Our open source, random logo collaboration.
The Random Cartoons TV series (on Nickelodeon) of 39 short cartoons needs a logo. Instead of going about it in the normal way, we thought it might be more fun to make it an open source competition. We hope you can help. We’ll pay $1000 to the creator of our new logo and $300 to the blogger whose post refers or inspires her/him. Of course, he/she/they will receive credit on every episode.
Submit all entries to: randomlogo@frederator.kz
(All other particulars are below.)
This competition is open source; everyone can participate in any collaborative way they want. We’ll post all entries as they come in here on a dedicated blog. Then if you’re inspired by any of the entries, but you think you can improve on it, feel free; you’ll be part of the winning team.
Comments on submissions are invited and encouraged. We will NOT be publishing incoming comments about individual logos that don’t focus on constructive criticism or suggest improvements, and I reserve the right to delete non-useful (solely deemed by me) remarks. “I agree, this logo is the best” or “I hate this one” comments will not help us move forward; they’ll be the first to go.
Designer’s comments on their own submissions would be enjoyable and we’ll also post them with the designs as it seems appropriate.
We have no style or approach in mind, so it’s up to you. Here’s the logo for What A Cartoon!, our first shorts show at Hanna-Barbera, and the one for Oh Yeah! Cartoons, which you might know a little better.
You might be wondering why we aren’t using what Henry Copeland calls “America’s Certified Logo Creation Process?” Certainly, all our designer friends are recoiling in horror right now.
I must say the traditional methods have been very successful for us over the years when we developed the logos for (among others) MTV (by Manhattan Design) and Nickelodeon (by Corey & Company). But Frederator has flourished over the years because our reliance on a community of great artists, writers, and animators, and I think it might be fair to let our loyal blog and internet gallery citizens participate in the show. Next, I’ve found over the years it’s always better to let creative people loose to collaborate on a project; their ideas are often better when they develop unfettered by too close scrutiny. And lastly, much to the chagrin of many of my elite media friends, I feel like the maddening crowd is frequently smarter and better than the educated. Once again to quote Henry Copeland: “I’ve come to truly trust the blogoshere over the years. Time and again, I’ve watched bloggers pool information to generate unique, speedy, transcendent insights far beyond the capacity of any traditional organization.”
OK maybe you can design us a logo. Many of you are fantastic artists. Or you know designers; please let them know what we’re up to here, maybe they’ll have some fun.
Here’s a few details and inclinations:
* Your submission should be maximum 300 pixels wide X 300 pixels deep, jpeg or gif, with larger file to follow, if we request it. Submit to: randomlogo@frederator.kz
* Don’t just use Photoshop, Illustrator, or the like, though they’ll be fine too. Draw, build, photograph, whatever.
* We have a lot of characters in our shows. So I’m not so sure that a character should be the logo. But, you never know. As with everything else in this competition, you decide.
* We have no idea what the correct punctuation or stacking or sizing should be:
Random Cartoons
Random!
Cartoons
Random> Cartoons
Or others. You decide, you’ll probably have a better idea than anything we can come up with.
* We’re not kidding when we say “$300 to the blogger whose post refers or inspires her/him.” The whole point of this “open source” thing is that you might see a logo submission posted that seems great “except that part which would really be better if only” a certain part was folded, spindled, or mutilated. So, feel free; drag down a submission, change it, twist it, improve it. Everyone will win.
So, whaddya think? Can this idea work? You tell us, with your submissions. We’re excited.
This competition was more than inspired by a post on Jeff Jarvis’ fabulous Buzzmachine about Henry Copeland’s innovative logo competition at Blogads. And Henry says his was triggered by South by Southwest’s Big Bag competition. So, thank you all, sincerely. You’ve helped push us beyond the beyond.
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
Random logo competition submission details.
Submit all entries to: randomlogo@frederator.kz
Size:: Maximum 300×300 pixels, jpeg or gif. We’ll want a larger file from the winner, either a illustrator or eps file, or a large-as-possible scan.
Submission dates: March 20, 2006 - April 18, 2006.
Winner(s) annnounced: May 1, 2006.
Prize: $1000, plus $300 to each referring or inspiring logo post.
