If you’re involved in the online graphic design community, you couldn’t help stumble over the fracas that occurred over the weekend when a young designer – we’ll call him Jon – told us how he was being harassed, sued and billed $18K for “stealing his own work” by stock agency Stock Art (StockArt.com) and their ferocious legal beagles, The Intellectual Property Group (ArtLaws.com). According to Jon and his growing group of supporters, Stock Art had “stolen” his logo design artwork, placed it in their library, and then turned around and billed him $18,000 for the use of that work. It’s the stuff internet legends are made of.
Further, if you lived under a rock, or were out for the entire weekend, you may have missed the various incarnations of the tragic tale when it was everything that designery people on Twitter were Tweeting about. But Twittering and Tweeting they were. A hash-tag campaign called #savejon was started, and as I write this, howls of protest-laden Tweets are still ripping through at the rate of one every three minutes. And why not? The design community is outraged. One of our own was under attack by some Corporate giant and their sleazeball lawyers, and he needed our help. And man, did he get the design community’s help. Hitting the front page of DIGG took out Jon’s blog and company website, such was the traffic, but still the internet noise continued unabated. Boycotts, and worse, were called for. This legal outrage needed to be fought back, and fought back hard, so a legal defense fund was set up, and at this moment it boasts $1800 in contributions from concerned internet citizens (though it will probably be higher as you read this). Designers saw a great injustice being done, and admirably sought to help by blogging, Twittering, DIGGing, Slashdotting and forum posting their avenging angel vibe all over the web. Thousands of e-mails were ripped off to the corporate bullies – some terse but professional, others less so. Others were disturbingly threatening, no doubt spurred on by the anonymity of internet communication. All bore a similar variation of the message – “How dare you steal someone’s artwork and then try to charge/sue/harass them for it”.
It was, it seemed, the internet at its very best, a juggernaut that could be tasked to help the downtrodden and harassed within hours, the echo chamber bouncing the message from one avenue to another, recruiting one concerned designer after another. It’s always a compelling story when the internet helps the little guy fight back ‘The Man’ and to take down ‘The Villain’. Trouble is, none of the story may be true, ‘The Man’ may be right and the ‘Villains’ of this story may not be villains at all.
Let’s back it up a bit, to August of last year when Jon was hit up for a bill from StockArt.com, a stock artwork licensing agency, supposedly for the use of his own work. Let’s read a bit of the original post as it appeared on Logopond, a gallery site for logo designers.
“Someone has apparently ripped several of my icons and sold/posted them across a couple stock illustration sites. The stock site watchdogs ran across my portfolio and is now threatening to sue ME. They sent me an $18,000 bill and said if I don’t pay up they’ll sue.”
Well, that’s certainly going to get any designer’s attention. The idea that someone could copy your work and put it on a stock art site is one thing, but threatening a lawsuit if you didn’t pony up $18 grand for using your own designs? I get freaked out when my credit card company calls to tell me my payment is late. Quite oddly, the issue went on the forum back burner until this past weekend, when another post hit the thread, but this time, Jon seemed a little more frantic.
“Its becoming a bigger problem. I was banned from Design Outpost this morning which led me to start talking to clients. Apparently, they’re calling EVERYONE they can find to tell them I’m under investigation for copyright infringement.”
Woah. Now that’s a whole different ball game. The legal beagles contacting Jon’s clients and telling them that he was under investigation for copyright infringement? That’s certainly not fair. But wouldn’t it also be on shaky legal grounds as well? When I first read it, the words Slander and Libel entered my head. But it also posed a question – what kind of lawyers would expose themselves to such legal pain in order to get even with someone even if they did copy work from their clients? Surely such actions would invoke all sorts of sympathy for the young designer, who from what I’ve managed to find out, was only trying to get by. Seemed to me that it was a case-destroying move, and one that was certain to garner the wrath of half the internet.
