Los Angeles Kings

[TrueYankee26]

QUIT PLAGARIZING

[ScotM]

Oh boohoo, get over it. Like I killed your dog and raped your mother.

I didn't buy the logos, I actually traced them in Illustrator, which should count for something. Nor did I ever try to pass them off as my own. You asked if it was someone's avatar and I said no.

Idiots.

[Generic]

QUIT PLAGARIZING

[The Fixer]

Oh boohoo, get over it. Like I killed your dog and raped your mother.

I didn't buy the logos, I actually traced them in Illustrator, which should count for something. Nor did I ever try to pass them off as my own. You asked if it was someone's avatar and I said no.

Idiots.

Your right, we should give you a medal because you can tracea logo. NO it does notcount for anythings at all. Yes you did pass it off as your own. I gave you multiple opportunities to fess up about. I said "oh I feel like I have seen that logo before", instead of "Nope!" you shoulda said "oh yeah the real credit goes to the real maker, it is a stock logo". The sad thing is it went on so long.

[Lights Out]

I didn't buy the logos, I actually traced them in Illustrator, which should count for something.

Wow... so not only did you steal ideas, you didn't pay for them either. I'm impressed.

[oddball]

First of all, we have just found out which members of this board have a brain and which ones don't. I will step up and defend him here, and this is coming from paid graphic designer, he did NOT plagiarize. I mean really people? Plagiarize?! Do you fools even know what plagiarize means? Before you use a big word, you should look it up. He didn't write anything, this isn't a novel, it's logo! Secondly, to buy the rights to use a royalty free image is not wrong at all. It's why royalty free images are there, to purchase for the use of a person how they will within the context of the contract agreed to. Since he's just showing these images off, then the fact that he purchased them, he's free to do that. The fact that he passed them off as his work, well that may not be so smart on a board like this, but guess what, he did NOTHING wrong. Actually he did less wrong than the fools who claimed plagiarism!

[Lights Out]

I never used the word "plagiarism." It's technically not plagiarism, but he passed off stock images as his own work. That's not morally wrong?

[The Fixer]

I never used the word "plagiarism." It's technically not plagiarism, but he passed off stock images as his own work. That's not morally wrong?

This......

and oddball. he did NOT purchase them though. That has to make it worse in your eyes

[leggman01]

Nor did I ever try to pass them off as my own

Idiots.

I drew them separately, since I wasn't even sure I was going to put the crown on the lion. So in reality it was just placed on top.

if "i drew them" isn't passing it off as your own, what is?

[ScotM]

Thank you oddball.

I hope everyone likes lists because I've got one:

A - the site is royalty free which means I can do whatever the hell I want to with the logo and use it in any application I want.

B- not once have I made any money off of any of those logos. I fail to see how this is any different than the handful of jersey concepts using templates traced off a Reebok Edge or logos that the NHL owns. Yeah it was shifty that I let you assume I passed them off as my own, but Royalty Free means that once the logos is in my possession it's my property, unlike a few posters on here who blatantly rip off Disney, Warner Brothers and god knows who else under your noses to an applause of accolades.

C - I can't imagine the uproar over something that was actually illegal.

D - if you're not gonna comment on my ridiculously geriatric lion then get the he'll out of this thread.

[ScotM]

Nor did I ever try to pass them off as my own

Idiots.

I drew them separately, since I wasn't even sure I was going to put the crown on the lion. So in reality it was just placed on top.

if "i drew them" isn't passing it off as your own, what is?

You've never traced over two images you found on the Internet? Well aren't you a saint. I guarantee that every logo you've ever seen came from the inspirations of someone else. Google "real sens army" and then go to google images and search "gladiator vector". The very first image is "their logo". Anyway, these logos were done out of boredom, I'm not going to be sending them out, nor will they be sold, so lighten the hell up.

[chickenfish13]

I'll be honest, I've taken animal pictures and traced them and whatnot, but not exactly. The Nordiques and Sharks are EXACTLY the same as the clipart, which is kinda bad. I've come across images on google, and I say to myself wow that looks so much like so and so's logo, so all of us ( or most ) of guilty of it to a degree.

We know you won't send them or anything, it's just we enjoy seeing original work, and this isn't really original.

Anyways, on your second Kings Logo, I don't think it looks to much like Sigma's. I'd say maybe get rid of the white outline on the purple part, and drop the sunburst things in the top corners. The crown is looking better, I'm not sure what else you can do with it, maybe make it flow into the mane or something, i dont know.

[aci]

I can understand using a stock logo like you did to put on a full concept uniform. I can't, however, understand trying to get feedback on a trace job of said stock logo.

