Jun. 07 '09
Add to Pad
2 Pads )
Just for fun
Dobry napad :)
^Yeah just saw that link from the comments...why is the logo still in the gallery if it was blatantly ripped from iStock?? Maybe David missed the comment with the link. Here it is again:
Yeh, maybe. hate that situations. We trust you, and then the true story reveals. The truth is not beautiful at all...
^^I was actually going to email David myself... But I know these things seem to have a way of working themselves out...
Given that I was personally taken with the tree mark, along with quite a few others as you can see > I'm a bit disappointed to say the least. Indeed, I'd love to hear an explanation...
It'll be interesting to see how long this thread sticks around before it's flagged aswell...
felt like being cheated on.
and is there a reason why the other mad apple is red flagged too? is that apple also a rip off from istock?
^Was trying to browse iStock to see...I'm sure it is Katharine. Hard to believe she would produce two awesome designs when the rest of her works aren't that great. I'm sure the problem will be resolved as soon as David sees the comments.
what's sad is that once you pull off something like this, everyone would think your other works are rip-offs as well. sad.
I want my Mad Apple float back.
^ Both of them.
Ok, I did mistake maybe... Yes, just in that two cases I use one part from stock... maybe it isn't clear but you fight so passionately and it is little bit funny and scary together... This isn't some competition, this is "just" website with various ideas in logotypes... Are you control (and hunt) all works?
I had MY idea and use one part from sctock, kill me for that... Witch-hunting is done! I will erase both. I hope, you will have better dreams now...
I'm waiting for some opinion of admin(s).. I want to know if use of some bought stock is so big problem that admin will erase work.
I understand, it isn't so clear work and it was first time (a had more versions and I need quick work), but how non-acceptable is that?
If designer use bought pictures/icons etc. from stock for example website, poster, cover... it's normal and nobody scream about cheating, rip... If some designer present for example poster and basic part is any bought photo designer give idea, typo and will present like his work... it's ok, it's so normal.
So I'm thinking how big difference is graphic work on logotype?
(And sorry for my bad english)
Of course I bought it! Some small preview with white lines is for me non-usable and my work of course...
(and real stock version is exactly http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-8887262-tree-and-ribbon.php )
Mishka, using stock (you paid for) is nothing to be ashamed of (and certainly nothing to be proud of either), but the honest way to present this work was to **mention in the description that you used a stock tree**. That's all. Personally, i'm a big NO-NO for stock in identity work, and i believe a logo designer should avoid using stock. Also, come clean, don't red flag, this will help you in the future. Good luck! :)
Thanks guys for little understanding... I'm not proud for that (and it was really rarity) but I thing it isn't so so big shame and reason for writing to admin or something like that...
I can promise you I will never present here another logotype with some part from stock! ;)
Greetings from (mid)night Prague...
(and sorry for my english again)
well it is the conflict between legal and moral. Legally, it's not wrong to use something you paid. but morally, if you want people to take you seriously as a creative good designer, buy off a stock image and put it as the main element in a logo isn't going to work. Not to mention, why would you present a logo concept to your client, which your clients cannot trademark it? i mean, as a logo on a commercial product, it's likely that they'll need to trademark it. and to be professional, you should strive to create a unique identity for your client, not an image that your client's competitors can use as well.
btw, it's not about "oh i'll never present HERE another logos with stock images." it's about learning not to use any stock images at all in any of your work, wherever it will be presented. People like what they see in those two apple logos, just disappointed by the fact that some elements are bought. but leave that part out, it means people probably see the potential in it. and you are capable to do everything on your own, and create a work that you can be proud of.
sorry if i've crossed boundaries.
Kathariney, I agree with you. I understand your view and I feel that "things" alike. It was rare situation and sentence "I can promise you I will never present here another logotype with some part from stock!" means no another "rare situation" (generally in my work, no just in presentation here.)
Have a nice day.
Question here. What if Mishka has worked up the concept to the very last detail, needs a particular style of illustration, but doesn't have the particular skillset to execute it, so she hires a illustrator to do it... where does that fit in 'just disappointed by the fact that some elements are bough?
This site used to be a lot friendlier.
Simple solution then...post with a caveat regarding the outsourced or stock portion of the logo.
And it's pretty suspicious when work gets red-flagged out of the blue like that. It will most definitely make you look like the guilty party in the equation.
Paying someone else to do a great illustration because you don't have the skills to do it yourself isn't bad at all, as long as that illustration is original and exclusive (especially if it will be used in identity work). Just an opinion.
^ not just an opinion. That is the only proper way when it comes to logos.
@William, yer dead right william and I totally agree.
Please login/signup to make a comment, registration is easy