I was certainly right about the backlash. The first Tweets started on Saturday. I happened to be desk bound, so I added my comment into the feed. Those comments were re-tweeted. And again. And again. So on and so on. Before long, comments and protestations about the events had taken on a life of their own, and the news about the hapless designer’s predicament began to spool out past Twitter and onto other social sites like DIGG and Slashdot. Something was happening. There was a movement afoot, and every iteration of the news added a new detail. A new wrinkle. Trouble is, no-one really knew anything, and other than the first fairly well-informed tweets and posts, everyone was making it up on the fly. Not surprisingly, the design community wanted more as it’s hard to keep up the moral indignation without some salacious details to write about. Jon told us that he was hurredly working on a blog post to be published later that afternoon. That news went out via Twitter where it was added to the cacophony of drama. And to DIGG. And Slashdot. And Hacker News. The items started to number in the thousands but all the posts, blogs and Tweets had one thing in common. This outrage would not go unanswered. And sumbitch has to pay. When the blog post finally came, it was a highly anticipated event. The post itself turned out to be mildly anti-climactic.
“Once the sticker shock wore off the obvious question came to mind. Where the hell did they get these from? It seems as if most or all of them were lifted from my LogoPond showcase. They especially seemed to favor the ones that made it to the gallery.”
The details of what had actually transpired were strangely vague. There wasn’t any real explanation of how the artwork was absconded with in the first place (other than some impractical theory that Stock Art had somehow reverse engineered John’s artwork from Logopond, removed the typography from the featured logos, and added them to their site). To make matters worse, there wasn’t even any examples of ripped design with the original for comparison. Rather than take everything at face value, I decided to poke around a little deeper. I didn’t know much about Stock Art, but their site looked legit. They had an impressive roster of established illustrators – all of whom with impressive portfolio sites of their own – and it didn’t seem like the kind of thing that made sense for a company with a client list of well-heeled companies, some of them belonging to the Fortune 500. Thinking that their lawyers might be the hardcases in all of this. I took a look at the ArtLaws.com website and the various pages and reference materials inside. It didn’t look shady at all, and if anything, they seemed to be champions of designer and illustrator IP rights, as opposed to the sleazy ambulance chasers they were very quickly, and loudly, being portrayed as across most of the internet.
They were certainly legit, and have even been involved in the Zapruder Kennedy assassination movie copyright battle from a few years ago. Something didn’t appear right. Not right at all. Jon had admitted to us that he was a buyer on Stock Art after all, having opened an account a few years ago. Trouble is, there are no artist accounts per se, nothing is uploaded to Stock Art‘s server, and Stock Art are extremely picky who they represent, claiming a roster of only 150 illustrators. One of my original theories on the ‘misunderstanding’ was that Jon had uploaded artwork to Stock Art for licensing and then sold the artwork to someone else. As neat and tidy as that theory would have been, it’s not how Stock Art operates, their licenses don’t work that way, and even Jon never claimed that he was represented by Stock Art. No, what we had here was a pretty cut-and-dry case of someone using someone else’s work without payment and/or permission. But who did what to whom? The tens of thousands of people now involved in this growing controversy knew who they thought was the ripper and the rippee. But I was starting to have doubts over my original assumptions. Besides, I always like to get both sides of a story, so I decided to reach out and touch ArtLaws.com lawyers and ask them if they’d like to comment on the deluge of bad internet mojo that they were receiving.
To their credit, they did, calling The Logo Factory studio shortly after reading my email (apparently, out of thousands of e-mails, I was the first one that asked for their side of the story). I talked at length with Jamie Silverberg and John D. Mason, two of the lead lawyers at the The Intellectual Property Group, and found them to be civil, pleasant and quite willing to discuss matters, to the extent that they were legally allowed. Not the “ambulance chasing scumbags” they were beifng called in the latest round of Twitter postings. Firstly, IPG have extensive experience fighting on the behalf of designers and illustrators (as they believe they’re doing in the Stock Art matter). The partners have experience in the graphic design industry itself, helping to organize several chapters of the AIGA. They told me that “nobody” is being sued nor has a suit been filed over the Stock Art artwork, and that rather than ignoring Jon’s pleas of innocence, have been trying to communicate with him ever since the licensing issues became apparent.
