Eighth Annual GamesBids Olympic Logo Design Contest **Official thread/Fil officiel**

[Sir Rols]

I'd put that in the category of clip art. I've got no problems with clip art. My Abuja elephants were clip art.

[mr.bernham]

I honestly have never seen those in my life, I did use a similar image and based my design off of it, but using origami in my logo was something I wanted to do from the beginning.

[Victor Mata]

My Toronto city hall with snow flakes/trillium was accused so fast back then...

[Sir Rols]

A few thoughts.

I know these comps get very competitive. And some take them very seriously, perhaps too seriously. And we've got a literal army of very knowledgeable, interested and engaged people, who really know their Olympic graphics and logos and who are pretty well second-to-none at spotting where an inspiration, template or image originally came from. I don't think much would escape the board's logo crowdsourcing expertise.

There's also a lot of sensitivity towards the notion of plagiarism or copying of ideas and art from other sources - from past "real world" logos or other graphics or artworks. The trouble is, it's a really fine line at times between where "inspiration" ends and straight-out plagiarism ends. When does a clip art of a city skyline or landmark, a snowflake, an origami, an elephant or a previous bid logo element cross the line to being a rip-off of someone's else's idea? It's one of those things that you'd be struggling to set an objective yardstick to, but we'd all have our own inistinctive idea of whether it is original enough or not when we see it on the screen. Like last year, I'm inclined to let the debates play out here on the merits and originality of the entered logos, and leave the onus on the voters in the end to decide on how it influences their choices. I didn't disallow Scotguy's or Victor Mata's original logos last year - both did produce some take of their own in their submissions. But I think both also felt the voters were unlikely to think they transformed them enough.

Looking at Mr Benham's above, I'd still put that as a legitimate application of clip art. I really don't have any problem with it But I suppose what complicates it a bit is that the clip art portion is so dominant. It's up to Mr Bernham, and voters, to decide if the his rendering and backstory context give it that extra original comp-winning X Factor.

...

Now looking at woohooitsme83's take on Mr Bernham's original. I like it. It certainly developed and transformed more the original source graphics. It got me thinking (that's dangerous!).

One of the issues some people have had with the comps, and which I recognise and have really thought long and hard about over the past few years, is the natural bias towards slick execution. Let's face it, some people have better graphic skills and/or software tools, than others. And it's to be expected and understandable that slicker and more professionally polished designs tend to fare better in the voting than those not as professionally executed. And I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that - we want the best, after all. But to some it's a barrier.

Baron, for example, has actually had some bloody good ideas amongst his submissions in various comps, but he doesn't have the digital graphics tools or expertise to put his pen and paper doodles into a polished form. And I know a lot of others are in the same boat and feel a bit intimidated putting their amateur efforts up against the graphics whizzes' ones. I say each year how brave I think the entrants always are. The trouble is, there's not a lot one can do short of encouraging people to try and really consider and look at the ideas in the logos as much as how well they've been done. I sure wouldn't want to wade into the minefield of having "amateur" and "professional" sections and deciding who goes into which.

Here's a suggestion. If you'd like to enter a logo but feel intimidated, or have done a design but worry that the best of your graphic abilities aren't up to scratch to shape up against other more slickly produced ones, I'd still encourage you to be brave and show us your ideas/submissions and, if you want, say whether you're open to anyone trying their hand at making it look "studio" polished. There's plenty of idle excess graphic talent here who'd likely be only too quick and happy to give their take on your original or idea and act as Graphics Angels. They can post it here, or to you privately, and you can then decide whether to proceed or not with your original, or go with the glossed-up version, in which case you will give your Graphic Angel co-credit for the submission (whether or not the Angel wants to accept co-credit is up to them). Of course, no-one's beholden to help out. Those who call on Angels will more likely attract help if their original idea or mock-up is one that intrigues and attracts such attention.

Entrants asking for help can only submit one co-credited entry (i.e., they can't submit five multiple variations of the same idea touched up by five Angels). Or in the 2022 section, only one co-credited per city. On the Angels' side, you can still submit your own entries as normal. You can offer your "help" to anyone, or as many, as ask for it. But it's up to them if they want to go with your version, and, as I said, whether you want to accept the co-credit for it or not.

In other words, if you ask for the Angels' help, that will be your entry if you get one's help and decide to go with it, and you will acknowledge that help. If you offer your help, you can do so as often as you want in addition your own personal entry.

Or alternatively. And maybe simplest, but a little bit more restrictive. Just: Everyone can submit up to two entries, one of their own, and one collaboration.

What do you all think? Can anybody spot any problems or loopholes with that?

[krow]

oh my god i didn't read any of that ****.

[mr.bernham]

A few thoughts.

