So the web design community is all up in a huff over this company, LogoMaid, who has crafted logos that look a lot like those from Apple, GodBit, and SimpleBits. My take? People should relax.
Yes, these guys are rip-off artists. Yes, it’s pathetic and lame. Yes, I would probably be irritated if they stole my work, too. But, if you stop and think about this logically instead of reacting so emotionally, you have to ask yourself: how does this hurt Apple? How does it hurt GodBit? How does it hurt Dan Cederholm? Answer: it doesn’t.
The kind of thing can only hurt two groups of people. The first is LogoMaid themselves, who clearly are going to have their business ruined over this. But who cares? They brought it upon themselves. The second is companies or people who have purchased LogoMaid’s work. These people were manipulated and conned into paying for something that could get them sued. They have good reason to be very angry, as LogoMaid — at the very least — has cost them money, and at the worst could cost them a lawsuit from Apple.
But Dan, GodBit, and Apple are not hurt by this. Not one bit. So while it’s perfectly understandable that they would be irritated, I’d suggest they shake it off and relax a bit. You’re not really going to let a third-rate rip-off artist get you down, are you?
001 // Nik Steffen // 03.25.2007 // 7:52 AM
I don’t think the reason behind this outcry is that people believe that SimpleBits will lose hundreds of dollars worth of revenue. I think it is because of how the Logomaid owner/representative responded on the Flickr group. All this could have been over very quickly had he taken the logo down. Instead he decided to wage an argument about the ownership rights, even accusing Dan of ripping him off.
I think the reason this has caused such a massive response is because people are sick of seeing others pass off work that is not their own as such, even trying to make a profit out of them, not out of concern for the original creator.
002 // Baxter // 03.26.2007 // 8:39 AM
I’d tend to agree with Nik. They COULD have just taken the logos down, the whole furor would have died down quickly and they’d be a tiny footnote, same as all the other design thieves. Instead, they chose to get snippy, and a lot of folks just can’t back away from fight, especially when they know they’re right.
003 // Brian Ford // 03.26.2007 // 9:05 AM
I dunno, Jeff — it feels like you’re taking the Devil’s Advocate position just for the sake of taking the Devi’s Advocate position.
The above comments pretty much nail the crux of the problem. Not only is the bastard a rip-off artist: He’s c0cky (that word isn’t allowed?!) and absurd about it when caught.
And, sometimes (as an artist) it’s not really about whether you’re hurt or not — it becomes an issue of principle: Slaving over a work to get it just right to find that someone else has co-opted your effort without providing “any” of their own. On top of that, they’re churning it out for next to nothing to anyone who’s willing to pay. That’s messed (I initially used a stronger word) up, and the person whose effort has been stolen deserves to be pissed off about it.
Still, no one appears to be trying to sue logomaid for damages — the goal appears to be to bury the company, based on sullying their reputation. Seems fair.
And, frankly — anyone who would buy a ready-made logo (with no promises that said logo won’t be sold to multiple buyers) probably isn’t going feel “hurt” if they find out that they bought a ready-made logo that was ripped off of another logo.
004 // Jeff Croft // 03.26.2007 // 10:24 AM
Sorry, I had to add the word “c0ck” to my profanities list because of a comment spam attack with comments that had that word in it.
005 // Jeff Croft // 03.26.2007 // 10:26 AM
You guys seem o have gotten the wrong idea. I’m not sticking up for LogoMaid here at all. Obviously, they’re pathetic rip-off artists. I’m just saying that getting all bent out of shape over it doesn’t help. These guys are basically like artistic trolls. They obviously thrive on this kind of attention — so why give it to them?
006 // Baxter // 03.26.2007 // 10:52 AM
I didn’t think you were sticking up for the scumbags, just saying why I think the issue won’t go away… they won’t let it.
So, they’re scumbags, and stupid to boot. If I was in their shoes (and I pray I never am), I’d get rid of the logo as quickly as possible and hope like hell the whole thing blew over quickly.
007 // Jeff Croft // 03.26.2007 // 10:58 AM
So would I — but I’m not a troll (and neither are you). :)
008 // dotsara // 03.26.2007 // 6:16 PM
But if it’s just the designer(s) who are bent out of shape, they look like whiny designers. Easily ignored and worked-around. But if it’s a community of people sort of up-in-arms and spreading the word about a rotten company, it’s more effective. Yes?
