I was contacted several months ago by an editor asking me if I’d like to submit some of my logo designs to be included in the so-called next best logo book called Logo Talks. Since I had only been working for a month or so, this seemed like a big deal. Delighted, I sent off twenty or so designs I had created; some for fun, some rejected crowdsourcing designs and maybe two or three real commissions. About a month later I received a PDF outline of the intended layout – I had generously been allocated twelve pages of work. Awesome.
Several months went by with no updates. I had checked the site only to realise the book had already been released, so got in contact with the editor who apologized and added me to the mailing list, free of charge. I understood that it may take another couple of months but that was okay – I was being published in a proper logo book.
I received the book yesterday and it looks great!
Well, they’ve cut my twelve pages down to four. That’s fine, I understand that’s what ‘editing’ is. What annoys me is that they removed the acknowledgement to myself totally. The contents page lists my work to be that of another designer, basically giving him credit. Obviously that’s not his fault. I had submitted a brief bio, with a link to my portfolio, which was retracted in its entirety.
At the end of the day, there is no use in complaining. In fact, I’m happy just to see a decent selection of my work in print alongside many well-respected and established designers. The book is moderately good – it’s a no-nonsense selection of logo designs that will act as both inspiration and reference in the future – and it was totally free!
I don’t know if I’d recommend it as the best logo book though. I’m pretty sure it’s a total rip-off of another book published this year with the same name from a different company (or at the least there is something dodgy going on). Furthermore, there is a DVD included which for some reason includes (in some cases) the original .AI files. I don’t know what designers sent them in but I’m pretty sure there’s some copyright issues being toyed with right there. I made sure I submitted .PNGs that had been metadata tagged and dated on my end. Oh well, whatever… I took some photos of my ‘four-page feature’ anyway. Have a look below.
If you were involved in this Logo Talks publication, or similar I would love to hear your experience – Is this a common practice or one dodgy logo book publisher trying to pull a fast-one?