Anyone else noticed 'Logo' as a category now at the top of the 123RF site, along with photos, vectors and footage?

http://www.123rf.com/logo/

The interesting thing about it is that the logo's aren't credited to anyone as far as I can see, so it seems like they might be in-house creations?

Also, they sell for 250 credits, and are a one-time sale. Part of the terms is that they will be exclusive, and 123RF will remove the file immediately after sale.

What are your thoughts?

So you design a logo, it sells for 250 credits, depending on your royalty level you might get 80 euro and you can never sell the logo again? Nice 80 pop, but I dont know if its worth it.

you might make more selling logos at 99 designs or wherever?

i had to chuckle at the descriptions: perfect, ingenious, cheerful and fancy. that may just become a new catchphrase for 2013.
"cheerful and fancy" lol

Quote from: Poncke on January 07, 2013, 23:01
So you design a logo, it sells for 250 credits, depending on your royalty level you might get 80 euro and you can never sell the logo again? Nice 80 pop, but I dont know if its worth it.

Thats just the thing - have contributors made these? There are no signs that they have. No accreditation to anyone, no links to portfolios. I am thinking these are in-house designs, thus its just 250 credits to 123RF entirely.

Quote from: Microstock Man on January 07, 2013, 23:06

Quote from: Poncke on January 07, 2013, 23:01
So you design a logo, it sells for 250 credits, depending on your royalty level you might get 80 euro and you can never sell the logo again? Nice 80 pop, but I dont know if its worth it.

Thats just the thing - have contributors made these? There are no signs that they have. No accreditation to anyone, no links to portfolios. I am thinking these are in-house designs, thus its just 250 credits to 123RF entirely.

Alright, gotcha. Well, I guess they can do whatever they please. 

Does anyone else remember the massive outcry from designers when iStock announced it was doing logos? As it turned out the whole thing was scrapped, and some of the designer concerns were overblown and not based on data, but there was a big worry that designers would no longer purchase from a site that they perceived was trying to take a portion of their business.

These all look very vanilla and not much variation in style - could they have purchased a collection from somewhere? Or outsourced the creation of unique vectors from some high volume "shop" that has a source of low-wage talent?

Is there lower wage talent than contributors to microstock?   

What a bunch of dreadful looking logo's: bland, overused shapes and ugly colors, no creativity, nothing. Symbols that can be interpreted in any way, for any industry possible.

Besides, getting $80 for a logo is an extremely low price.