In an announcement that took some in the design industry by surprise, iStockphoto today announced that they were planning to roll out some sort of stock logo service, presumably after the New Year. Shortly after the news hit Twitter (and after receiving an e-mail from David Airey about the plan) I received this e-mail from the popular stock photo and artwork service.
“We’re excited to announce a whole new product coming to the iStock collection in just a few months: logo designs. Our clients will be able to download a unique logo to brand their business or organization right here at iStock from designers like you. As a designer, you’ve probably created hundreds of different logos over the course of your career and we’re offering you an outlet to start selling new logos to the world’s largest community of creative buyers. If you create one of the first 10,000 approved logo designs for iStockphoto by January 1, 2010, we’ll pay you $5 per approved logo and another $5 if we reach 10,000 approved logos by that date. So fire up Illustrator to create some amazing logos or dust off all those much-loved logos that never made it past the third round with a client. We will begin taking applications from potential iStock logo designers soon. There will be a Logo Training Manual made available before we begin accepting files. In the meantime, please join the discussion about logos here.”
Other than the amazingly low come-hither “bonus” of $5 a pop (the overall royalty rate will be 50% of selling price, at least for the introductory rollout), can’t say I’m terribly surprised. iStock have made a fairly successful enterprise out of selling all manner of stock art and illustrations, and logos could be considered a fairly natural extension. Nothing new either – stock and template logo services have been around for years with some success (Pixel Logo and Brandstack to name just two). Hell, we’ve even tinkered around with selling stock logos and graphics odds-& ends since 2000 (with varying degrees of success). I think it’s the size of iStock that has designers in an up-roar, most notably on Twitter. The announcement is probably tied to an earlier, much less noticed announcement last week in which iStock made this dramatic “promise”
“Files purchased and used in accordance with the iStock license, will not breach any trademark, copyright or other intellectual property rights or rights of privacy. We’re calling it the iStock Legal Guarantee and if a customer does get a claim, iStock will cover the customer’s legal costs and direct damages to a combined total of $10,000. Here’s the best part: it’s on us. Starting Wednesday, every iStockphoto file automatically comes with a free Legal Guarantee.”Not an easy guarantee for iStock to make, especially when they’re on the hook for 10 grand when things go awry. It is, however, the ONLY way that they could start selling off-the-rack logos to customers who’ll ostensibly be trying to trademark some of the designs as their own. At the time I thought that iStock were going to get a lot more aggressive in policing their material (especially on design contest and crowdsourcing sites where submissions of stock artwork to projects remains at an astonishing level). Guess we now know why.
What does it mean?
I don’t see this as being a terribly big deal on the front end – clients aren’t about to pony up a large amount of money for what is, in reality, glorified clip art (flash generated stock logo gizmos like Logomaker and Logo Yes have been plying their goods for some time now). There will be probably be a lot of hand-wringing over the next couple of days among designers, especially among those, like our shop, who have marketed themselves as logo design specialists. Granted, it might seem like yet another assault on the graphic design industry, still trying to come to terms with the increasing impact of spec work and design crowdsourcing. And iStock are a very large company, with a established footprint in the stock art segment of the industry. However, at the end of the day, companies and businesses who appreciate the value of a decent brand will still be looking for a custom treatment, rather than some stock logo that’s sat on a website for months (and will undoubtedly be purloined several times over).
And that, is where the issue really lies. I predict there will be massive copyright problems as would-be designers, eager for quickly produced logos, scour the internet for material to, ahm, be “inspired” by. And in a little bit of karmic schadenfreude, logo design contests and crowdsourcing sites will be ground zero for a lot of “inspiration” for stock logos to upload. It’s an unfortunate, but predictable, aspect of a design business model where the emphasis (and only profitability for the designer) is to create a large number of logos, in the shortest amount of time possible.
Copying issues notwithstanding, and without the benefit of an accurate crystal ball, I don’t really know what impact this iStock logo deal will have on the industry at large. But I do have a feeling it will make a few copyright and trademark lawyers a lot of dough.
So what you think – Harbinger of doom, or today’s “who gives a toss”?
Comments are open if you so wish.
Related posts:
Just wanted to point out that the “come hither” amount of $5 a logo is just a bonus, according to the iStockPhoto statement on their site, the designer would still get the majority of the amount the logo sells for (if it sells), minus whatever iStock is charging as a commission (I didn’t read it that closely as I don’t intend to use the service).
George – thanks for pointing that out. According to the istock forum, istock “will pay a base royalty rate of 50% per logo design for the first 6 months and give advanced notice for the rate going forward after that.” I’ll update the post to reflect this info.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Logo Factory. Logo Factory said: New blog post: iStock photo to sell stock logos: In an announcement that took some in the design .. http://bit.ly/FUTh [...]
This is awesome news. I need to brush up on my Photoshop skills. This has definitely motivated me. Thanks for the news!
That last comment makes me cringe, as does the idea of yet another large company plying into the logo field.
Professional logo designs aren’t created in a raster graphics program. Photoshop is not the place to create a logo that will be easy to use on down the road and I doubt istock will accept any. They will probably want all logos in Illustrator 8 format, which is the only way they currently accept vector graphics for download.