Judge: Fred Seibert, in consultation with the Random Cartoons development and production team, and our Nickelodeon executives.
Ownership: The winning submission copyright will be owned exclusively by Nickelodeon, and Viacom Intl. All rights will be reserved. All other submissions’ copyrights will be retained by their respective designers or artists.
»
On March 18th, 2006 at 12:00 am
This is awsome!! Just one thing, am i allowed to JUST use flash and illustrator to make my logo, even tho i may draw it on paper first, then scan it in? And am i also also allowed to submit more than one design?? -Steve
On March 18th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Yes, and Yes. Thanks Steve.
On March 18th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Awsome Fred!! I already have 1 logo to submit, but have to wait till the 20th like it says above :. I’ll be making more than 1, you can count on that!
Talk soon!! -Steve
On March 18th, 2006 at 12:00 am
This is so crazy you guys really just spoil us with all of this!!! first the frederator bot competition then the posters and now this logo! i am definitely gonna think about this one!!
On March 18th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Jonathan, it’s our community that spoils *us* with your talent. Thanks.
On March 18th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Hi Fred,
Very cool idea!
Sorry, but I can’t find where you’re supposed to submit the proposed logos.Can you post it again or make it more obvious for us texticularly challenged?
-Mike
On March 18th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Sure enough Mike. I’ve put it at the top of the post, and here: Submit all entries to: randomlogo@frederator.kz
On March 18th, 2006 at 12:00 am
This sounds exciting. Can we do more than one design?
On March 18th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Yes sir! -Steve
On March 18th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Sorry to bother you again Fred, but is that email up and running? I sent it to randomlogo@frederator.kz
and it bounced back with this error:
—– The following addresses had permanent fatal errors —–: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual alias table)
(reason: 550
Any idea why?
On March 18th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Hey Mike, im not entirely sure cause i didnt send a logo yet, but it says they’re takin glogo designs starting the 20th, so mabye thats when theyre going to set it up. Just an idea. -Steve
On March 19th, 2006 at 12:00 am
< < This competition is open source
< < Ownership: The winning submission copyright will be owned exclusively by Nickelodeon, and Viacom Intl. All rights will be reserved. All other submissions' copyrights will be retained by their respective designers or artists.
Um, you’ve got the wrong concept for open source. It was not created to get away from paying designers what they are worth. It was created for the good of the public. You are using a good concept for your own good. Open source for the competition, but all rights owned by Nickelodeon? That’s not going with the spirit of open source at all.
Let me say upfront that most people running competitions like this believe they are giving back to the community, but they in reality, they are not. They are teaching the public that design has no value. That we are a ‘throw away’ commodity. Have a contest, get many, many designs, throw all away but one. Designers and their work are worth more than that. And I believe you know this.
If you want to run a logo competition, then with a little bit of effort, run an ethical one. GAG has rules but they can easily be adjusted to suit the internet.
But, before I post this, ask yourself “is this a job for a professional designer?” and if it is, then hire one. My opinion is that this is indeed a job for a professional designer as Nickelodeon can certainly afford to pay.
#1
with minor tweaks the sketch is finalized into the end result, the logo (or poster, etc)
1) put out a call for portfolios in your blog
2) select a handful of designers to contribute (perhaps four or six)
3) have them brainstorm on ideas blog style, each putting forward one sketch (and I mean sketch, not final art)
4) input from contest judges on each design
6) one round of tweaks
7) one design chosen
#2
1) put out a call for portfolios in your blog
2) select a handful of designers to contribute (perhaps four or six)
3) have them brainstorm on ideas blog style, each putting forward one sketch (and I mean sketch, not final art)
4) one design chosen
5) with minor tweaks the sketch is finalized into the end result
The benefits of this would be:
1) students could see the design process
2) only a handful of designers are contributing time
3) clients could see the value in how we work as it’s not a blanket logo throw away, but each designer contributing with input from the client.
This is basically how a design company works. They brainstorm with the client. Go off together and brainstorm on a design. Go back to the client who gives input. Then tweak again. Only we are now working across the internet in different countries, so using this method could be easily included in how we deal with ethical competitions, yes?