Seems Stock Art are ferocious in protecting their illustrators property and copyright (certainly something that I’d demand if Stock Art were representing me). Silverberg denied harassing Jon’s clients, but told me that they had contacted two in order to see if the client’s had legitimate licensing rights to their client’s work. I wondered how likely it would be that Stock Art’s established illustrators would risk their reputation, and Stock Art‘s business, by copying some designer they found on the internet. To make matters worse, the issue revolved around the licensing for no less than 65 images to which it appears typography was added and the images uploaded to various portfolio and stock logos sites like Elance and Logopond (while they didn’t expressly tell me so, the $18,000 bill is likely the result of licensing fees for the 65 images in dispute. Works out to about $275 a pop). I was also told that before contacting anyone, IPG perform extensive research into the background of any disputed images, including creation date, history and when it was added to the Stock Art site, pointing out that some of the images “in question” have been on the Stock Art website for almost a decade. Logopond, the supposed source for the designs (at least according to Jon’s blog), had only been online since June of 2006 at the very earliest. The worst point, from a designer’s point of view anyway, was the dispute involved the work of over twenty illustrators. With illustrations and icons that just happened to mirror their exact personal style. And if that wasn’t enough, Jon had previously been billed for other Stock Art licensed work, after it was discovered that it may have been used without permission. He paid that bill.
Jeezus. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the cut-and-dried case that half the internet believed it to be. To make matters worse, I managed to track down some of the images via Google and Stock Art‘s search engine using simple keywords. I wasn’t terribly thrilled with what I found, especially considering I had been around ground zero for some of the anti-StockArt.com and anti-Artlaws.com sentiments now swirling angrily around the internet. I’m not particularly proud of that.
And that by the way, is the reason I’m writing this. At the risk of enraging a good chunk of the design community, I think there’s more here than meets the eye. A lot more. I also believe there’s enough evidence to indicate that neither StockArt.com, Artlaws.com or the various people that work for them, hire them, or use their services are the bastards that they’re being made out to be. And while the entire world has heard Jon’s side, only a few have taken the time to research the other side (or even taken a look at some of the work in dispute). Do I know who copied who in this case? Not for absolute certainty, but I have some pretty strong opinions as to what’s what. I’ll have to keep them them to myself, as they are just opinions until someone comes clean, or this case hits the courts. Only then will you, or I, know for certain (and even then, we may never know, should things get settled beforehand). In the meantime, I know I’ve stepped down off my high-horse, and I think others need to as well. I love internet mob justice as much as the next cat, but I think a lot of people took an undeserved battering over this, and I for one, won’t be joining another internet mob anytime soon. My pitchfork and torch will have to wait for the next time that I’m absolutely sure of the cause. And who the bad guys really are.
I hope some of you will do the same.
UPDATE 3:. Posted to Twitter on May 20.
UPDATE 2: Turns out a lot of the images in question can also be tracked back to logo design contests on Design Outpost, a website that hosts spec design competitions and bills itself as “A Different Kind of Design Firm”. Many of the images that can be found on StockArt.com were also entered into design competitions, and in several instances were selected by contest holders as the winning entries. I guess if there’s an additional lesson to be learned here, it is this – logo design contests (aka crowdsourcing) are an extraordinarily bad idea when it comes to developing a logo for your company. Read more about this development here.
UPDATE 1: This post is receiving a lot of traffic from DIgg, Reddit, Twitter and a host of others. There are a few mirrors hosting this site (to reduce server load) and the comment field may not work on all of them. If you’re reading this on a Coral Cache version (it will have some variation of http://www.thelogofactory.com.nyud.net as an URL in your browser address bar) and If you feel inclined to comment on this article you can do so by clicking here – that will take you to the correct form. Apologies for the temporary duct-tape solution, but the response to this post has been overwhelming.
Related Posts
- iStockphoto to sell stock logos
- Twitter graphic $6 proof that design crowdsourcing works? Not quite.
- Free vector artwork
- Snippets: The Stock logos on Crowdspring, logo tattoos & Doodle 4 Google flag flap edition
- Snippets: Rolling Stone logo, Hindu Gods, Twitter copyright angst & crowdsourcing blog content edition
Tags: business, freelancing, industry, social media, spec work
@lily: <3 a college journalist
And obviously a WEAK college journalist. If you can’t read a study or white paper, much less a lengthy blog post, perhaps you should find another career.