[9erssteve]

First of all, we have just found out which members of this board have a brain and which ones don't. I will step up and defend him here, and this is coming from paid graphic designer, he did NOT plagiarize. I mean really people? Plagiarize?! Do you fools even know what plagiarize means? Before you use a big word, you should look it up. He didn't write anything, this isn't a novel, it's logo! Secondly, to buy the rights to use a royalty free image is not wrong at all. It's why royalty free images are there, to purchase for the use of a person how they will within the context of the contract agreed to. Since he's just showing these images off, then the fact that he purchased them, he's free to do that. The fact that he passed them off as his work, well that may not be so smart on a board like this, but guess what, he did NOTHING wrong. Actually he did less wrong than the fools who claimed plagiarism!

I used it, in the UK whilst at college the term was used to cover the use of ANY copyrighted works without the proper citation or credit being given, written or graphic, your right it's not the exact dictionary definition but the INTENT is the same. So sorry for the confusion that one's on me, and now that the grammar police's case is closed perhaps we can get back to the matter in hand...

YES HE DID do something wrong, not only has he admitted to using other peoples works and passing it off as his own (numerous times), he's also admitted to NOT EVEN PAYING FOR IT, which by my book is THEFT, of both physical and intellectual properties.

I made it PERFECTLY CLEAR in my response to Scott after calling him out on this, that using stock images is fine, PROVIDED THEY ARE PAID FOR, but that it will never give you as creative a solution as doing it yourself. SO THAT IS NOT AND NEVER WAS THE ISSUE. The issue was him claiming it was all his own work, which he did numerous times

IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLEAR TO A PAID DESIGNER that he HADN'T paid for ANY of those stock images just by comparing the ones he used and the images posted! It was to me, you could clearly see where he'd done a bad job of drawing the areas covered by the WATERMARK in his Nordiques logo! If you PAY for stock images they DONT HAVE A WATERMARK, so there is no need to remove it! How any paid graphic designer can defend these practices is beyond me.

Right so lets see, He STOLE IDEAS AND PASSED THEM OFF AS HIS OWN, HE STOLE FROM ACTUAL COMPANIES BY NOT PAYING FOR STOCK IMAGES, AND HE LIED TO EVERYONE HERE and you think that's fine, but I'm the one in the wrong cos I used the word plagerised in the wrong context? Have a word! All I can say is I hope he uses your work in EXACTLY the same manner, palms it off on some sap and makes a fast buck. We'll see who feels foolish then, oh but that's right he wont have done anything wrong will he? So you'll have no grounds for complaint! Right now I'm not the one defending a cheat and a thief, so I dont feel the least bit foolish, how about you?

9erssteve

[9erssteve]

Oh boohoo, get over it. Like I killed your dog and raped your mother.

I didn't buy the logos, I actually traced them in Illustrator, which should count for something. Nor did I ever try to pass them off as my own. You asked if it was someone's avatar and I said no.

Idiots.

Oh it counts for something alright, it goes to prove not only are you not very creative you're also not very smart either!

First you deny using other peoples work and here you are admitting you didn't even pay for the ideas you used. So which is it? No need to answer we all know, by my reckoning that's two counts of theft they could do you on, intellectual property and the defrauding the stock libraries...

But we should think it's ok cos you can work the pen tool (badly) in Illustrator right? Yeah we're the idiots right enough! LOL. Get a life.

Thank you oddball.

I hope everyone likes lists because I've got one:

A - the site is royalty free which means I can do whatever the hell I want to with the logo and use it in any application I want.

Yeah you can ONCE YOU'VE PAID FOR THEM. You admitted you DIDN'T. See the difference?

B- not once have I made any money off of any of those logos. I fail to see how this is any different than the handful of jersey concepts using templates traced off a Reebok Edge or logos that the NHL owns. Yeah it was shifty that I let you assume I passed them off as my own, but Royalty Free means that once the logos is in my possession it's my property, unlike a few posters on here who blatantly rip off Disney, Warner Brothers and god knows who else under your noses to an applause of accolades.

Again the logos are only your possession once you've BOUGHT THEM, and if you had you'd have had to sign a license agreement which STILL comes with a list of caveats and restrictions. In the real world you'd have to buy it BEFORE you sold it on to the client so the fact you made no money off these is a total irrelevance! Shifty is an understatement but it's the closest we'll probably get to an admission of guilt so I'll take it.

Stealing stock images is NOTHING like creating templates of jerseys to complete a concept. First off you cant actually use the tracing of the jersey to make an actual shirt, second NO ONE has ever claimed THEY designed the shirts everyone is ALWAYS clear as to who the manufacturer is or was and it's USE is different as well! It's there to allow people to see ORIGINAL WORKS in a real life context. Your use of stolen images was... well to be honest unclear cos you were always going to get found out it was just a matter of time, it WAS NOT going to bring you accolades you so clearly are desperate to receive and it was NEVER going to improve your work as a designer.

