1) A discovery of a logo in the LogoWorks company portfolio which is a direct rip from a logo by Mark Fox - LOGOWORKS.com or LOGOWORST.com?
2) HOW forum members look closely at LogoWorks and come up with more, which are included in LOGOWORKS.COM RIP-OFFS.
3) 'The Prepared Mind' becomes the top blog/podcaster during the saga, coining the phrase 'LogoWorks or LogoJERKS?'
4) CMO, LogoWorks steps in and starts posting on the HOW mag forum. The exchange quickly deteriorates. "Now you went and pissed our designers off."
6) Interview with a LogoWorks designer "I know for a fact that a regular practice is to find a logo that already exists and merely change it a bit and send it off.."
7) LogoWorks states they are putting better checks and balances into play, but "our sheer volume (over 30,000 customers) makes this issue particularly challenging for us" will indeed be an interesting challenge. I imagine many people around the internet will be watching to see what exactly gets put into place as it seems a near on impossible task to accomplish given their business model (see Robert Wurth's article LogoWorks: Who is to Blame? for a rounded look at the problem).
The readers here might be interested in seeing a letter Robert Wurth wrote to Laura Ries in response to her LogoWorks comments, Jeff's "official" LW comments that she posted, and the harsh treatment she received on her blog:
Hi Laura,
First of all, although I didn't specifically see the abuse posted to your blog, I do regret that some designers felt the need to resort to such behavior. I think that many within our community have a justifiable beef with companies like LogoWorks, but acting in such an unprofessional manner is not going to sway anyone's opinion.
I read the message from Jeff Kearl that you posted, and while it was well-written, I think it still leaves some unanswered questions regarding LogoWorks and their practices.
Before I continue, I want to point you to the message Jeff posted to the HOW design forum, in case you wish to reference some of my comments against his. Jeff is posting under the name "tsheet" and his posting on the page linked is the longest, so it should be easy to spot.
I know that the topic I'm pointing you to is insanely long, but I would strongly encourage you to read through Jeff's subsequent posts as well. I know that in this initial message, the message he posted to Chris Gee on his blog and in his letter to you, he comes across as very well-spoken, but this attitude seems to degenerate the more he posted to HOW. Yes, he was under some very harsh attacks, but for an "ethical" company, I would think this would be all the more reason to maintain strict professionalism in public responses. This does not seem to be the case -- but you should form your own opinions after reading all of his public responses in this issue.
One thing that Jeff does state a number of times is that LogoWorks maintains a strict policy regarding originality. He says that they take the subject of plagiarism very seriously. I certainly hope this is the case, and to their credit, LogoWorks did immediately remove from their site all of the images that set this whole thing off.
However, this issue is still bothersome. The LogoWorks model calls for multiple designers (located off-site, mind you) to create a number of designs in a very short amount of time -- 3 days is their advertised timeline. Furthermore, Jeff claims that LogoWorks has created more than 250,000 unique images. By his own admission, the issue of "borrowed" designs has come up in the past and now it has come up again. And LogoWorks intends to grow, meaning that they will have even more logos running through their system, following the same path of quick turnaround.
I can applaud their desire for originality. What I can't do is believe they can maintain it. I simply see no way for them to adequately police that volume of logos. The problem is that this isn't simply an ordinary QA issue. We're talking about logos here -- the IDENTITY of companies. The potential for trademark infringements and intellectual property violations could be devastating. There will always be designers within the LogoWorks community who will cheat in order to win contracts (in this day and age, some of these designers are so naive that they don't even realize that taking an existing design is illegal). So LogoWorks will forever be playing "catch up" with respect to policing their system -- and with the volume of logos, there will inevitably be thefts that slip through the cracks and at the numbers Jeff refers to, even a small number by LogoWorks standards is considerable.
It just all boils back down to that quick turnaround time. It simply isn't possible to check for originality in that timeframe. Ad agencies may not be perfect, but they are far better equipped to take the necessary time to protect their clients. I just don't see how it could be considered responsible for a magazine such as Entrepreneur, which is such a strong proponent of starting a business RIGHT, to endorse gambling so much on logo design.
My second issue with Jeff's response to all of this is that he claims LogoWorks doesn't intend to infringe upon the market of ad agencies. His position is that LogoWorks is intended to serve a niche market -- the smaller businesses that don't need an in-depth branding solution provided by agencies.
If this were true, I could accept it, but the language LogoWorks uses in their marketing would seem to contradict this. Every step of the way, they compare themselves to "design firms." They claim to provide the same service -- in fact, their web site specifically states that the LogoWorks designers provide "higher quality logo design" at a better price. They promote having done work for Disney-affiliated companies and other corporations that hardly qualify for the definition of "smaller businesses."
Admittedly, LogoWorks is free to pursue any market they wish. The problem is when they issue public statements contradictory to their actions.
I don't, by any means, intend to suggest that LogoWorks should be shut down or anything so drastic. If their actions prove to be legally wrong, it will get taken care of and that's that. I do, however, think that there needs to be a more balanced approach to them. Most responses from the media (including your own comments) suggest that very little, if any, background information is done on LogoWorks prior to writing articles about them. Doesn't that seem a little risky, considering that you're suggesting a business should consider this company to create their logo?
The risks of using LogoWorks should be as plainly spelled out as the benefits. A business owner should know how the system works and that there have been problems with unoriginal logos. It should be made clear that, due to the nature of quick turnaround times, that even if a logo doesn't implicitly violate copyright law, that it may be "generic" enough to prevent it from being officially trademarked. In short, the LogoWorks service should be presented as fairly as any other business venture -- and not blindly praised.
I appreciate your taking the time to read this.
Sincerely,
-- Robert
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert Wurth | Creative Director
Freshly Squeezed Design