Or, perhaps you’re just one of those journalists that likes your stories readily rippable from such consumable “bite-sized” press release packages. No need to figure out what to say then!
@lily: This post is entirely too long. I almost didn’t read (er, skim) to the end because it was so long, and all I was thinking was, “Yeah, like Stock Art stole some random dude’s icons. The other way around is much easier.” Turns out you share the same idea, but since you didn’t express it until almost the end of the post, I almost didn’t know.
You’re gonna make an awesome journalist. You know, the kind that just says whatever everyone else wants you to say so you don’t miss your 6pm mani-pedi.
Lily, drop out and get a fucking life. You’re giving the rest of us college journalists a bad name with that sort of logic.
To Lily:
So you are too lazy to read a blog post but expect the writer to read your comment and modify his excellent post and write a conclusion before the background so you can avoid reading? :O
Really?
—–
Lily Says:
April 7th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Really long articles: A cautionary tale
This post is entirely too long. I almost didn’t read (er, skim) to the end because it was so long, and all I was thinking was, “Yeah, like Stock Art stole some random dude’s icons. The other way around is much easier.” Turns out you share the same idea, but since you didn’t express it until almost the end of the post, I almost didn’t know.
If you want to make your point clear, and not just continue the smear campaign, consider making the point higher up the page.
<3 a college journalist
I admit it. It was all a lie.
Why would you enrage the design community? Do they dislike the truth so much, or really enjoy witch hunts? I had questions about this story from the start, as you say it cases before designers were not afraid to put up their comparisons. Also the guy could have hired a lawyer very easily in lien of the fee.
Well, he made his resume with PrimoPDF, which is a windows program. That should’ve been a dead giveaway.
Well it’s down now, but this guy’s website was full of key art that was done by people I know here in Los Angeles. The LOST stuff and many others were done by good friends of mine at a very prominent design agency here in Hollywood. Check out the IMPAwards website for details and the home page of the design agency bltomato.com. And nope, this guy has never worked there. It’s strange that he’d be so blatant about ripping off the hard work and talent of others and stick it in his online portfolio, knowing that anyone can easily google things and find the truth in about 3 seconds if they’re willing to do a little research. I’m involved in the industry and a few of my closest friends and associates created the incredible work that this guy was taking credit for. Strange that his site is down now, but you can find it in online caches if you want to see an example of blatant fraud. Its not hard to imagine that a guy who could be that overt about ripping off the hard work of others and claiming it’s his own would also rip off some stock art. Call it a “smear campaign” all you want, but this guy is not on the level… and I’d be angry if I’d donated money to the “help” fund.
For those who still side with Jon, there are illogical design choices in his logos that make little sense unless he just cropped and copy-pasted and has no drawing or design talent.
Most notable in the fountain pen logo where the cropped edges still show where the frame used to be on the stockart image (see link below). Those lines are hanging in whitespace with sharp edges while the rest of the logo is stylized. It’s a bit awkward to end them like that if you’re going for something artistic and flowing, not to mention the sloppy handwriting. And the nerdy glasses logo where the glasses bridge cuts into the rounded piece of frame on either side. That breaks the bold even lines of the logo and seems to serve no purpose..
They are different from the stockart.com logos in ways that only make sense if Jon really couldn’t design his way out of a paper bag. Which I don’t think he can given the files kept along with his resume (posted in comments by ruh roh) that show he is only marginally skilled at placing text and color on an otherwise very blocky and plain page. There’s an ad in there that’s so awful it looks like a screenshot from a crowded and badly designed webpage. This doesn’t even take into account the broad range of artistic styles others have mentioned.
fountain pen logo here: http://www.thelogofactory.com/logo_blog/stock.html
ruh roh’s posted link: http://relevantstudio.com/files/client/ (browse the images and .pdfs in the telecourt, telecourtcard, and darby .zip files)
I’m glad I’ve seen this. I thought what Stock Art was doing was completely wrong, and like almost everyone else, didn’t bother to even hear the other side of the story. I basically went with Jon’s story. Now I’ll try not to jump the bandwagon like everyone else and try hearing a different side to the story. Excellent post.