Logoyes.com and the others are bad enough. I wish someone would do a study to see what percentage of businesses that use predesigned logos fail, as compared to the percentage of those that failed after using a custom branding service.
If you own or plan to start a business do yourself a favor, avoid the legal hassle and pay a little more for a CUSTOM, UNIQUE logo design. People churning out predesigned logos as fast as possible will get ideas from wherever they can, which as this article states will just lead to copies, of copies, of copies of good logos.
some people don’t really get the jokes eh ?
[...] to sell stock logos [...]
[...] iStockphoto to sell stock logos [...]
[...] design contest on 99designs. The second was iStockphoto’s announcement that they would be offering “pre-fab” stock logos, promising a $5 submission “bonus” for the first 10,000 logos “approved” [...]
I too am appalled by the designer wanting to brush up on their ‘Photoshop’ skills. Logos are done in Illustrator, not Photoshop. This is going to open an entire can of worms that iStock will have to sort out on a different level.
Branding isn’t about shopping for a logo that someone thinks is cool. There’s so much more than that. Design is failing society miserably because of the online logo factory concept.
Christina – thanks for the comment. Not sure about the “online logo factory” quip (take a look – top of page, upper right) but I think I get what you’re saying. LOL
@Christina
“Branding isn’t about shopping for a logo that someone thinks is cool. There’s so much more than that. Design is failing society miserably because of the online logo factory concept.”
I totally agree.
All that selling of logos on iStockphoto will bring about is an influx of generic identities that will never be nearly as cool as a company that works with an actual designer to produce a real complete ID system based on the companies actual needs.
(…And yes Steve, I don’t think she meant The Logo Factory.
I can’t say I’m overly worried about the general impact this will have on the design industry. There always have been and always will be clients who understand the value of good, custom design created in partnership with a professional designer, and those who don’t get it and will always go with the cheapest, most convenient solution, even if it’s a poor solution. The design industry is under assault from so many sides, I’d be surprised if iStock logos make a huge impact anywhere.
I’m much more disappointing in iStock as a company, for their decision. They are a company whose customer base is mostly designers, and it is designers that have propelled iStock to the level of success they have achieved. With that in mind, this seems like a move that is extremely disrespectful toward their main customer base.
My clients don’t choose to buy from iStock. I, the designer, choose to buy from and provide business to iStock. So it stings a bit that they’re essentially relying on business from those in our industry while at the same time devaluing the services we provide. Way to alienate your customers, iStock.
The royalty structure & pricing is also pretty insulting. 50% seems like a rather large chunk for them to be taking, and with logos starting at 100 credits, that means that designers could be getting as little as $48 for a logo (oh plus your $5 bonus if you upload early!) I wish I could say that no one would bother for that little money, except that we know from sites like Crowdspring & eLance that there are unfortunately an abundance of “designers” out there willing to work for pennies per hour, or free.
I don’t think this is an industry-destroying move by any means. Just disappointing, stupid and disrespectful. I can’t wait to see the legal issues that crop up in relation to this service.
Couldn’t have summed it up any better. I’m considering switching my clients that require stock imagery to another service.
I feel that a large amount of you are peeved at the thought of other designers taking work from you. It seems that way in any thread I have read here so far. However a number of points are extremely valid. I agree that cheaters are rarely penalized and brought to the gallows of truth. I do have a solution to this and hopefully someday can utilize it. I will leave it here just in case someone wants to get to it faster than I will be able to.
I understand that it takes a lot of communication to aquire a good concept that can be translated into a logo design as a form of company identity. However… if the company doesn’t have enough money or wishes to utilize a cheaper source they get what they pay for…a cheaper design. Or perhaps they find something extremely well matching for a bargain. Either way…the designers and companies win.
The designers win by knowing that when they get work they are doing a great service and the company knows that they are getting a unique and well inspired design for the money they are paying.
The company that uses a logo contest does so for a number of reasons…social interactivity or otherwise. However…they get what they pay for. So it does not matter in the slightest to the designer or company.
This conversation is similar to those who speak of piracy of music. Most people that want the content will buy it. The ones that take it for free are those that would never purchase it at all…ever. Or they are just bad folks…either way it doesn’t matter. However blatant ripoff of a one of a kind concept is a terrible thing…I am speaking of logos once again. Calm down…try to understand everyone’s point of view. I surely understand yours. But as I said…if they wouldn’t hire you and go to the contest…they still wouldn’t hire you anyhow as they don’t have the money or just don’t want to. Lame, yes. Can you stop it?, No.
Idea…Designers Blacklist Database
It would be a website that has will charge a small fee to have access to its tools and database. The database would be of all cheaters found on different contest sites and by the authorities. The tools would allow for reporting of the cheaters, information about the cheaters, and tools to implement into your websites that will work into entry forms. If the tool accesses the database and finds that the person trying to register or enter into the contest it will automatically forward to a webpage stating that they are in the Designers Blacklist Database and are now welcome here.
[...] iStockphoto to sell stock logos [...]
The new iStock logo service can be used by other designers to save time and money, as well as the new business owner that may or may not already have their own design software.
iStock is known for it’s quality. I’m sure the logos sold on their site will be of equal quality. They state in the application you can not reuse any portion of the design.
They will also only accept vector logos.
What happened? I don`t see this service launched …