But as it stands now, your competition is spec - http://www.no-spec.com
On March 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Holy smokes! This is an amazing new low in the world of logo design. The idea of an “open source” competition for a major brand logo sinks the idea of graphic design as mere decoration to a phenomenally abysmal level.
Simply put, this sounds to me like leveraging the power of a “name” brand to hoodwink designers. Even though there’s the offer a prize of a 1000 bucks, that amount is significantly less than fair market value for a major brand logo. This appears to me to be dangling a carrot in front of the graphic design community to see if you can get away with it. “Hey gang, there’s this big company that needs a logo. We’d like you to design it. Put that paying gig aside and work for us! Maybe we’ll accept it. Maybe we won’t. But heck, ain’t it fun? Viacom’s gonna plaster it all over the place and we’ll pay you a grand if we accept your work. Oh … and we’re gonna make it open source so anybody can mess with your design. That way, you can’t say the end result is really your work. It’s nobody’s work. How cool is that?”
The spirit of open source is thwarted when you say the final design will be “… owned exclusively by Nickelodeon, and Viacom Intl. All rights will be reserved.” If it is open source, am I to understand that Viacom will allow the final design to be modified or be a never ending work in progress? Somehow, I doubt it.
How can you say, “Of course, he/she/they will receive credit on every episode,” when this is supposed to be a collaborative, open source deal? Who is the creator if several designers add in their 2¢? What happens if 20 or 30 people add to the mark? Do they all get credit on every episode? Those credits could get mighty lengthy.
Needless to say, I’m disappointed. This idea is yet one more nail in the coffin of graphic design. Choosing a designer or firm is about getting the right professional for the project. The best, and most accepted method for finding the right designer is to issue a request for proposals or obtain referrals, review portfolios and check client references,. If an enterprise is still unsure, they should request concepts from the short list of potential designers, but pay for them at market value, as they would for any other professional service.
On March 21st, 2006 at 12:00 am
Neil, $1000 is actually more than a cable TV show logo goes for in the modern world; most go for significantly less, or are done in-house for no incremental cost. As to the “new low” and that graphic design “sinks…to a phenomenally abysmal level”, the only thing sinking professions is their refusal to admit that the world is changing. It’s why all the whining about mash-ups and sampling is crippling people caught in the past glories of music. Technology has changed the way we create and consume, and it’s up to us to adapt. We’re trying. Nothing will be done completely right, but we’re trying to take into account the changes. Please try along with us.
On March 25th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Major Brand Logo?
Dude, it’s a cartoon series on Nickelodeon not the latest phone company, Commquakk or Zovuzzaraz.
On March 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I’m with Cat and Neil on this one. It’s nothing but “spec” work hiding behind the term “open source” - and, as Neil points out with the rights issues, it’s truly not “open source” at all. I’m stunned that Nickelodeon and Viacom Intl. would even be associated with such an effort. Yes, unfortunately, a lot of “designers” will fall for this ploy with hopes of a moment of fame and not even realize/understand the impact it may be having on their chosen profession. It’s a real shame…
On March 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Uhh…im guessing its bad if i enter? I was going to but now i dont know… i dont care if they take my idea as long as i get paid for it and on the show it has my name saying i created it…right?? :-
On March 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Stephen, if anyone can grab a logo design made by someone else and tweak it, then … who’s name is going to be in the credits? Who is going to get paid?
You cannot be sure getting paid, that’s why it’s called working on speculation … spec. And lets say you presented a logo .. and ten people edited it … and it won, a tenth of the winnings would be yours. Not exactly what I call a decent days wages. AND That’s the way spec works. The only person who comes out the winner is the client. Not the designer.
On March 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I see… I dont think that the money is split. I think the winner is paid $1000, and any one who contributes to the design and it being changed will get $300. Like the frederator contest, the winners didnt split $100, they got $100 for each drawing of theirs.
On March 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Steven is correct. The winner wins $1000. In addition,any inspiring design gets $300 each. I’m sorry that we’ve upset so many people, but I must respectfully disagree. Certainly, no one wants to disrespect anyone’s work; we’re looking for another path towards interesting results.
On March 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
So if every company starts running contests for their logos where does that leave the industry of graphic design?