Excellent post. When I read Jon’s story at first I was pretty amazed at what kind of injustice is possible. But I also didn’t have any background information and admit to letting myself be blinded by the light. If Jon’s side turns out to be BS, I am wondering what would inspire someone to craft such a cleverly worded scheme.
Good job with the digging in. After the initial outrage I felt, the idea of a hoax came up because most designers I worked with did proofs and I’d give them back feedback, surely if Jon was the victim he’d have all these proofs lying around to show for it, with near-completed items. Since I saw no mention of it, I felt something was awry with his story.
Although nothing is certain at this point, you definitely remind us that there is much more to this story than meets the eye.
Um, this post is a book report! So you’re the lone “voice of reason” by going against the grain. What a rebel. Ha. Anyway, you don’t know any more of the facts than what Jon has presented (and your Google searches).
Is Jon innocent or not, in your view?
Nathaniel Flick’s last blog post..Accused! Jon Engle Sued Wrongfully
@ Nathaniel – the day I get referred to as a “voice of reason” is the day we’re all in very deep trouble. Regarding the length of the post, I often blather on much longer than I should, but in a 140 character world but I like being able to fully deal with a subject on my blog. Ultimately, people can choose whether they read my bloated prose or not.
FWW, I didn’t set out to “go against the grain” or to be “a rebel” but rather to look at both sides of an issue that had become THE issue in graphic design over the past few days.
I was an early adopter of Jon’s cause, took everything said at face value, and even helped push this out onto the internet without taking a closer look. That was a mistake of mine. Things got out of hand fairly quickly – people involved were getting death threats for heaven’s sake. – and I figured it was at least worth while hearing what the other people involved had to say.
In terms of knowing more ‘facts’ you might be right, but I should point out that nobody is getting sued in this story, something that you’re incorrectly asserting when you titled your blog post “Accused! Jon Engle Sued Wrongfully”: The wrongful lawsuit claims were a powerful component of the story – there was even a legal defense ‘fund’ set up (though from what I understand it’s been shut down overnight) – but something that is, at present, simply not true.
This isn’t, at present, even a matter of copyright infringement, but a question of proper artwork licensing. As a designer, I happen to believe in licensing, and the enforcement of same.
In terms of the designer’s innocence or guilt, that’s not even at question for now. Some artwork license holders are investigating whether their artwork has been properly licensed and I suppose they’ll make that determination at some point, though it’s probably unlikely that we’ll hear about it. In terms of who copied who, I think logic (as well as the various examples) speak volumes.
wouldnt jon’s source files have a date stamp on them? and so would stockarts publication of the content?
Jon Engle lists an Allison Sullivan as an assistant creative director at Warner Bros and his reference for the TV work he claims he did on his Elance page, here:
http://relevantdesign.elance.com/
Her contact email is asullivan@katesboylston.com , Be interesting to see if she backs up his story that he did the graphic work for Lost that’s on BLT and Associate’s site.
Hold up, artlaws.com is using AOL for email? WTF???
Maybe I have a longer attention span than I need, but I found this post well written and interesting enough to read it to the end, along with all the comments.
Now we wait to see what happens next. Thanks for doing the legwork, Steve.
JON, ARE YOU TELLING THE TRUTH? THIS IS WHAT STOCKART.COM SAYS:
Dear Respected Design Community,
I have been fighting for artists rights for over 11 years to the point where
it has devastated both my business and the livelihoods of my artist alliance
. I’m guessing we only license 1 image these days to every 50 which are
stolen and profited from. I personally have uncovered over 500 for- profit
companies whom have stolen over 8,000 images from my artists!!!! I can not
expose this story to the point which will soon be shared, but please know
one thing about this irony! I have fought this matter with my own personal
investments to a point of bankruptcy. I love my artists and their right to
earn money from their unique, artistic, intellectual property! If anyone is
interested in the entire story of my experience, please contact me
personally at accounts (at) stockart.com/.
