some advice

[JohnnyFriedRice]

It's almost the graphic designer's equivalent to a moustache on the Mona Lisa.

It worked for Duchamp...

[ABCJr]

As a designer of mostly corporate identities, I'm well aware of the issues created by duplicate identity. In fact, this concern has led me to post a couple of concepts here for outside opinion regarding their possible similarity to other logos out there.

I think we all agree that the type of alterations in question do not fall into the fair use of a logo's design. We all know that the person who made it has initial copyright and the customer has most likely purchased that copyright. I'm sure that the team would be less than thrilled with the alteration in question.

Where do we go from here? What conclusion can we draw from this experience? We know Gemini has hopefully learned the importance of artists' rights. But what can we do to make this less of an issue for future members, both old and new?

Ideas?

[fiasco!]

As a designer of mostly corporate identities, I'm well aware of the issues created by duplicate identity. In fact, this concern has led me to post a couple of concepts here for outside opinion regarding their possible similarity to other logos out there.

I think we all agree that the type of alterations in question do not fall into the fair use of a logo's design. We all know that the person who made it has initial copyright and the customer has most likely purchased that copyright. I'm sure that the team would be less than thrilled with the alteration in question.

Where do we go from here? What conclusion can we draw from this experience? We know Gemini has hopefully learned the importance of artists' rights. But what can we do to make this less of an issue for future members, both old and new?

Ideas?

unfortunately it's an issue that has plagued this board for quite awhile. either people care about the artist's right, and are considered jerks for being concerned about it, or people could give a rat's ass about our rights and either outright steal logos and/or designs (see joe kolodziej, for example), or ask that others' designs be modified to suit their needs, while offering compensation akin to a smack in the face.

[Jigga]

We know Gemini has hopefully learned the importance of artists' rights.

He hasn't learned jack and neither has anyone else.

Bottom line, he got his logo.

[geminijoe28]

here is where i stand....

i have contacted the designer of the logo...someone suggested why dont u give me he name of the designer no one did..so i did my own research and found him out and contacted him...i have yet to recieve an email..but in that email i stated what i did wrong, and that if it was ok that he or someone assisting me modify the logo for a fantasy team...again..i don't know the responce because i have yet to get a reply...the fact that i went out to do that, hopefully will show u guys that i do realize what i did wrong...im sure most/some of u have a negative feeling towards me..i deserve it. im not going to kiss anyone's ass, but when i read everything everyone posted i wanted to take the next step, the proper step. how many newbies would do that? actually i been registered since 04, but i understand why im a newbie...but still, i apologize to those designers i offended...

someone stated what kinda ideas or suggestions could be taken to prevent this...maybe a pm saying that what i was doing, was wrong unless i got permission...i know mods can delete threads so they could have deleted/locked until the proper procedures were taken by me or anyone else with a request..

the next question is how far is far...if mod the logo, where do u stand on uniforms? the logo is only as good as the uniform...so if we teak the uniform..is that considered a "bastardization?" im sure the designer also put work into getting the right look for the logo.

how bout recoloring a logo? whats the stand on that? should a person ask the pro team if he can recolor it? i have seen pro logos here recolored for fantasy teams. which to me is about the same thing i asked, only for a modification.

someone on here mentioned that what i was doing is like "putting a mostache on mona lisa" in fact someone did, i cant remember his name but he basically put a mostache on her. im sure he did not ask for permission, obviously and worse made money off it. to some ppl the picture may seem humorus, to others an abuse. everyone or just about everyone is going to have a different stand...

the thing is i also love to draw, while i have still not come close to making logos like u guys/girls i do love drawing, mostly comics, cartoons, etc. heck i even remember drawing egon while i was watching ghostbusters. i looked at it that way, from my view as well. alot of ppl here have great advice to offer when it comes to logos, make this longer, add this, take that out, etc. i foolishly asked this not thinking of the bigger picture and i guess i was also influenced by seeing ppl get help in mod logos on this board. i went at it the wrong way. i assumed too much.

as i stated before i won't ask of anything of this, again. i truly am sorry to those i offended

thank you

joey o'canas jr.

[Jigga]

i have still not come close to making logos like u guys/girls

I demand to see the girl that makes logos immediately!

Here is where I stand (not that it matters)...

In all seriousness, it's great that you feel bad and everything, but you still accepted the bastardized logo right? So your words mean absolutely nothing, right? Point blank, if you keep/use this bastardized logo, you haven't learned jack and any attempts to apologize to those you've "offended" will fall on deaf ears.

[Brass]

People, LET THIS GO!

It's over, dead, buried. Mods, please wrap this one up!

[Jigga]

People, LET THIS GO!

It's over, dead, buried. Mods, please wrap this one up!

Let WHAT go exactly? So he apologized, woop-dee-damn-doo. He's still accepting and using the logo that he is sorry he bothered the board to request in the first place? How's that sorry? I don't see it, man. Furthermore, in the same post he apologizes, he basically plays the equivocation game to try to make himself feel better (i.e. some dude put a 'stache on the friggin Mona Lisa and plenty of people recolor logos so bastardizing logos isn't that bad--besides it's FANTASY and that makes it okay).

Let WHAT go exactly? As Joel Robert Hurst so eloquently put it, this issue has plagued this board for a while now. People don't give a damn about artists' rights, and tell those that do to drop it. There are lots of members here that make a living out of design, I'm not one of them, but I know enough of them that I actually do give a rat's ass about "intellectual property" rights. There is a very well documental case, involving the stealing of original works from this very board. I can't let it go, because I have posted quite a few original designs and don't want to see any of them bastardized for any purpose, fantasy or otherwise.

