Hot Stuff
Weekly Contest
FREE AKVIS Sketch!
CreativePro.com Podcast
Don't miss it! Updated every Monday.
FREE Mags for Creative Pros!
Creativity, Website Magazine, and more!
Forums > Business
Written by Terri Stone on September 29, 2009
The following details are partially pulled from a post an iStockphoto administrator made at http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=119471.
One-time use: iStock logos will only be sold once. After a logo is purchased it will be indicated as “sold” on the site.
File exclusivity: Unlike other files on iStockphoto, logos can only be sold once and therefore need to be exclusive to iStockphoto. Once your logo is on iStock it will remain for sale for a minimum of six months.
Pricing: Because each logo will only be sold once, they have a higher price-point, ranging from 100 - 750 credits. When designers upload a file, they will set a recommended price and iStock inspectors will then make the final pricing decision based on that recommendation.
Royalties: 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.
Fonts: If you are submitting a logo, you can only use fonts if:
– you own the copyright (in other words, you created the font yourself)
– you licensed the font with commercial rights to use the font for a logo for resale. Remember, there are many free fonts that cannot be used in commercial applications.
The font itself will not be included in the file that the client purchases – it will only contain the vector outline. Fonts must be converted to outlines before the file is uploaded.
All-new content: Any logo submitted to iStock must not be in use or have been previously sold. It also cannot feature existing elements (including content from your iStock portfolio). These requirements allow clients to confidently apply for a trademark on the logo purchased from iStock.
Interaction
There will need to be a certain level of interaction with the client when it comes to changing text inside the logos. Some clients will be capable of editing the .eps file themselves, but others will need help.
– What would you think if iStock acted as the intermediary between artist and client for only one round of changes (to insert a client’s company name)?
As a client…
– Do you want direct contact with the designer to change the name?
– How fast would you expect a name change to occur once you buy a logo from us?
As a designer…
– Do you want to just design the logo and not be involved in further changes?
– If you make a name change for a client, what would you charge for just that change?
– What is a reasonable timeframe to get back to a client with a name change?
– Policing logos is a tough job but somebody’s got to do it. How do you think the community can help us with this?
- - - - - - - - - - -
Time to share! What do you think about iStockphoto selling logos?
I'm against it
Like all design, logo design should involve thoughtful discussions between the designer and the client *before* anything's created. Without that, the logo can't be the best. And it doesn't sound like the istock model provides for that initial discussion.
Another career area under attack
Micro-stock is destroying the stock industry for photographers. Guess they're going after graphic artists next...
Thumbs down
Why would anyone want to design a generic logo and sell it off as a stock item? Why would any company want to buy a generic stock logo and brand their identity with it since it has no real meaning, thought or effort assoicated with their brand.
Here is another idea that puts down the "creative work of trained artists". It gives the general public the idea that is okay to buy a logos for x amount of credits. For the first 10,000 approved designs get $5, total compensation after royalties 55-405 dollars.
Branding is not something you buy from a stock agency - it is a creative and interactive process to create a unique identity for a company.
~AugT
Clients get what they deserve
The folks who would be satisfied with an istock logo are not my clients anyway.
A REally BAD IDEA~
What next stock companies? Will you not be satisfied until you put every photographer, designer and illustrator out of business? You are turning our industry into the BIG BOX of design. What happened to the unique, thoughtful, researched, customized brand that we used to offer clients? We spend our entire careers educating clients about the importance of branding-what it stands for-what it means-the value of a brand and you come along and trash that concept totally. Shame on you. You are too big to fight and you know it but shame on you-you are a gorilla.
Another nail in the coffin of graphic designers
First, freelance sites so we can compete with people in India. Then crowdsourcing sites so we can work for free to "win" a contest. Now stock logos? Is there anyone speaking for the hard work and collaboration that are (or should be part of) every job when a client works with a graphic designer? What we see here in our business is that people are so used to seeing crap that they don't even recognize good design anymore. They WANT crap. Well, I guess there are many providers willing to give them what they want for cheap. It's sure discouraging for those of us who approach the job professionally. Does anyone at iStock really think there will be only one round of revisions on a logo? Hahahahahahahahaha!
Are You Kidding Me?
I can't believe this is really being considered. I'm in agreement with all four responses prior to mine. Designers making contributions to this endeavor must not have much confidence in their abilities to create and sell good, thoughtful design.
Stock Logos? A horrible idea!
The idea is an absolutely outrageous insult to the graphic design profession - not to mention the fact that logos - by general definition are designs or symbols meant to reflect what makes a company unique in the crowd. How would it be possible to get a logo that accurately reflects your company and sets it apart as unique, if all the logos you had to choose from were created by people who had no idea if you were in the business of selling tea cups or manufacturing parts for aircraft carriers?? It's just not ethical. What about professional integrity?
