Graphic designer

tpcptpcp subscriber Posts: 4
edited April 2007 in Marketing
If you engage a graphic designer to design a logo for you, would you expect to receive a logo that is unique, created some scratch? What would you think if they used stock images in the logo and didn`t put any of their own effort into making the logo.

Comments

  • LisaLLisaL subscriber Posts: 0
    Yes, it should be completely original. Unfortunately, a lot of people are going to the "logo mills" and are getting generic logos. A professional graphic designer will ask a lot of questions and will educate you on the process before designing begins.Lisa
  • ToddFToddF subscriber Posts: 3
    While I agree with others here, the logo should be original I have found that sometimes I might use stock art for the orginal rounds of concept. Sometimes theres just not enough time in the day to create say 5 different characters for a design so I might use some stock art to show an example, let`s call it a rough concept. Now there`s no way the image will stay, but the concept is relayed effectively and I didn`t eat up 30 hrs on something thats not going to be used. Once the design is selected there are several rounds of fine tuning that follow and in this phase is where that stock art is replaced with a custom tailored image.
    Now if the designer handed off a final desgin and stock art was used, I hope you didn`t pay very much.ToddF2007-4-18 11:32:38
  • LisaLLisaL subscriber Posts: 0
    I think there`s a difference between "using stock art" and just "pasting up stock art".I mean, if you`re just tossing images in there, that sucks. But say, if you take a stock photo of an apple, and then use the isolated apple and some treatments to make a logo, I don`t consider that to be bad.I`m probably saying this wrong. I just know that my artist uses a lot of his own photos and photos he purchases, but then when he`s done with them in the mockup (this is one of the latest examples), they look nothing like "just pasting up a stock photo".
    Using stock images for a layout is entirely different than using it for a company`s logo. Any business that commissions a logo expects to own the copyrights to that logo. (With most other collateral materials, the designer retains the rights.) A "designer" using clip art in a logo does not have the legal right to hand over the copyrights. So the logo doesn`t really belong to the company that paid for it. Yet another reason to hire a professional designer. LisaLisaL2007-4-18 19:19:3
  • mchutchmchutch subscriber Posts: 7
    Yes, a logo should be unique and original to a company or organization.
    If you are working with a professional designer that is a given.
    It also depends on what you paid for. Comissioning original illustration is
    like comissioning original art, it costs money because it takes more time
    and effort. Just like original designs costs more because it takes more
    time, original thinking and concepting.
    There is the old adage, you get what you pay for or even better you get
    what you invest. If you don`t invest in your brand image then I would not
    expect a great return. That said, I don`t know why a designer would use a
    stock image in a logo. A logo is an symbol for a company. It is not
    supposed to be a detailed illustration or a photo. A logo is a graphic mark
    that identifies you.

    There is also a difference between royalty-free and rights-managed stock
    art. Royalty-free means you pay a fee and use the image as you wish,so
    can thousands of other people. Clip art usually falls into the royalty-free
    realm. Rights-managed stock art fees are determined by the usage,
    quantity and length of time of usage and thus the fees are significantly
    more. Neither option generally allows for exclusive usage of an image
    unless you negotiate with the stock company exclusive usage rights and
    the fees are generally pretty expensive. You might as well comission
    original illustration art or a photo shoot.
Sign In or Register to comment.