Sorry honey we can’t eat this week I haven’t won any contests! I was one of 2,000 designers that entered and with no clear cut guidelines I had to guess at what was needed instead of doing the research needed to come up with a fully functional logo.
Who says which designs were inspirational? The judge, the designer or are all of them inspirational?
Sorry Fred, you have the right to disagree with what the other people have said. But being a professional graphic designer I see how contests are hurting our industry.
What if I was to hold a contest saying that I have a go to produce a full length cartoon film. Please submit your cartoon to me for consideration. The winner will receive $5,000 and be seen by millions of people on the big screen. You have 2 months to complete it and only receive money if you win. Ohh by the way I will now own your cartoon.
It doesn’t sound very good does it? Making a cartoon takes a lot of work, why not get paid for it?
On March 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I wish everyone would take a chill pill please. We are doing nothing to disrespect the artists or their profession. We made an offer for a competition. People are free to take us up on it. Or not. If anyone feels it is beneath them or their ethics, I would similarly invite them not to participate. Thanks for everyone who has commented, on either side. Thanks particularly to those who have identified themselves.
On March 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Fred, whether you realize it or not, you ARE disrespecting our profession with a spec competition. We feel very strongly about this so ‘chilling’ is not an option. Educating the public is.
On March 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Education, Catherine? The idea of altering ideas, and the issue of credit and payment might be valid concerns (I don’t think so), but many of the world’s greatest buildings — and even Manhattan’s Central Park — are the result of open public design competitions, or ’spec’ competitions. Maybe if Olmsted and Vaux were alive today, they could better show you how uptight you’re being.
On March 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Yes, education ….Check out what RGD says about spec –>>http://www.no-spec.com/?page_id=41 ….As well as GAG –>> http://www.gag.org/resources/compet_rules.php …And other Design organisations –>> http://www.no-spec.com/?page_id=32 …Just because others have done it, does not make it right. … No wonder we are not being taken seriously, design being considered a ‘throw away’ commodity ….. Hold a competition, get hundreds of designers for the price of one. …. It’s a blinking shame that people in our own industry are backing these unethical practices … almost drives me to create a SPEC hall of shame …
On March 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
A Spec Hall of Shame! Will it be a real building? How can I enter my designs for consideration?
On March 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
“A Spec Hall of Shame! Will it be a real building? How can I enter my designs for consideration?” …. send them over to http://www.no-spec.com …
On March 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
My question is: Has Viacom’s IP legal department reviewed this contest? In the rules, it states that non-winning entries remain the property of the artist. However, by submitting, artists are required (based upon how the rules are worded) to relinquish control over their artwork, allowing *other* artists to creative derivative works based upon their design. This clearly violates their rights of ownership, as they have no control or say in how their art will be used for some derivative design. Furthermore, it states that copyright of the “winning submission” will be owned exclusively by Nickelodeon/Viacom. Ok. What if that winning submission was based upon another, non-winning design? Your rules are so ambiguous here that we could be talking about an “improvement” that is little more than a color change. In which case, where does that leave ownership of the non-winning design if the only difference between it and the winner is that one is red and the other is blue, for example? What if the final winning design is only one of many subtle alterations to some non-winning design, leaving Nickelodeon/Viacom ownership rights to the winning entry, with potentially dozens of other artists retaining ownership to designs that are superficially different from one another? With all of these (by your rules) legitimate copyright claims to uncannily similar designs, won’t that make pursuing trademark protection of the winning logo a veritable nightmare? One more thing: Say I come up with a design and someone else modifies my design and submits it. A third person modifies the modification and submits it and so on until somewhere at the end of the chain (let’s just pick fifth for this example), a final version is chosen as the winner. Do your rules allow for all of those down the chain to the original design to *win* the $300 prize? In other words, the winner gets $1000 and the 4 “inspirations” down the chain each get $300? Or do you pay out just one level down? Your rules, again, are not clear. Frankly, there are a number of really big questions that I think need to be addressed regarding this contest, but so far, it sounds like a really great deal for Nickelodeon/Viacom, and not such a great deal for the participating artists.
On March 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
A great deal for Nickelodeon/Viacom? How? My experience with major studios in a case like this would be their using an in-house designer to come up with a show logo. It sounds like this alternative is more of a headache than the traditional design route.