I know these comps get very competitive. And some take them very seriously, perhaps too seriously. And we've got a literal army of very knowledgeable, interested and engaged people, who really know their Olympic graphics and logos and who are pretty well second-to-none at spotting where an inspiration, template or image originally came from. I don't think much would escape the board's logo crowdsourcing expertise.

There's also a lot of sensitivity towards the notion of plagiarism or copying of ideas and art from other sources - from past "real world" logos or other graphics or artworks. The trouble is, it's a really fine line at times between where "inspiration" ends and straight-out plagiarism ends. When does a clip art of a city skyline or landmark, a snowflake, an origami, an elephant or a previous bid logo element cross the line to being a rip-off of someone's else's idea? It's one of those things that you'd be struggling to set an objective yardstick to, but we'd all have our own inistinctive idea of whether it is original enough or not when we see it on the screen. Like last year, I'm inclined to let the debates play out here on the merits and originality of the entered logos, and leave the onus on the voters in the end to decide on how it influences their choices. I didn't disallow Scotguy's or Victor Mata's original logos last year - both did produce some take of their own in their submissions. But I think both also felt the voters were unlikely to think they transformed them enough.

Looking at Mr Benham's above, I'd still put that as a legitimate application of clip art. I really don't have any problem with it But I suppose what complicates it a bit is that the clip art portion is so dominant. It's up to Mr Bernham, and voters, to decide if the his rendering and backstory context give it that extra original comp-winning X Factor.

...

Now looking at woohooitsme83's take on Mr Bernham's original. I like it. It certainly developed and transformed more the original source graphics. It got me thinking (that's dangerous!).

One of the issues some people have had with the comps, and which I recognise and have really thought long and hard about over the past few years, is the natural bias towards slick execution. Let's face it, some people have better graphic skills and/or software tools, than others. And it's to be expected and understandable that slicker and more professionally polished designs tend to fare better in the voting than those not as professionally executed. And I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that - we want the best, after all. But to some it's a barrier.

Baron, for example, has actually had some bloody good ideas amongst his submissions in various comps, but he doesn't have the digital graphics tools or expertise to put his pen and paper doodles into a polished form. And I know a lot of others are in the same boat and feel a bit intimidated putting their amateur efforts up against the graphics whizzes' ones. I say each year how brave I think the entrants always are. The trouble is, there's not a lot one can do short of encouraging people to try and really consider and look at the ideas in the logos as much as how well they've been done. I sure wouldn't want to wade into the minefield of having "amateur" and "professional" sections and deciding who goes into which.

Here's a suggestion. If you'd like to enter a logo but feel intimidated, or have done a design but worry that the best of your graphic abilities aren't up to scratch to shape up against other more slickly produced ones, I'd still encourage you to be brave and show us your ideas/submissions and, if you want, say whether you're open to anyone trying their hand at making it look "studio" polished. There's plenty of idle excess graphic talent here who'd likely be only too quick and happy to give their take on your original or idea and act as Graphics Angels. They can post it here, or to you privately, and you can then decide whether to proceed or not with your original, or go with the glossed-up version, in which case you will give your Graphic Angel co-credit for the submission (whether or not the Angel wants to accept co-credit is up to them). Of course, no-one's beholden to help out. Those who call on Angels will more likely attract help if their original idea or mock-up is one that intrigues and attracts such attention.

Entrants asking for help can only submit one co-credited entry (i.e., they can't submit five multiple variations of the same idea touched up by five Angels). Or in the 2022 section, only one co-credited per city. On the Angels' side, you can still submit your own entries as normal. You can offer your "help" to anyone, or as many, as ask for it. But it's up to them if they want to go with your version, and, as I said, whether you want to accept the co-credit for it or not.

In other words, if you ask for the Angels' help, that will be your entry if you get one's help and decide to go with it, and you will acknowledge that help. If you offer your help, you can do so as often as you want in addition your own personal entry.

Or alternatively. And maybe simplest, but a little bit more restrictive. Just: Everyone can submit up to two entries, one of their own, and one collaboration.

What do you all think? Can anybody spot any problems or loopholes with that?

I would just like to clarify that I made my logo using pixlr. I had inspiration from origami graphics, but I did not copy them on to my logo. I understand the work and time others put into this and the work and time others put into the images of inspiration. I think using clip art is in ways plagarism because someone, somewhere took the time to make that clip art that you will use to win a competition, maybe if people source the clip art they used and note that it was made using clip art then it would not be so bad, but not doing that I feel disregards the work someone put to make it.

For a lot of the designers here, graphic design is a source of income and they take this stuff very seriously. Especially plagiarism which in this day in age is so easy to do, anyone could go and find a logo, copy the url, and post it here then pass it off as their own work. So I can understand why many here are against others using clip art and going on to 'win'. In many ways it is wrong and downright inconsiderate. For me this stuff is a hobby and my skills have grown and I have learned to make better art, but I would be offended and appalled if someone took my work and passed it off as their own. I know in many countries the moment you put something online it is protected by copyright so even clip-art without sourcing it could be considered plagiarism.