009 // Jeff Croft // 03.26.2007 // 6:30 PM
Definitely a good point, Sara. :)
010 // Nathan Smith // 03.26.2007 // 8:38 PM
I figured I should chime in here. I’m really not that upset, at least not as much as people might think. In my conversations with the LogoMaid people, I told them that their circular logic and attempts to justify themselves was mostly entertaining. I posted about it not because I’m bitter.
Rather, it’s more of a public-service announcement, so that if any unsuspecting person is thinking about purchasing something from LogoMaid, and has the forethought to do a quick Google search, it will save them the time and effort of realizing they bought a rip-off, down the road.
It’s like I said on my site: Had this been an isolated incident, it would have been no big deal. Being that these people are making bank off the hard work of others, and the true victim is the end-consumer of pilfered goods - That, I will not stand for. Thanks though, Jeff - for putting things in perspective and helping to keep my motivations in balance. I respect your viewpoint, even when we disagree.
011 // Jeff Croft // 03.26.2007 // 9:44 PM
I don’t think we actually disagree that much, Nathan. Like you said, you didn’t post about it because you were bitter — and even if you had, I would understand, because I would probably be bitter, too.
I definitely think that potential LogoMaid customers should be forewarned, and that’s a lot of the reason I went ahead and linked the story here on this site.
I’m not sure how much it’s happened in this particular case (I haven’t read all the threads about it), but I think there is a tendency for designers to put up straw-man arguments when this sort of “identity theft” happens — i.e. “You are causing confusion in the marketplace!” and “You’re devaluing my brand!,” when in reality there’s no good evidence that either of these things happens.
I just felt compelled to point out that this doesn’t actually hurt the original designer’s of the logo at all — the only people it really hurt is LogoMaid’s customers. It sounds like we basically agree on that.
But, as you said — even if/when we don’t agree, I of course respect your opinion! :)
012 // Ben // 03.27.2007 // 9:34 PM
I disagree Jeff.
You mention that this does not hurt Dan Cederholm. However as you are probably aware, Dan is in the business of selling icons as well as his design services.
If LogoMaid started selling Dan’s Stockholm or Chameleon collections, would you still argue that they are not hurting his business?
013 // Jeff Croft // 03.27.2007 // 9:45 PM
Uhmm, LogoMaid isn’t selling Dan’s icons, so I don’t see how this is relevant. Of course it would hurt Dan if they were doing that — but they aren’t!
014 // Ben // 03.27.2007 // 10:35 PM
Granted.
But how long would it be before LogoMaid started doing this if Dan were just to “shake it off and relax a bit”
015 // Ben // 03.27.2007 // 10:37 PM
Ultimately it is worth getting upset over. These things must be pointed out and made a big deal of, because it is just not OK.
LogoMaid deserves every bit of bad press they get.
016 // Jeff Croft // 03.27.2007 // 11:24 PM
I dunno. And neither do you.
Which is why I pointed it out and made a big deal of it on my site. I want LogoMaid to get the bad press. I’m adding to it — can’t you tell?
What I don’t want is for web designers to confuse Dan Cederholm and GodBit for the victims here. They’re not the victims. The victims are the customers that bought the copied logo.
The reason there should be bad press about LogoMaid is not to stick up for Dan and Nathan (both of whom are friends of mine) — Dan and Nathan don’t need to be stuck up for, because they haven’t been harmed. The reason there should be bad press about LogoMaid is to prevent more potential customers of theirs from being ripped off.
Yes, but why? Why are you upset? If you’re upset because customes are being taken advantage of, then great! So am I! If you’re upset because Dan and Nathan have somehow been harmed by this, I’d have to argue with you on that one. They’re not lost any money or brand reputation over this. Perhaps they lost a bit of time in dealing with LogoMaid, but that’s the only tangible loss to Dan and Nathan I see.
So yes, it’s worth getting upset over — just make sure you’re upset for the right reasons.
017 // David T Brown // 04.03.2007 // 12:32 PM
Guys, check this out: http://www.templatemonster.com/logo-set/6983.html http://www.logomaid.com/detail.php?uid=253&maincat=2
Seems logomaid has the same logos as templatemonster (the logo sets). The godbit logo seem to be there too, but now I ask myself if templatemonster stole the logo from godbit too…or godbit didn’t say the truth regarding the originality of his logotype…as the logos at templatemonster seem to be there for at least 2-3 years.
When you’ll get rid of one square (TM logo), you’ll get the godbit logotype.
I would say logomaid and templatemonster bought the same logos…
So when templatemonster had that logo 2-3 years ago..it’s quite possible logomaid had too (nr 253 in the collection). Now when did godbit come up with the new logo? When it should be an original..it has to be here for more than 3 years.