On March 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
“It sounds like this alternative is more of a headache than the traditional design route.” What, and pass up the opportunity of running (I believe) the first ever ethical blog-based design contest? Think about it, our world is changing fast and by using the internet to its fullest, you’ll be a leader. We’d (Creative Latitude and the NO!SPEC crusade) certainly point to your contest as the way for others to go in the future. Sure, running an ethical competition will take a little more planning, but I set out suggestions in my first post and if you read it though, not too much more than what you planned already. Just create a call for portfolios to be posted here, get your judges picked out (you should have those already), and … there you go. A fantastic, blog-based and ethical logo contest …
On March 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Thomas Walker wrote: >>It sounds like this alternative is more of a headache than the traditional design route.< <
I think that it *will* be a headache to them, for exactly many of the copyright issue reasons I listed. The point is that, without examining it closely, it *sounds* like a perfect deal for Nick/Viacom, and a lousy deal for the designers. Consider: They are putting up $1300 bucks for this logo. $1300 bucks won’t even cover the deposit for a small agency to design them a logo. This contest is running for approximately a month. $1300 bucks won’t cover a month’s salary for the average in-house designer. This site is a pre-existing blog, so only nominal expenses in setting up this area for the contest — just post and go. Promotional expenses? Nick already has budgets for various promotional endeavors, and processes in place for handling them, so I doubt very much that this is causing anyone to break too much of a sweat (although, I think that perhaps their IP lawyers ought to be getting restless over this). Designers, on the other hand, have to put forth the work to design what may very well become a nationally exposed logo for mere peanuts (The GAG handbook has a national-level logo project priced out at $5,000-$20,000 - so this contest isn’t even playing in the same league, much less ballpark of what this project should be worth). That is how, as a concept, it is a tremendous deal for Nick/Viacom and a lousy one for the designers. Still, my opinion is that any designer should ask for clarification to the glaring copyright/compensation questions I raised in my other response before they even consider participating in this thing.
On March 21st, 2006 at 12:00 am
“Please try along with us.” Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. You believe we should sit back and say it’s ok to work on spec? Not on your life. Spec work is ruining our industry, and not just ours, but the photography industry.
On March 23rd, 2006 at 12:00 am
Hiya, I just sent my entry i hope it sent…^^
On March 23rd, 2006 at 12:00 am
Role-playing games (RPG’s) on message board-style sites (both indie- and network-driven), allow fans to collaborate to dream up storylines and alternate resolutions to love triangles and character conflicts. Casting calls to fill roles preface many of the threads. The fact is you are not going to stop progress. The active community involvement gates are wide open and no one is ever shutting them again. People are actively and loudly demanding to be heard and including in the process of that that will entertain them. This contest is no different. It’s all good.. let it roll… Good look to all entrants!
On March 23rd, 2006 at 12:00 am
Role-playing games (RPG’s) on message board-style sites (both indie- and network-driven), allow fans to collaborate to dream up storylines and alternate resolutions to love triangles and character conflicts. Casting calls to fill roles preface many of the threads. The fact is you are not going to stop progress. The active community involvement gates are wide open and no one is ever shutting them again. People are actively and loudly demanding to be heard and including in the process of that that will entertain them. This contest is no different. It’s all good.. let it roll… Good look to all entrants!
On April 28th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I agree
On March 23rd, 2006 at 12:00 am
“The winner wins $1000. In addition,any inspiring design gets $300 each.” Let’s copy each other, so we all win at least $300! And if $1000 is what you’d pay to any designer, why don’t you just go through several portfolios and offer to the designer with the best work that sum? You’ll still get your logo for the same price, actually without the additional $300. You don’t have anything to loose. Or maybe the designer won’t accept?
And as others have pointed out, there are no guidelines. How are the designers participating in the contest going to do the marketing research? And even if you put out guidelines, I’d like to know how many designers will actually do it.
