The Logo Factor sheds light on copyright infringement concerning spec work and design contests: “Lest we be tempted to believe that this is an isolated case, on an isolated website, [...]
I think this is hilarious. As if freelancers all the world over don’t rip off and resell iStock daily. Brilliant expose…
Internet killed the illustrator star!!! Sad shit. Good work Logo Factory. Way bigger story here. Trust me!!!!! The world is getting quickly dumbed down! Say bye bye to anyone putting images on net. If great and estblished…
After losing my position last November I found myself with some time on my hands. In an effort to get some new portfolio pieces and perhaps drum up a client or two, I started entering Crowdspring design contents. I noticed very quickly how little actual design was being done. It was a constant stream of ripped off, recycled clip art and ideas that I’ve seen hundreds of times. I pulled all my work from the site, deleted the account and have never looked back. It would seem that there is a generation who believes that possessing the ability to copy and paste images with type constitutes being called a designer.
Keep up the good work.
This isn’t cheap art/clipart being stolen here people. Stockart’s people have mad skills. This is going to destroy visual/comercial art as an industry…very sad for the visually inclined!
[...] cet excellent billet de The Logo Factory sur le sujet. [...]
While I believe some of the points made are true, not all designers that enter ‘contest sites’ are rip-off artists. Just as in any area of the real world, there will always be the ones who cheat, sad but true. These (contest sites) are just there, easier to expose. I am not trying to make any excuse, as I find completely wrong.
Many designers on these sites are true, good, and original. They have ethics. So, to group as a whole, the whole being wrong/bad….is wrong.
>>>> Lucy Charles Says: I think this is hilarious. As if freelancers all the world over don’t rip off and resell iStock daily. Brilliant expose…
Uhhhhhhhhhh no. I don’t rip off stuff from iStock.
@ Rinaldi Studio – Agreed. Not everyone on ‘crowdsourcing’ and design contest sites are submitting copied or improperly licensed artwork. However, if our experience is any indication it is an awful lot. And that’s the point – design contests are exceptionally unfair to honest designers who submit original entries with all the purest of intentions. They’re ‘competing’ against other people who don’t and aren’t. It’s often left to ‘buyers’ and ‘contest holders’ to sort out what is, and what isn’t, legal.
Even if improper artwork is identified, it’s often ignored by those who own the design contest sites. Is that fair to the contest holder, often a small business owner whose been convinced by the site owners that logo design contests are a superior method to obtain a ‘professional’ identity? I don’t think so. Funny enough, neither do the design contest sites themselves, as they all claim a lack of legal responsibility should a contest holder select a copied logo as the winner.
While I’ll agree that there are always people who’ll cheat, that doesn’t make it any less onerous when it does happen. Logo design contests are rife with copied work because they’re advertised as a way for people who AREN’T designers to sign-up anonymously, “have fun and make money’. There’s absolutely NO vetting process as to whether those joining ‘crowdsourcing communities’ have ANY skills or talent whatsoever. People who CAN’T design end up ‘competing’ against people who CAN. One way for people who CAN’T design to submit appropriately decent work is to copy it from somewhere else – ‘borrowing’ concepts and ideas from their fellow participants, copying from images they’ve found on the internet, or using stock work that’s not licensed for use in a logo. With modern day design software, search engines and the internet, it’s relatively quick and simple to do. Often, people without a graphic design background aren’t even aware of the ramifications of their actions, or the legality of same. Them seem to think that being “in the public domain” is defined as “being available on the internet”.
Unfortunately, there are also unethical designers who aren’t above lifting ideas from somewhere else, no doubt to cut down on the time they’re spending on a contest submission, and taking into consideration the very low chance they have of getting paid for that time.
[...] This post was Twitted by joperron @JeanAymeri @lithrock C’est drôle j’ai parlé des concours de logo hier: http: http://twitter.com/joperron/statuses/1594637319 This ping back was generated with the http://real-url.org free Twitter back pinger! This is an automatic message, nobody red it before so sorry for bugs. [...]
[...] of The Logo Factor, has published a compelling account of the issue, creating a well-written anti-spec work parable. “…in today’s Web 2.0 world, with its instant internet echo chamber, mob mentality [...]
[...] An anti-spec work parable – the Jon Engle vs. Stockart.com story … [...]
[...] in legal trouble. Sadly, there have been several instances of individuals submitting art they have no permission to use. Sometimes they are misusing art they could legally use for other types of projects. Other times, [...]
Buyer beware. I have no sympathy for these crowdy-contest buyers. It must be tempting to buy stolen artwork, it’s such a bargain price! But legitimate work is devalued by the process and we all suffer from that.