In stance of my anti design contest view, I have posted my opinions on spec work, with reference to yours (as you would know by now):

The “Pros” and Cons of Spec Work

Thought I would share the link with others who come to this page.

In terms of protection from a designer using a stolen logo in a ‘traditional’ relationship as opposed to a contest, you may have a point, save a few issues. In terms of our studio, one might expect to receive copied work if, when hiring designers, I were to post a sign on our front door inviting anyone to “come on in, design work for our clients and (maybe) get paid” as is the case with design contest sites. Obviously, that doesn’t happen and all our designers are carefully vetted and interviewed before being hired. In terms of freelance designers trying to develop their own practices and careers, they are far more invested in their reputation than some anonymous user name on some design contest website.

In a traditional relationship you are also protected civilly and if a designer supplies you with a stolen logo, you have legal recourse. All design contest sites specifically waive that responsibility and their “middle man” positioning makes it difficult, and legally expensive, to sort out culpability. And if you believe you have as much recourse with an anonymous designer half-way around the world as you do with the graphic design firm three blocks away, you’re sadly mistaken.

I’m of the belief that few designers or design firms would risk their reputations, or employment, in order to shave off a few hours from their work week. It’s a risk vs. reward equation that is pretty sound from a logic POV. And if my logic isn’t solid enough for you, we’ve more than enough examples throughout our blog that illustrates how work copied from our site and our clients keeps finding its way into contests. Including the very post that you’re commenting on.

In terms of design contests being monitored by other participants for “cheats” you might have a point, if it weren’t for the number of WINNING entries that AREN’T picked up. Further, no designer can be familiar with every stock art, Google Image search and portfolio website out there. And why should we expect participating designers to wade through sometimes hundreds of design submissions, tracking down every image and check almost unlimited avenues for copied work. And even if we do expect it, it is simply not possible. And even further – why would you expect designers to police logo design contests, when they’re not getting paid, as opposed to the contest site owners, who are?

Nowhere did I ever say that charging for a service is “wrong”. In fact, just the opposite. I’ve always maintained that designers who supply clients with a service should charge for that service. And should get paid. While you defend the owners of design contest sites for charging “buyers” and “clients” for services, I find it odd that you aren’t similarly moved to defend the rights of designers to get paid for supplying their services as well.

Do I believe that it is “morally wrong” to not pay young designers for supplying work to contest sites, often signing over a significant portion of the rights to that work? Of course. Just as I believe it’s wrong to exploit anyone through abuse of unpaid labor. I didn’t notice any opposing viewpoint in your comment, so we’ll leave that for now.

In terms of “losing a lot of money to this new model” If I honestly believed that design contest sites are good for designers, good for clients, good for the industry (and profitable to boot) I’d be busy setting up my own logo design platform rather than blathering on some blog.

I run a small design shop, staffed by people who have extensive backgrounds in design and online marketing, so converting my custom shop to a so-called design “crowdsourcing” platform would be a relatively easy transition. If I were only concerned about how this issue effects my bottom line, and thought contest sites were an ethical way to improve it, I’d have launched a logo design contest site years ago, and rather than debating with you on a blog, I’d be defending designer’s right to work for free. For me. If I didn’t want to start my own platform, I’d fire the designers that work for me and sub-contract our work through contest sites at a mark-up. Or I’d use the extensive library of unused design work we possess to “flood” design contests with potentially winning entries. All of which would probably be more profitable than what we do now. Alas, I think the picture is a little bigger than that which effects me personally or financially.

Not exactly sure how design contests can be dovetailed into the abortion debate, so I’m going to leave that part of your comment unchallenged.

1. I have no more protection from a designer using a stolen logo in traditional relationship than I do on a contest. Only with a contest there are dozens of other designers who have every reason to eliminate cheats.

2. The association of charging a fee for a service with “wrong”. There is a good thing that contests provide. It insulates the contest holder against the shenanigans I have dealt with many times in the past, that of an artist who refuses to turn over the copyright after being paid, or who demands half up front and never delivers. To a lesser (much less) degree it also protects the winner from the company refusing payment. This is a service which has a value. There is nothing wrong with charging for this service.

Once you remove the indignation at this fee, and the “but it might be copied” problem, there’s not a lot left to your argument beyond “I feel it is morally wrong”

Lots of people feel abortion is wrong. It’s an opinion, in this case hugely biased by your position as someone who stands to loose a lot of money to this new model.

Threadless is basically creating work for designers – and is a chance for them to gain recognition…. but they are using designers to push the Threadless brand that has evolved.

Where is the fine line?