On March 23rd, 2006 at 12:00 am
“So, whaddya think?” RGD Ontario thinks that this spec work contest in “open source” camouflage is unethical and unprofessional, and a gross flouting of designers’ IP rights, particularly moral rights (which protect the integrity of a design, and do not permit any tinkering by others). Doesn’t “open source” mean that there’s no single owner and that anyone can use it? Not the case here if Nickelodeon owns the “winning” design, having paid a paltry, token sum for it. And why would any self-respecting designer with any sense of professionalism or business savvy want to waste valuable time submitting designs subject to others permitted to “feel free; drag down a submission, change it, twist it, improve it”? Why would Nicklelodeon want to use the results - produced in this clumsy way - to identify and communicate their product? Who is advising them that this is good communications design strategy, management and execution? Cat at no-spec.com has given you great advice on how to fix this project.
On March 24th, 2006 at 12:00 am
As I’ve read through these responses, I’ll agree on at least one point.
1.) The world IS changing, no question about that.
But what I wonder is, would anyone here be willing to have a doctor look at your broken arm, develop a cast and then you tell them “Well, I’m going to look at a few other Dr’s. cast’s and see how they work for me. But if yours works the best, I’ll come back and pay for it.” No, we wouldn’t do that. So why is the graphic design industry still perceived as a throw-away commodity then?
On March 24th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Chris, if your analogy is to work, then you are you saying that creativity is limited to only certain people? From what I understand Spike Lee’s new release “Insider Man” was written by a first-timer, with 2 years of self-taught screenwriting instruction under his belt - and no previous professional credits. This is the first script he has ever written. (This is not meant to, in any way, denigrate or diminish the talent and experience of the fantastic pros on here. Not at all and nto for a second.) I just want to make sure I understand your point. Thanks. Lina
On March 24th, 2006 at 12:00 am
That’s “Inside Man” and nto=not… Lina
On March 25th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Lina said: ” Chris, if your analogy is to work, then you are you saying that creativity is limited to only certain people?” Creativity is one thing, Graphic Design is another thing. Graphic Design is a discipline, filed, whatever you want to call it, that USES creativity and a number of other tools to communicate a message. But if you think that Graphic Design is only about creativity, then you miss the essence of Graphic Design as it can be seen by the fact that you are supporting a spec collaboration. It is like saying, going back to the analogy of the doctor, that because you can’t operate someone because you are not a doctor, thrn physical health is restricted to you. If we want to expand further, you are saying that if you are not a lawyer, then you don’t have rights to civic safety, et al. You can see that is not true. Going back to Graphic Design, you don’t give up your right to creativity if you are not a designer, while you do give up any rights you have on any creativity you put your mind into if you work on spec.
On March 24th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Mr. Seibert’s reply on Mar 21st to Mr. Tortorella:
“…the world is changing…caught in the past glories…it’s up to us to adapt…Nothing will be done completely right…”
is one of the most terrifying paragraphs I’ve ever read on the field of Graphic Design. It’s terrifying to know that I spent five years in college, and god-only-knows how long paying off the debt, only to have it go to waste because “the world is changing.” Am I correct in assuming that Mr. Seibert is just another leecher hoping to get something for nothing simply because it’s posted on the internet? Does he think that designers have a selective morality based on whether or not we are currently working or are desperate for money? Does he think design is easy because it sometimes involves computers? If so, then isn’t the Word doc generated by a receptionist just as valuable as the branding of a multinational corporation generated by a design firm?
If I’m “inspired” by the UPS logo, there’s no way in hell I’d be able to get away with a simple tweak if I was going to use it myself. The idea that it’s OK to steal someone else’s work, tweak it, then re-post it is insulting to everyone. Obviously there are many people who will participate in this contest regardless of the moral questions it (hopefully) raises, but I personally feel that none of them could possibly submit work worthy of consideration. You’d be better off with the receptionist.
In the end, very little of this REALLY matters. Someone will make off with the $1000 and be happy. Everyone else with think their work stinks. The End. The real problem is that there are people like Mr. Seibert who are in positions to support genuine talent, but who are instead looking to make a quick buck under the guise of an “open-source” community, a term he has obviously only over-heard in some buzz-word board meeting. If it was truly open-source, then anyone at any time could modify the logo, even after it was in place. They could use it in any way they wished, on their own web-site, on their own letter-head, on their own album covers etc. NO ONE WOULD/COULD OWN THE LOGO, EVER. This fundamental misunderstanding only highlights the profound flaws behind this contest.