Let WHAT go exactly? It ain't over till they graveyard this bitch...until then, read this. The Mods are fully capable of deciding which threads get buried and when to bury them.

[fiasco!]

People, LET THIS GO!

It's over, dead, buried. Mods, please wrap this one up!

http://boards.sportslogos.net/index.php?showtopic=35581

the mods will wrap up what they see fit to wrap up.

as a moderator on this forum and a professional designer, i believe this thread should stay open. it serves as not only an ethical debate, but should also set a precedent on what should and should not be requested on this board.

[quantum]

covers are recorded with the copyright holder's permission. otherwise there would be millions of beatles covers out there.

sorry to take the analogy away.

I need to correct this. Anyone can cover a song without permission. There are standard rates paid to the person who wrote the song or the holder of those rights, but they have no say in who can cover the song. Asking permission is a courtesy more than a rule. Now sampling is a different matter. Permission must be expressly given or the proceeds from the recording will likely go to the copyright holder.

But I think the point is made that songs and artwork are apples and oranges. The best thing to do is to request a logo similar to said lacrosse logo.

[fiasco!]

my bad....but the point is, the original artist still gets paid royalties when a cover is recorded. right?

[quantum]

my bad....but the point is, the original artist still gets paid royalties when a cover is recorded. right?

The holder of the rights to the song receives monies for covers. The performer of the song receives money only when their performance is used.

Radio airplay, DJ services, sampled music are examples of when performers get paid. On the other hand, the songwriter receives money anytime their song is used in public performance or recorded.

[bear69designs]

I we can't manipulate existing images (designed by other people) for our own creative pleasure then the whole point of this board is lost.

The request was for some drawing help, not for piracy or counterfeiting. Most concepts posted here are created by manipulating the well-known work of others.

[TBGKon]

I we can't manipulate existing images (designed by other people) for our own creative pleasure then the whole point of this board is lost.

Actually the purpose of this community is to discuss things like currents logos, concepts, sports in general, and whatever else deemed appropriate. What you say this board is about is not the sole purpose of the community. Maybe you should view other areas before making a statement.

[VitaminD]

I we can't manipulate existing images (designed by other people) for our own creative pleasure then the whole point of this board is lost.

The request was for some drawing help, not for piracy or counterfeiting. Most concepts posted here are created by manipulating the well-known work of others.

The problem's a little bigger than that.

Many of the members here are professional designers. In addition, many of the people here work for sports teams, leagues, or athletic supply companies. Because of this, there are many associations and connections to the world of sports. As such, great care needs to be taken to see that CCSLC adheres to a certain standard of conduct that does nothing to jeopardize the relationships many individuals have with the worlds of sports, sports logos, marketing or graphic design. While what was requested didn't appear to be for personal profit, it starts us all on a slippery slope toward fostering unethical and illegal behavior.

This board is what it is largely because of the people who are here, and it seems to have earned a good reputation in the world of sports logos and graphic design. But it's only as good as that reputation, and the individual members here are charged with upholding and protecting that reputation. If CCSLC becomes known in certain circles as a place where logo piracy or counterfeit is openly discussed and encouraged, then not only is the reputation of the community as a whole tarnished, but it reflects poorly on the individual members. I'd be upset about that personally, and I don't even work in design or sports - I do this for fun, and because I'm into this stuff. However, people like Joel and JP stand to lose a lot more if this place becomes known as a site with compromised standards. Design is their life's work, and their credibility and reputation is crucial to their livelihood. Were this site to become ethically challenged, these guys, and others would probably flee and not come back, which would cause the community to suffer even more, since no honest designer would even bother to post here.

Remember what Yale said a couple months back about this:

Try understanding what others' respectable motivations are and quit focusing on the negative.

If someone wants to get the original artists' permission fine, but that doesn't take away from the fact that this board's management and most of its members don't want to hold themselves out as the marketplace for the alteration or misuse of someone else's artistic works.

[bear69designs]

Here's my additional 2¢...

Many folks here are pros, including myself.

If anyone is worried about this board's rep it may be too late. The person who runs a popular football helmet-related website (and who is also a graphic arts professional) does not participate here because his material was used against his wishes.

The reasoning put forth in recent posts would prohibit us from doing a San Diego Chargers concept and swooping the lightning bolt into an "s-curve," or doing a classic Milwaukee Brewers retrobranding concept by stroking the glove outline, adding crosshatched stitching to the ball, and using a different font for the wordmark.

I am an Objectivist and am a property rights hawk, but it is my opinion that most every piece of art and design here is created under a legitimate apllication of the "fair-use" concept. What I haven't seen in these replies is any reasonable and sincere explanation of:

A. Why projects here do not fall under fair-use.

B. Why the original request did not fall under fair-use.

The fundamental aspect of property rights philosophy is not that others cannot profit from your property but that only you have right of disposal of your property, meaning that only you can use it, trade it, sell it, change it, etc. Fundamentally speaking, the end use of your art by someone else cannot be justified by being a non-profit use.

However, there is the concept of fair use, in which existing art or design may be used in a limited range of applications, including one-of-a-kind works, fine art, decorations and portfolio pieces. Otherwise property rights would have a chilling effect on the arts.

It was, and is, my contention that the request at issue was covered by fair-use. It is my understanding that he requested drawing help for an image to be used in his hobby. This is similar to someone painting a logo on their mailbox.

It should also be noted that while it is possible that the original artist still owns the logo, it is unlikely. In all likelihood that design was executed under hire and is the property of the team. It is most likely that the only rights retained by the creator are those of fair-use: the right to use the design as a portfolio piece. As such the original designer's wishes would be not be a consideration in this dispute.

At the considerable risk of offending people here whom I admire and enjoy the companionship of, I must say that the outlash against this request smacks of guildsmanship.