Lets make this clear, YES both the logos you posted Sigma's kings one and the Scarecrow one have similarities to existing characters or logos, BUT THAT DOESN'T make them rip offs. I could find examples of logos of Lions with that styling that came BEFORE the Disney film, that doesn't make Disney thieves. As I said before people are inspired by other works EVERYDAY, and while they may look SIMILAR, the difference is those people DID NOT TRACE LINE FOR LINE AN EXISTING PEICE, YOU DID. Question for you, do you know what happened with the first Jacksonville Jaguars logo? They were taken to court over it and it was banned because Jaguar the car company said it looked to similar to their logo... in a real world setting I could see a similar scenario happening with the scarecrow one, BUT in the NFL case and in the SCARECROW EXAMPLE you posted did the designers DID NOT TRACE SOMEONE ELSES WORK, they created ORIGINAL works that bore similarities, BIG DIFFERENCE.

C - I can't imagine the uproar over something that was actually illegal.

Nice little Freudain slip there! I'm sure you meant to protest that what you'd done was legal, but it seems your subconscious knows better.

D - if you're not gonna comment on my ridiculously geriatric lion then get the he'll out of this thread.

LOL, still at it I see! We are commenting on your Lions (and all your other logos), and the comment is YOU DIDN'T do them. You want feedback on your work here it is...

TRY DOING YOUR OWN FOR A CHANGE! You might find you enjoy it, in fact I can GUARANTEE you'll have more fun creating your own stuff from scratch than you will tracing crap stock images! Yeah it'll take longer but it will certainly improve your results and it will improve your skills. There consider yourself commented on.

9erssteve

[leggman01]

Nor did I ever try to pass them off as my own

Idiots.

I drew them separately, since I wasn't even sure I was going to put the crown on the lion. So in reality it was just placed on top.

if "i drew them" isn't passing it off as your own, what is?

You've never traced over two images you found on the Internet? Well aren't you a saint. I guarantee that every logo you've ever seen came from the inspirations of someone else. Google "real sens army" and then go to google images and search "gladiator vector". The very first image is "their logo". Anyway, these logos were done out of boredom, I'm not going to be sending them out, nor will they be sold, so lighten the hell up.

i have been greatly inspired by photos and other logos i've seen on the internet and in many other places, but i've never traced someone else's logo and said "i drew it"...there is a difference between being inspired and copying

by the way, this all could have been avoided had you simply said "i found this lion logo on the internet and modified it a bit for a kings concept" instead of "i drew this"

[Lights Out]

A - the site is royalty free which means I can do whatever the hell I want to with the logo and use it in any application I want.

Fair enough, but it's still in violation of the aims of the concept forum. This concept forum is meant for creating your own identities for teams from scratch, not buying a logo online.

B- not once have I made any money off of any of those logos. I fail to see how this is any different than the handful of jersey concepts using templates traced off a Reebok Edge or logos that the NHL owns.

The difference is that we don't claim the Reebok Edge design as our own idea, nor do we claim the NHL's copyrighted logos (or any other leagues' for that matter) as our own work - we just use them to illustrate our ideas on what teams should look like. You claimed those stock clipart logos as your own, though, and expected feedback on them.

Yeah it was shifty that I let you assume I passed them off as my own, but Royalty Free means that once the logos is in my possession it's my property, unlike a few posters on here who blatantly rip off Disney, Warner Brothers and god knows who else under your noses to an applause of accolades.

But it's not your property because you didn't even pay for them - you traced the watermarked versions. And how did anyone "blatantly" rip off Disney or Warner Brothers? Most people on here aren't ripoff artists.

C - I can't imagine the uproar over something that was actually illegal.

You stole pieces of stock artwork, didn't pay for them, traced over the watermarked versions, and claimed it as your own work. You're not EXPECTING an uproar over that?

D - if you're not gonna comment on my ridiculously geriatric lion then get the he'll out of this thread.

All right then, show us your rediculously geriatric lion as opposed to a stock clipart rendition and we'll comment on it.

You've never traced over two images you found on the Internet? Well aren't you a saint. I guarantee that every logo you've ever seen came from the inspirations of someone else.

Of course, outside inspiration plays a big role in design. However, most people use the inspiration to create their own work that they can be proud of, instead of ripping others' hard work off.

[JQK]

ScotM, you're a logo-stealing douche.

You have no talent as a graphic artist, as you simply pass off stolen clipart images as your own.