Now pardon me as I go get “inspired” by every single design ever, copy it and paste it into my own portfolio.
On March 24th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I find it absolutely UNBELIEVABLE that you are guising this abuse against creatives (new or not) as “open source.” Is that the new word for design mutilation these days? The only reason why I see anyone who has even an ounce of self worth in themselves and their creativity to submit at all is the fact that it’s for Nickolodeon, ie., a chance for 15 min. of glory. Quite frankly, being artists yourselves it dismays me that you would manipulate and abuse (particularly) up and coming hopefuls in this manner. I guess I missed the memo where “eating your young” was the “in” thing this year.
Cat, Elisabetta, Chris and others are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Heck, you said it yourselves to another poster (Mr. Tortorella): “…the world is changing…caught in the past glories…it’s up to us to adapt…Nothing will be done completely right…” So you’re basically admitting that this abomination that your running is flawed against the participants, but hey, there’s nothing YOU can do about it, so just get over it.
I won’t waste my time imploring you to reconsider and why would you anyway? You’re coming out on top with basically a free logo. Apparently you’re in it for yourselves, and yourselves alone (PS-Exactly HOW much revenue did you guys pocket last year? I bet you can compensate far more than a measly grand for artwork that will generate hundreds of thousands in marketing, promotions like tee’s and hats, etc).
I’m hoping that anyone who enters can understand the implications of what is REALLY going on here. I hope they value themselves and their art enough to send you guys a message, one that will persuade you to revise your rules and prizes so that EVERYONE, not just YOU come out a winner in all of this. Considering that many of these guys are the fans that put you where you are, you owe them that much.
On March 25th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Fred
I think you are a tad confused on what the phrase “open-source” means.
open source
n.
“A method and philosophy for software
licensing and distribution designed to encourage use and improvement of software written by volunteers by ensuring that
anyone can copy the source code and modify it freely.”
Your contest would appear to be more “mixed collaborative media” or “anything goes”, perhaps even “no rules except for some”.
I would strongly caution you from using tech terms incorrectly, as such a faux pas can result in ridicule.
In closing, I would like to add that you have a very nice vanity site here in this internet that I invented.
Sincerely,
Al Gore
On March 25th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Elisabeth Bruno said : Creativity is one thing, Graphic Design is another thing. Graphic Design is a discipline, filed, whatever you want to call it, that USES creativity and a number of other tools to communicate a message.
1. The base of graphic design is creativity/inspiration, no?
2. Graphic Design is a discipline, a field; agreed. It is the rare noncreative ranch hand (not that there is anything wrong with the field of animal husbandry) that posts to this site. The commments thus far suggesting just that are insulting to this site’s highly talented and - voluntary - community.
3. Doctor analogy: Does he own the fracture repair technique?
And finally, re: my approving of this spec collaboration. That’s asking Mr. Smith, “So how many times did you rob Mr. Jones?” when Mr. Smith does not admit, and, in fact, denies, robbing Mr. Jones.
On March 25th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Can I enter logos created with Logo Creator?
http://www.thelogocreator.com/
On March 26th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Exquisite Corpse much?
On March 26th, 2006 at 12:00 am
EC has produced some amazing surreal results from world class artists and photographers (Morise, Man Ray). “The unconscious reality in the personality of the group” Calas. Can’t wait to see what the logo contest results reveal about this site
On March 27th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Lina you don’t seem to get my point and I really hope you are not subtly saying I am secretly stealing other designers’ work. In regards to the doctor analogy, the doctor doesn’t own the operating technique, but he has to be qualified to administer it. Before he operates someone, he studies the health history of the patient to make sure he does the right thing for him. I’d like to see an “open source” operation, it would probably go like this:
Doctor A: “Hm… I think his heart should be fixed this way”
Doctor B: “Actually, we didn’t dig enough here”
Doctor C: “Hey, let me fix his leg, while you open him apart”
Doctor D: “Hold on, you forgot the lungs!”
Doctor E: “Oh wait, did you know exactly you were supposed to do?”
Nervous silence across the room, only disturbed by an intermittent sound that seems to be going slower and slower.
Doctor E: “You were only supposed to take off his molar”
Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip.