In the same breath there is a certain expectation for the logo's to be very refined, polished, and professional looking. I can see how some find this intimidating (it is) and will resort to clip art to make their logos look better. For me it only pushed me to improve my skills and become a better graphic designer, seeing the works by asimango and Paul and Davey really inspired me to become better.

I think the answer to this though is instead to make people cite if they used clip art and where it came from. If someone does not do this and instead genuinely passes it off as their own then all we can do is trust them and that their work is their own (unless of course one of the NSA guys finds it somewhere online). I think making everyone do a collaboration logo would not be the answer, but I think allowing people to do that would be a very cool thing and maybe help.

[mr.bernham]

It certainly looks heavily inspired, but I wouldn't go off flagging it as plagiarism just yet.

Also in case you were wondering how I made it I used the snipping tools to create different shaped and angled triangles then colored them in dark and light shades of red. After that I brought them together to form the shape of a bird using this image as a guide. Then I changed the colors by adjusting the hue, saturation, and light.

[krow]

so it took you five times as long to create something exactly the same as the clip art you could have just copy-pasted. mm okay.

[thatsnotmypuppy]

I say plagiarise like all fuckk. The vote decides the winner - not some stupid Canadian's whining.

[barrack]

My submission for Anchorage 2022 is the Anchor Snowflake. It's an homage to the city's nautical heritage (as evidenced by the city flag) and colors usually in local art.

[Olympic Fan Darcy]

It's ok Rols i'll back you up and submit an attempt which will look awful (unintentionally) and probably come dead last.... again. Hopefully that motivates others to join

[Olympic Fan Darcy]

I say plagiarise like all fuckk. The vote decides the winner - not some stupid Canadian's whining.

I do hope this will pull 1 like at least It took me a lot of effort to google Tokyo 2020, save the image, upload to photobucket and post it here. #nohateplease

[baron-pierreIV]

Baron, for example, has actually had some bloody good ideas amongst his submissions in various comps, but he doesn't have the digital graphics tools or expertise to put his pen and paper doodles into a polished form.

Thanks, mate. I might be all logo-ed out of ideas this year and/or have other pressing deadlines; i.e., have actually been getting articles published monthly in an online magazine (with actual pay); had a reading of (Act I) of a new play, etc., etc. Plus I do get tired of the totally juvenile and misplaced judgmental stance of certain posters here. So...am getting quite scarce here.

[krow]

Plus I do get tired of the totally juvenile and misplaced judgmental stance of certain posters here. So...am getting quite scarce here.

krow thinks it's weird when baron refers to himself in the third person. krow doesn't believe baron is going anywhere, except maybe the michael brown thread to write a race-baiting tirade he only kind of means that would make stormfront blush.

[Sir Rols]

Anchorage 2022 (submission 2) by Usa2024olympics

[krow]

plagiarized.

[thatsnotmypuppy]

[barrack]

And another...

This is my submission for Santiago 2022. It's a ski run through a mountain valley, shaped like an "S."

I picked the colors from the city flag.

I'm churning these out because I'm holed up at a hotel with nothing to do while I wait out a typhoon. This comp has been a welcome way to spend my time and keep my mind on better things.

Thanks!

And there will probably be more to come.

[Olympic Fan Darcy]

See everyone even a 5 year old can submit an entry!

[baron-pierreIV]

Did Cairo ditch that logo??

[barrack]

Okay, now I'm getting a bit cheeky.

[Palette86]

It's interesting that most of the members are using something natural .

When I hear the word "Tokyo",I always have images such as Kabuki actor's stage make-up,office buildings,fireworks in Sumida ward,Sumo wrestling,Sanja Matsuri(=festival) at Asakusa.

[Griff]

My Tokyo 2020 submission. The circle symbolize the sun (like the one in the flag), inside the circle is cherry blossom petals created from modified Ginkgo leaves logo (Tokyo's symbol). The petals' end shaped like "V" which resembles swallow tail (good luck symbol in Japan). I don't intend to create hidden star in the middle but yeah whatever

[baron-pierreIV]

I like that, Barrack. It's actually pretty clever and witty!!

***************************************************

My first entry:

[mr.bernham]

And another...

This is my submission for Santiago 2022. It's a ski run through a mountain valley, shaped like an "S."

I picked the colors from the city flag.

I'm churning these out because I'm holed up at a hotel with nothing to do while I wait out a typhoon. This comp has been a welcome way to spend my time and keep my mind on better things.

Thanks!

And there will probably be more to come.

This looks great, I love the style of the S.