I do want to personally thank you for your concern. I understand your
concern! Stockart.com is proud to advocate and represent the copyrights and
works of the many award-winning and talented artists who have provided their
work to Stockart.com for rights managed licensing for over a decade. The
works which are of concern to Stockart.com and Mr. Engle include, and are
not limited to, the works of:
Patricia Dalbey
Image #PD1P0138 (Stoplight Image)
Image #PD1A0213 (Chef Hat Image)
Image #PD1A0087 (Grape Image)
Phill Bliss
Image PB#2A0244 (Sun and Moon Image)
Cindy Lindgren
Image #CL1A0083 (Feather Image)
Image #CL1X0181 (Feather Pen Image)
Image #CL1A0102 (Peapod Image)
Image #CL1X0216 (Hand Image)
Scott Greer
Image #SG1A0094 (Shoe Image)
=0 A
Dave Winter
Image #DW0V0054 (Sombrero Image)
Larry Milam
Image #LM1A0041 (Rose Image)
Image #LM1A0043 (Mountain Image)
Image #LM1A0434 (Plate Image)
Mary Ross
Image #MR4P0041 (Star Image)
A 0
Rita Lascaro
Image #RL1A0061 (Rope Image)
Robert L. Prince
Image #RP0X0123 (Coffee Cup Image)
Peter Buttecali
Image #PB1A0004 (Rooster Image)
Image #PB1A0030 (Skunk Image)
Image #PB1A0034 (Lioness Image)
Image #PB1A0080 (Truck Image)
Image #PB1X0231 (Horse Image)
Image #PB1X0337 (Door Image)
Image #PB1X0346 (Building Image)
Image #PB1X0535 (Crown Image)
Image #PB1X0536 (Crown Image 2)
Image #PB1X0614 (Mountain Image)
Image #PB1X0714 (Mountain Image 2)
Michael Rowley
Image #MR1X0058 (Cow Image)
Image #MR1V0088 (King Image)
Image #MR1X0168 (Jester Image) 20
Image #MR1X0189 (Donkey Image)
Image #MR1V0219 (Jester Image- Color)
Image #MR10227 (Waiter Image)
Image #MR1X0257 (Cat and Dog Image)
Elizabeth Burrill
Image #EB1X0079 (Pig Image)
Paul Dolan
Image #PD0A0046 (Stork Image)
Image #PD0A0145 (Snake Image)
Stockart.com intends to use an appropriate “legal” forum to resolve
Stockart.com’s concerns about the above and many other works; one which will
allow Stockart.com to explain why Stockart.com claims rights in the many
images which these artists have provided to Stockart.com, one which affords
dignity to the artists whose work Stockart.com represents; one which will
treat Mr. Engle with dignity and respect; one which will give Mr. Engle an
opportunity explain why he believes he has authorship or copyrights in the
many images with which Stockart.com is concerned.
Sincerely,
Richard E. Askew, Principal/Founder
Stockart.com, LLC
—– Original Message —–
From: Turquoise
To: support (at) stockart.com
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:33 PM
Subject: very unhappy about your treatment of Jon Engle
This story is all over the internet now. Designers are furious. Better do something quick.You need to fire that lawyer. He is ruining your company’s reputation.
[...] like to call attention to the comment posted on said post, (also on Reddit), and a post on the Logo Factory. It’s impossible to know the real story, and who’s really at fault, but at least both [...]
Dear Social Design Community,
Please stay in touch with me to help spread my story which will blow people away. I can not discuss further at this time but look forward to you helping the real story influence socially on the web (I’m extremely new to this and extremely overwhelmed). Next time it will be for GOODNESS and TRUTH! No problem posting if you choose, but please stay handy so we can get the real story out after the legal issues pass. You too may be overwhelmed if you care like I do.
Kindly,
Richard E. Askew, Principal/Founder
Stockart.com
Wow. I too was right there in outrage and disbelief when I first heard about the story. I admit to being part of the mob, and even tried to suggest Jon to counter-sue, given the airtight nature of his case. (un)fortunately, the site didn’t take my comment. I dugg & blogged elsewhere, and came across the “legal defense fund” website. I very nearly made a donation.
Then some of the very same points and suspicions you mention began to strike me as well, and I held off. I had heard nothing from the other side, and although I am sure a lawyer could make the case from either side, no matter the facts, you never know.
I too am withholding my judgement. I could very easily imagine the case where a designer with proven poor judgement might take his fight to the masses with no other alternatives to a weighty bill, a destroyed career, and the shame of having been caught in a lie.