On March 27th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Elisabetta - I have a huge amount of respect for our community’s talent on here. I’m not secretly stating that you are stealing another designer’s work or anything else for that matter. I don’t do hidden meanings. If I have something to say, I’ll come right out with it. The doctor analogies are now totally off point of this entire situation. This is a contest. One can join…or not. Those are the options. I’d suggest readers of this blog also check out Exquisite Corpse. (I did after the postings…) Wild. Now in that anyone can submit in any form and I am a writer - any artist can take off on the following if they want : a hypnosis wheel spinning out the RANDOM letters. Good luck to everyone. Lina
On March 28th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Would all of Nickelodeon’s artists please do a logo for my business for free? I’ll choose the one I want, and keep the copyright for myself and make lots of money with your help!
You’ll love working for free to make my business prosper!
On March 28th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Lina (and everybody else)- “The doctor analogies are now totally off point of this entire situation. “
Sure, now that I have demonstrated how a professional business like the one of designers shouldn’t be treated as a “open source/contest”, the doctor analogy is off point… Contests are off point. They shouldn’t exist. People can take drugs or they cannot. But just because they physically can, it doesn’t mean they should. Contests undermine the value of design. Just because they exist and people can join them, it doesn’t mean that they should. Anyway, the issues concerning spec competitions have been pointed out by others and are very clear.
On March 29th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Elisabetta, the reason the doctor analogies are off point is because one is a science dealing with medical situations and graphic design is a wholly different discipline, predominantly creative. I have absolute respect for both fields but it’s apples/oranges. Moving away from these two professions, comparing the decision to take drugs to entering a contest - that’s a stretch. Everyone understands the issues here - they will enter or not. A bit difficult to stop the inclusion of people in processes these days… Ok, second written suggestion for a logo: spinning pinwheel. Am associating randomness with spinning… a centrifuge - all elements thrown in; the best results filter to the top.
On April 1st, 2006 at 12:00 am
http://en.red-dot.org/1679.html
http://www.dexigner.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4192
On May 4th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Thanks Sterren, I’ve submitted this spec contest to FIDIUS.
On April 1st, 2006 at 12:00 am
Hey freelancers need work too. So it doesn’t pay scale for a logo. Hypocrites, if you don’t want to waste your time then why are you even posting. Shouldn’t you be working on your next design for the company you’re working at, so they can steal your work and use it to present to the client. With all of your rantings you could of created a quick logo while wasting your companys time…
On April 2nd, 2006 at 12:00 am
MJ is right. This should be viewed as a way for freelancers to get a foot in the door of a major network (building their portfolio), not a way to steal away work from already established graphic designers.
On April 2nd, 2006 at 12:00 am
I think the real issue was calling this an open source contest. Open source and contest are mutually exclusive. Open source = design modification that benefits the community. A contest exists purely for the business entity’s gain. It sounds like something a sycophant put in the boss’ ear… without thinking about the possible embarassment it could bring to an otherwise decent company.
On April 4th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Its a contest. Mabye Open source wasnt the right way to put it. Here this is what it is for all you pissed graphic designers. Logo competition. People submit their designs for a chance to have it picked. Its just a contest, Frederator has a huge community and theyre giving their fans a chance to make something for Frederator and they put it in the form of a contest. There should be no need for an argument. See, simple as that! If you graphic designers really have such a great problem dont enter. Dont post comments. dont even come to this blog. This was created for questions etc.. Frederator isnt putting graphic design to shape, ITS A CONTEST! chill out!! ok, open source wasnt the right way to explain, leave a comment or better, leave them an email saying what open source and how they should change the title of the post. You guys dont have to carry on for 50 posts . I hope this stops all “open-source” comments. Just dont enter if you dont like it. -Steve
On April 6th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I haven’t seen anyone submit new logos… has everyone run out of ideas? Also, how often do they put up the new posts? I’ve submited four new ones and I haven’t seen them up yet.
On June 14th, 2006 at 12:00 am
no thanks, I’am very creative artist and designer. A one time pay of a thousand dollars is not fair for something you gonna always use for ever, cmon…
On May 11th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
[…] might recall that last March we started a logo competition for our shorts show that had been first known as Oh Yeah! Cartoons Season 4 and then renamed by […]