Hacker News Reader

Comment by sgdesign | Hacker News Reader

I think you can disrupt the design industry without setting up a structure that condones plagiarism.

So I would argue that http://studio.envato.com/ or even http://www.squarespace.com/logo/ are better examples of your point.

View on HN

I would seriously doubt actual plagiarism is going on here.

Places like istockphoto and 123rf sell royalty free logos - which you can purchase the upgraded license terms which allow you to resell works with that deseign/image.[1]

[1] http://www.123rf.com/license_summary.php

Last line in the license summary link you provided says:

4. Please be aware that all usage of vector icons as company logo is prohibited.

We don't know whether these people are paying for each image, but at $5 for a "custom" logo, I doubt they can afford to purchase the rights for each image. Yes, if all of their logos were clouds it would work, but that's not very likely.

If we're to accuse someone of plagiarism, we have to present the evidence. Onus is on the accuser. OP has done a disservice to his cause by not providing any evidence.

Automatically assuming plagiarism due to a low price-point is pretty dumb. This is a legitimate website, and plagiarism would be a massive risk for business. If they sell 100 logos a day -- that more than pays for the extended licenses. (They could even be getting bulk deals, going directly to the original creator, special licensing agreements to move more stock, etc).

> plagiarism

Did I miss something in the article? I thought these designers were using royalty-free designs. That's not plagiarism, is it?

It is plagiarism. Plagiarism is using the content of others without appropriate attribution. Copyright infringement is using the content of others without the rights to it. Copying can be either, neither, or both.

Whether attribution is needed is situational but in a 'design' context it's important.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com