That aside, this was a good read, an important lesson for all twitterers, and I shall retweet this post in counterpoint to those I retweeted yesterday.
@Dale, you take a well written article on a profound topic with great implications for the design world and creator rights online and reduce it to the level of market tabloids in 140 characters or less. No kudos for you.
@Ruh Roh Great find! Can’t wait to see what someone with more time than I digs out of that.
@turquoise Thanks for posting that list! Given the number of people who supposedly ripped Jon off and the breadth of styles, I am really finding it difficult to remain in doubt.
@sk Good call on the fountain pen!
Marc’s last blog post..m2imaging: Oops… gotta run to Plainview. Bye for now.
It appears to me that Richard E. Askew is not running and hiding, and is being very open about the collection of logo designs in question, to the point of listing them all and replying to all enquiries.
His first reply may have been a bit arrogant, and I do not blame him, when thousands of unsolicited emails bombard your inbox. The next reply was more courteous and considered.
If, in fact, it comes to pass that Jon may have plagiarized the images himself, he will be unemployable anywhere in the world (go internet!).
btw. a very good post, which certainly made me stop and reconsider.
I also recieved the same response as Turquoise from stockart.com detailing who they claim the original artists are. I am now confused and can’t form an opinion on who is at fault. This needs to be settled in court.
From Jon’s Twitterfeed:
“So, I’m either the most audacious liar on the planet or a drooling moron”.
“What is both?” Alex.
“I shouldn’t have to remind everyone I broke the damn story”.
Yeah, Jon. That’s sort of the point. You and two thirds of Twitter.
“If I’d kept my mouth shut none of you would have heard a thing about any of this”.
You’re just getting around to realizing this now?
Wow, thanks for posting Mr. Askew, props ++
With all the controversy across the net with stock firms like Corbis and Getty, attacking people with exhorbitant sums over images … its good to see you doing it differently from them.
It needs a personal touch, it needs to be done in a way where the artists and the clients are both put first and foremost. I am glad you spoke out now finally, and working to really clear up the questions I had.
<3
Thanks for pointing out the fountain pen and “nerd” image weirdness, sk. In the stockart.com nerd, the white rectangle is a bit of tape holding the nerd’s glasses together; in Engle’s design, it’s not clear what purpose that rectangle serves, and as you say it’s the only spot where the line weight is different. Note also the fireplace logo:
http://www.thelogofactory.com/.....e-logo.jpg
There are texture marks in the logs and flame that show the background color. The stockart.com picture is black on white, and thus the gaps are white, as you’d expect. Engle’s design is on a peach background, but (some of) the gaps are still white. Where did the white come from? They should be peach — and the gaps in the font show the expected peach background.
Thanks for this post.
When the first tweets rushed in I decided not to comment or retweet it before I had more insight. I had a strange feeling about the whole thing. I still have.
And THIS is exactly why it is highly unwise to comment on legal matters in public. Jon (and the people that came to his defense on twitter) might actually have hurt himself if it comes to a court case. The #savejon tweets look like an online kangaroo court, and judges don’t like that. Neither do I, to be honest.
I am interested how the whole thing turns out. If Jon is in the right here I wish him good luck.
Like most users here, after reading Jon’s first post, I was outraged at Stockart, and considered donating to the defense fund. After reading through these comments, seeing the list of authors from Stockart and seeing the images side by side, I am now siding with Stockart almost 100%.
The fountain pen, the football and the firewood are by themselves enough to raise significant doubt. In addition, all Jon has to say is that he has the original Illustrator/Photoshop source files and this would prove without a doubt that they are his. The only reason I can think of him not doing so are because he never had them in the first place.
oh and @college journalist
ur comment was tl;dr
What if it was an April fools joke? lulz
This is all rather bizarre. Normally Sockart would have just notified LogoPond after getting no where with Mr. Engle and immediately had the logos pulled there. I don’t really see how they can get much out of Jon since I doubt he made much money off them and from what I understand – that’s pretty much all you can get in civil court. Not that this would stop you from asking for more.