You did not even try to alter these thieved stock images in any way, which just shows that you are a logo-stealing douche AND lazy.

Do something original, from your own mind, and not STOLEN from anywhere, and you just may begin to repair your credibility on these boards.

However, being a confrontational douche after your little trick was discovered is not helping you in any way.

[Brave-Bird 08]

this has become a fun debate. let me and my certified intelligence jump in.

First, Scot M did NOT STEAL ANYTHING. The logos are ROYALTY FREE for a reason. They exist for others to use. Plus, he did do...some tweaking? Okay, that might not count. Basically he was posting logos he didn't design.

He definitely did not plagarise obviously.

And, there is nothing wrong with someone using a stock logo in a concept and saying, "Hey. I didnt actually design this, its a free logo, but I made some tweaks here and there, added some elements, and here is a concept for..."

That's fine. That isnt something I would frown upon. A concept doesnt have to be a completely retoiled piece of original artwork. I know. I post concepts on here that are 100% original, and many that are tweaks of existing logos THAT WE ARE USING FOR FREE, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE TRADEMARKS. Get my drift?

So really he's not doing anything wrong at all. But, the fact everyone is jabbering on and on and turning this into an argument is the real wrong doing here, and that includes the hostile comments by Scot M...as well as others.

[9erssteve]

this has become a fun debate. let me and my certified intelligence jump in.

First, Scot M did NOT STEAL ANYTHING. The logos are ROYALTY FREE for a reason. They exist for others to use. Plus, he did do...some tweaking? Okay, that might not count. Basically he was posting logos he didn't design.

He definitely did not plagarise obviously.

And, there is nothing wrong with someone using a stock logo in a concept and saying, "Hey. I didnt actually design this, its a free logo, but I made some tweaks here and there, added some elements, and here is a concept for..."

That's fine. That isnt something I would frown upon. A concept doesnt have to be a completely retoiled piece of original artwork. I know. I post concepts on here that are 100% original, and many that are tweaks of existing logos THAT WE ARE USING FOR FREE, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE TRADEMARKS. Get my drift?

So really he's not doing anything wrong at all. But, the fact everyone is jabbering on and on and turning this into an argument is the real wrong doing here, and that includes the hostile comments by Scot M...as well as others.

Hmm lets see now, the Wolf he used for his Nordiques logo comes with a WATERMARK in the lo-res version. WHY? For security so that you have to PAY to get the version without the watermark. ROYALTY free DOES NOT mean FREE OF CHARGE, it means you make a ONE OFF FIXED payment to use the graphic however you see fit, rather than specific payment based on the NUMBER OF TIMES the item is used. If you use stock photography (or certain vectors) the price will usually VARY depending on the size the image is used, the environment or publication it's used in, also whether any retouching is going to be done to it can either increase the price or even forbid you from using it at all, certain stock images you cannot alter at all, photos of fine are for example. A payment PER USE is known as a ROYALTY, therefore if you just pay once an image is classed as royalty free, it's not the same as free of charge. Trust me I know, two years as a junior dealing with stock libraries and you pick up a thing or two.

So now we differentiated between FREE and ROYALTY FREE we can address the next part, the wrong doing. WHICH HE ADMITTED TO when he was dumb enough to say HE DIDN'T PAY FOR THEM HE TRACED THEM HIMSELF. So that right there puts an end to your whole he's done nothing wrong argument. He was in the wrong he admitted it and was actually dumb enough to think he deserved some kind of credit for doing it!

Once again if someone wants to use stock vectors in their work FINE THAT IS NOT ILLEGAL, I'll be honest I think it utterly undermines the ethos of a "concept" forum as there isn't a lot of thought being used but if people want to use them it's not illegal, PROVIDED THEY DONT CLAIM THEY DID THEM and PROVIDED DONT STEAL THEM. Neither of which is sadly the case here, as he didn't pay for them by his own admission and claimed he'd drawn them multiple times.

Seriously if you walked into a car showroom and drove off with a car without paying for it, do you think you'd be able to justify keeping it cos you tinted the windows badly and added a really bad body kit? No it's still a stolen car. Yeah he tweaked the logos he "acquired" but for the most part every change he made made them worse, which when you consider the state the first lion in here was in to begin with is no mean feat.

Had he admitted he found the images and used them that would have been fine, people would have told him he'd be better served learning to draw these things himself if he wants to be taken seriously and actually improve his work, but no one would have called him out over it, as there would have been nothing to call out he'd have been up front and honest. But he WASN'T, he took other peoples work WITHOUT PAYING THE ASKING PRICE and then TRIED TO PASS IT OFF AS HIS OWN.

If you think there's nothing wrong with that then I'm sorry there's something wrong.

9erssteve