Bad Idea
If istockphoto pursues this model, Graphic Designers who purchase photos and Illustrations from them will begin migrating away from it. Logos are uniquely suited to specific needs and are not commodities. I do like istockphoto now, but if they go this route, I say, "It's been nice doing business with you, but not any more, bye, bye!"
A Tale of Two Ciites
Wow. Read the forum here and the majority is bad idea in which I agree. Read the forum on istockgreedo and all is peachy. What cracks me up are the comments saying they will need to learn how to use illustrator. Yea...everyone is a designer.
Another Hostile Takeover
How could this create anything but mayhem for iStock and those who would submit work to such an atrocity. Can you imagine the grief, back-and-forth accusations, wanting more revisions, blah blah blah. Wouldn't it be something if iStock thought of collaborating with the designer rather than mass production madness? I don't see how this could work either, but if they pointed people to design houses and got a finders fee. I don't see how works for any party, iStock, Designer or Purchaser. Thumbs down.
swbgraphix
iStock logos
Bad idea, though it doesn't surprise me that iStock would try it.
Along with what previous posters have pointed out, how in the heck will iStock be able to police this:
"Any logo submitted to iStock must not be in use or have been previously sold. It also cannot feature existing elements (including content from your iStock portfolio)."
Sure they will be able to figure out if something from iStock has been used, but what if the "designer" uses elements from an existing logo or another site? Or downloads them from Google images? Isn't iStock taking a big legal risk?
"These requirements allow clients to confidently apply for a trademark on the logo purchased from iStock."
And what client who is only willing to spend $500 on a logo is going to pay big money to a lawyer to trademark it?
I work for a large corporation as creative director. We looked into TMing our logo and the cost was more than our large corporation wanted to/could justify spending, especially since copyright is inferred anyhow. I have been paid well for the logo (and other stuff), however.
$5 to create a logo
They are offering you $5 to create a logo. Once they reach 10,000 logos - another $5 for each logo 1- 10,000 that was created will be paid. After they reach 10, 000 logos they will be offering you $0 to create a logo. The operative word being 'create'.
What is your creative time worth?
Should you work on speculation?
What are full rights to your designs worth?
Whether a logo sells or not is speculative. If a logo sells, the creator will give up their rights and get 50% of what the logo sells for. The creators cut of the sold logo can be as low as $12 (they claim their lowest credit amount to be $0.24 http://www.istockphoto.com/buy-stock-photos.php ). Logo prices wiill start at 100 credits (100 x $0.24 x 50% = $12).
If it works...
Isn't this essentially what iStock has already done to photographers? Given them less money and less incentive to create that GREAT shot when that simple basic shot will do? It's a generic scenery shot when that's all that's needed. It's a simple logo when someone doesn't want/doesn't feel the need for something greater. If they want a custom photo, they pay $1,000 for it; if they want an awesome logo, they pay $1,000 for it. It's supply and demand--the free market. If no one buys [generic logo / generic photo] and no one creates [generic logo / generic photo] then iStock goes out of business. People keep contributing, and people keep buying. It's the Wal-Mart of internet photos. **disclaimer - I am a designer; I use iStock for artwork; and I detest Wal-Mart. Hypocritical? Maybe. Cynical? Pretty much.
UGHHHHHHHHH
what next?
How could a graphic designer be for this???
It's pure capitalism. Can't blame 'em for trying. Hope it fails. I won't support istock anymore. A bit of biting at the hand that feeds them I think.
At first, I thought it wasn't a bad idea...
How was this that different from the templates that come with Word or any of the Adobe products? How is it different from the plethora of free stock illustrations and gewgaws that are bundled with even the most basic graphics software? People will get the quality that they pay for and it would allow small business and tiny-budgeted clients to have a few more options than allowed on online printing sites etc.
But then I'm reminded how iStockphoto itself changed from offering unique, non-stock type photography and is now filled with glossy typical professional stock that one has to go through to find what is unique, usually from a nonprofessional. And they raised the price for buyers but didn't really give it back to the photographers and illustrators. The pricing is the problem. Designers who upload their work should be compensated for what THEY think is the correct price. Only we know how much effort it took, and what the logo represents in terms of labor and creative input. If iStockphoto used their resources to enhance designers' ability to market their work in a way that is worthwhile to them, it would make sense. This doesn't.
Nevertheless, I bet there will be thousands of entries in this category. What the market bears is what is determining how our business is changing.
Insult
This is the most outrageous, idiotic thing I have ever heard and it is a major insult to anyone who has an inkling of talent as a graphic designer, and discourages students who want be one.
