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.

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.

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.