Jon’s site looks really pathetic to me – badly laid out and rather obvious in it’s claims of big assignments that he doesn’t appear to have any show pieces from. He went to the Art Institude of Philidelphia – which I understand is one of that chain that I hear rips you off for your college loans.
[...] Stock artwork, logos, copyright and the power of Twitter. A cautionary tale [...]
I think Jon is the thief and here is why:
I have watched one of the designers doing his work with my own eyes, and now John is claiming he did it. If it was just the word of my friend, I would side with him, but it would be his word against Engles.
But since this is twenty or so artists and designers, I pass the FAIL/Thief tag to Mr. Engles.
You sir are scum. Taking other peoples work and selling it as your own? Your righteous indignation is hilarious, if I were you I would pay the 18K and run away from this. You are right, the truth will get out. But you are the only person who is going to be punished.
Thank you so much for your hard work on this issue. I’ve always consider “internet archaeology” to be something of a hobby. It’s a shame that in this case the explosion happened so quickly. Thankfully, the damage can be pretty quickly reversed as it’s not been too hard to find deeply buried edits in wikipedia or the wayback machine, etc.
There are too few people checking facts, and I’m very, very glad and appreciative you took the time to do this.
Some of the images you posted look very damaging for Jon.
Jon’s pen drawing, fifth from the bottom on your comparison page, looks like it was lifted straight from the stockart site. Why? Because the stockart image has a black frame around it, while Jon’s image doesn’t. But Jon’s image does end exactly where it would if someone had copied that image and snipped the frame off. The lines are cut off at exactly the angle of the frame. Without the frame there, that sharp cut off doesn’t make much sense — it doesn’t match the rest of the image’s style. It looks like the artist cut the image to fit in a box — which in fact he would have done if there were that original frame there.
…I see others have noticed the pen… I shouldn’t have bothered!
Someone needs to post photos on Jon Engle online so he can’t get away with this shit ever again nor ever work in the design industry. What he did is like making an album of U2 songs and claiming he wrote them and then accusing U2 of stealing his copyrights. You have to be pretty stupid to think you can get away with this blatant ripping off of multiple artists and not get ousted.
Jonengled: To have some talentless hack blatantly steal your creative work, then publicly accuse you of copyright infringement.
“I was jonengled yesterday by some wannabe designer on logopond.”
I do not disagree that Jon looks extremely guilty, but I personally don’t see how the comparison of the 2001 wayback archive to the 2006 start date of logopond or the 2009 logopond upload of the image can be used as solid proof. True, Jon himself guessed that the images were stolen from logopond, but the dates only prove that his guess was incorrect.
The best internet-justice proof, IMHO would be the date that his client began using the logo.
Has anyone searched the archives for the actual clients his logos were sold to? Oddly, I tried to search for a couple of the clients and found no trace of them. This really would be a tragic story if it turned out that Jon didn’t make money on the logos at all, and simply made up customer names to bulk up his portfolio.
Here’s the best part about it… That N2M logo was from an icon done by Pete Buttecali that owns Woodpile Studios. How do I know this? The icon is of me! I had flown out to New Jersey to meet with a client and broke my glasses the day before, right in the middle no less. I had to tape them up (yes, like revenge of the nerds) and head out. Pete and I met up in Atlantic City and after we all went back home, he called to ask if I really had tape on my glasses or if he imagined it. We were working on a version of the woodpile site that never saw the light of day and that was the icon he had created for my bio pic.
Wow! So, I guess I can say first hand that this guy is a liar, not surprised his site is down and long gone now…
enjoy!
/mike
@Mike
Hey, I have seen that “National Christopher Columbus Celebration” logo that is in your studio’s portfolio yesterday while I was taking a look at some of the relevant (no pun intended, seriously) sites… while I can’t say I am 100% sure, I *think* I have seen it on Jon Engles portfolio – or on a related site (maybe in his logopond favourites, it’s too bad his site is not accessible at the moment so I can’t check.
The plot thickens?
@Becks
Yeah, about those clients the logo’s were “done” for…check out the logo for the church, the one with the Rose above, well here’s there actual website with a similar logo, but certainly not the one Jon claims to have done for them: http://www.tfumc.com/
How bout Jim’s Country Fireplace? Well, at least not on this website: http://www.jimscountryfireplace.net/