OUTRAGEOUS!!!
istock and whoever thought of this idea should be thrown under a bus!
even the idea of putting up a site of 'predesigned' logos undermines our entire profession and the essential core of what branding is! and i agree with what everyone else has said above about this insane idea.
furthermore if istock goes thru with this idea, i will no longer use their site and will spread the word to everyone else i know in the design community to do the same.
undermining the creative industry for your own selfish use
im sure this will appeal to all people who like to work for free, and dont actually like to make money from graphic design. iStocjk photo you are absolutely out to destroy the design industry with this concept, i hope it fails and you along with it for thinking it is a worthwhile exercise. as per all the comments i agree. this is a great way to destroy your own customer base.
iStockphoto ripping off designers!
What a stupid idea! I hope hope that it is a miserable failiure. Why would you do this anyway, find a client and sell it direct much more value. They have had a good stab at killing photographers, now it is the designers... the hand that feeds them. Switch over to fotolia for stock, they also have a better selection.
Bad for Designers and Their Clients...
The purpose of design is to create a logo that is individual, unique and most importantly reflective of the client's business, purpose, goals, morals etc. How an organisation can achieve this without the interaction and process between client and designer is beyond me...
In marketing, the pretty picture is only the end product. There is much research, collaboration etc. required to make the 'pretty picture' actually carry value.
I fear for the company's that think that downloading a logo will achieve their desired outcomes. Then again the people that will buy these logos, probably wouldn't be design clients anyway as they don't understand the value of design and the design process.
babbling...
No surprise
We all should have seen this coming. There are so many templates for "design" out there that this should really come as no surprise. I work in a corporate environment and we have a paid subscription to istock. Will I use this logo feature? Hell no! But I can guarantee if my boss hears about this, he most likely will try to get me to use it. I just have to convince him this is not the level of design our creativity we want to follow. Branding takes time. Branding takes research. Branding takes creativity. All this is gone if we download istock's ready made logos. Hopefully enough negativity will follow this bad idea and they will get rid of it, but for now, it's no surprise.
It is being compared to this:
http://brandstack.com/users/sold/page_1
That is sorted by seller of the most brands. Have a look around. Click through to some sites. Have a smile.
Boycott iStock & Let Them Know Why
Just boycott iStock. Buy stock from other agencies. iStock's pricing has become one of the highest in their genre. Let iSock know you buy from Dreamstime, StockXpert, Shutterstock, first because they sell logos.
There will be major legal challenges against iStock and the designer over logo rights. There always are in RF logo work. That will put a bad spin on this whole concept for iStock.
Creative Hell
This is outrageous!!! Brand identities spitting out of a vending machine.
Looks like iStock doesn't understand, respect or compensate designers for what goes into a logo design. And are they really selling MEANINGFUL identities.
Its like dime-a-dozen clip art images and royalty free photos .... you get what you pay for: commonality.
AIGA pipes up
AIGA's Ric Grefé posted the following at http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/what-is-aigas-position-on-spec-work-and-ethical-standards#118827 :
"...it is not a call for design, but a call for commercial art—images that might have commercial application somewhere, sometime. It is speculative work in that the artist creates the image speculatively, in the anticipation of being compensated (half of net revenues) if selected—which is counter to the professional ethos of design, since it results in design being created without a clear understanding of its purpose and effect.
"Each creative professional must decide on his or her own whether to submit artwork. However, this should not be confused with designers, designing or design.
"iStockphoto is taking advantage of the opportunities afforded by the web; its actions are not wrong or unethical. Unless the role of design is properly supported, iStockphoto may be trivializing designers' contribution by selling generic logos inexpensively and many designers may feel this is disrespectful.
"The real losers, however, will be clients who will not receive the strategic value inherent in a successful design or branding engagement, in which designers do not guess at visual options that might be acceptable, but rather counsel enterprises on how to embody their brand values visually and differentiate their product. Fortunately, designers committed to creating value through a design process are unlikely to respond."
Terri Stone
Editor in Chief, CreativePro.com
Who's next?
Walmart?
I only hope iStock takes a closer look at the monster they are about to unleash. This brings down our industry another notch, especially for small design businesses or freelancers- it's hard enough convincing most people out there that developing a TRUE brand/logo takes HOURS of communication, research, execution and application time. Now we have to compete with this?!
AIGA speech - wishy washy?
Getty and Istock - AIGA sponsors.
Non Pros will bite
Design as in all artistic endeavours requires craftmanship. But with technology mass producing, anyone and everyone considers themselves artists. I can see return of guilds to protect professionalism in all these fields, or we must start fighting back . Is it too late? No Specs!