Front Page Blog: Logos come to iStock

Not to mention a 50% fee?!? http://www.brandstack.com is only 15%

/
/




thanks Che for such a good post. I see all this as being a great opportunity for designers who have purchased but, for whatever reason, have not chosen to contribute. I'm looking forward to helping clients build on the logos they buy from me.


oh, btw, did you know?!?!? as a contributor, you get to buy at $1credit when trading in your royalties?

My neighbor is an arts and entertainment lawyer. I'll be showing her this proposed idea and the blog. All I can say is watch it. The only thing I think that can be put up as logos are generic icons and yes, istock would HAVE to make sure the logo designs they post are not like anything else out there.


I think that istock will also be getting a lot of rejected logos from people's idea bags, you know, the ones that the clients didn't want.


istock needs to reconsider and perhaps accept artists based on their past logo work and perhaps get artist/client together based on expertise and/or style.

I read a lot of the discussions here. I have been a graphic artist for over 30 years. Good point: these logos will be intended for a certain market. I have clients that pay $500 for a logo, and I know there are companies that pay $tens of thousands for logos. Good point chemc: possibly use all the logo "sketches" that we did as proposed art, we could post for sale on istock.


Question: I am not a seller here on istock. How or can I become a seller of logo designs?

I agree totally Che, you make some very good points.

Be careful with numbers here! People tend to misunderstand them a lot It is %85 for the logo designers. and %15 for the site!

this is your ethical stance and yet you buy illustrations/photos/flash/video/audio from here? I'm guessing you are a buyer because you do have a published Design. And you're also a Contributor?


all you said above is exactly what we've been building here for the past 9ish years.

Yep you're right iStock is going to take 50% of your money, while http://www.brandstack.com will only take 15%... this means with BRANDSTACK = MORE MONEY IN YOUR POCKET!

No, all he said above is actually a very good answer to you! Your photos can sell many times while a logo can only be sold once! It is different.

Very, very, very bad idea.


Lame hack designers will be spinning cheap rip-off logos through the night. What a can of worms you are about to open! Did you forget who your customer is here - we are the designers!?!?!?  I can't wait to spend my time and resources finding rip off logos on this website. This will be an industry choker!

I'm a bit torn here. As a designer I loathe the idea because of the feeling that this degrades the profession and that clients, and people that are not really designers will think that this is how you get a logo or establish a brand for a company. That said, it's been done to photographers, illustrators and writers to a certain extent, I feel this is inevitable for design. I've noticed clients are becoming more aware of what "stock" photography looks and feels like, I think that will start to happen for logo design as well. "Oh a swoosh in your logo, that's original and says a lot about your ditch digging business." as an example of criticism akin to "oh, happy people standing around and pointing at a computer, that says a lot about your flower shop" is now.


Now, the part of me that has a boatload of logos that I'd love to do something with and if that something is making a little extra cash... I'm having a hard time ignoring him.

Yup. What Cidepix said. Ditto.

As a brand and logo designer, I think this new logo design area is extremely dangerous to the design industry, and extremely irresponsible. What is the point of designing a random logo without a specific brief from a client? How are intellectual property rights going to be placed in effect to protect the purchaser of the logo in order that several other companies aren't using the same brand device for competing businesses? How is the logo cost and the logo value calculated? If a multi-national company purchases a logo design from iStock, and attributes millions of dollars in revenue due to the brand, how is the designer to be compensated in accordance?


Don't get me wrong, I love iStock. I think that the photography and illustrations on offer provide valuable solutions where intellectual property and brand equity are not concerned. However, this new venture is an entirely new area that has the potential to complicate the international trade mark application process and also ensure that real designers are no longer correctly compensated for the valuable work they provide.

(Edited on 2009-09-22 20:58:20 by sdcaustralia)

(Edited on 2009-09-22 21:00:38 by sdcaustralia)

I miss the days when iStock seemed more like a dirty secret—you could actually get good stock photos for $1, $2, or $3. Now with the Vetta Collection you are paying $50, $75, $100.


And the whole buy-out of SXC.hu is just creepy.


Why iStock, why?

(Edited on 2009-09-22 21:56:17 by bnpelsoh)

I can't believe this.


This is exactly what makes me want to leave the creative industry.


Is this what my BFA and 10 years of experience is worth?


$5? Really, $5? Wow.

I'm not sure what you mean.  I got this straight from the newsletter....and I quote:


Royalties – iStock will pay a base royalty rate of 50% per logo design for the first 6 months. We’ll give advanced notice for the rate going forward after that.


 


sounds like its not only a ripoff for the designers, but a complete ripoff of http://www.brandstack.com!!  Ironic that iStock is so careful of their rights/licenses to use photography, yet their off completely copying another company's IP!  iStock sucks!!

This may be the most ironic post of the thread! 


 

As a designer (logo designer among other things) I'm not comfortable with iStock selling logos.


Inexperienced designers trying to make their way in the world tend to sell their design for too little money. They put little value on their work and are trying to get exposure. Often they may be living at home or working out of home and have little or no overheads. In the real world, it's impossible to operate this way. There are many expenses a designer needs to cover. I have worked hard to get where I am today and selling logos in this manner is sending the wrong message to everyone involved.


Creativity is something that designers have and lots of other people don't - we shouldn't sell ourselves short or undervalue our work.


I have enjoyed iStock for many years now - but I feel this is taking things too far.


 

Because that is the only website on the internet selling logo designs? Licensing or selling intellectual property content (photos, audio, logos), is not some new invention. If you want to make a compelling argument one way or the other, keep your eye on the ball.

(Edited on 2009-09-22 21:11:36 by sjlocke)

The other thing is that apparently iStock is re-selling all of these logos....there is no exclusivity.  So the same logo can get re-sold over and over again.  How stupid is that?  That works for a photo, not a logo.  At least at http://www.brandstack.com, they look at every single logo for quality (only 40% are accepted), and they are only sold ONCE!!!