Here’s the MGM Grand logo.

MGM Grand logo

And here’s a vector lion available for £29 from Shutterstock.

MGM Grand vector

Curious.

Via Creative Group.

Similar: Buy the iconic WWF panda for $69


Update #1:
Having just been threatened with legal action for the sale of the MGM Grand lion, and as the vector graphic in question has since been removed from Shutterstock, I think it’s safe to say who was in the wrong. If ever there was a reason not to use stock graphics in logos (or anywhere else?), this is it.

Update #2:
MGM apologised. No probs. Gotta do what we can.

#

November 21, 2011

Comments

At a quick glance I saw one small line had been removed from the original.

Perhaps this is the conscious of the rip off industry speaking.

“We will no longer make logos distinctly worse (WWF Panda) before we resell them. We will maintain the integrity of the original design.”

I meant conscience not conscious.

Note to self: drink coffee first – then post

Stijn, good point on quality of copy. I love the addition of the Shutterstock logo on the lion copy – is that to keep MGM Grand from stealing the logo back?

Really – it would help if someone would clarify which is the culprit. The idiot who used a piece of stock for the logo. Or the idiot who copied the logo for his piece of stock.

Step 1) Pirate copy of Adobe Illustrator

Step 2) Find logo to pirate > Right click > save.

Step 3) Open Illustrator > Place image on art board

Step 4) Click live trace > click expand > copy paths > save as “my design”

Step 5) Sell design/crowd source/contests > rake in cash > call yourself a “Professional Graphic Designer”

Step 6) Hire lawyer/disappear

I’m sure there is complex verbiage somewhere in the upload process that gives some sort of indemnity to these sites that “broker” stolen images so they either cannot or less likely to be sued. You cannot cover all the bases, but it makes it harder to go after them.

That $99.00 logo can wind up costing thousands of times the original cost and makes hiring a Pro designer look much cheaper.

I have some gritty, detailed experience with that logo. It is not a very clean vector. Maybe the shutterstock user just cleaned it up a little and offered the cleaner version for sale. It’s a lot cheaper than some designers would have charged to clean errant nodes.

Well, I don’t know which came first but I suspect the MGM version did, so it’s a simple, straightforward theft. The very few, very minor alterations are no where near enough to avoid a blatant copyright infringement suit. Lawyer up guys! Some people’s balls are bigger than their brains eh? If on the other hand MGMs logo uses a $29 Shutterstock image I’d love to know A: how much they paid their designers for the logo and B: how they can TM it…..?

Having just been threatened with legal action for the sale of the MGM Grand lion, and as the vector graphic in question has since been removed from Shutterstock, I think it’s safe to say who was in the wrong. If ever there was a reason not to use stock graphics in logos (or anywhere else?), this is it.

@David – I’m pretty sure it’s against the licensing agreement to use stock from Shutterstock or iStock as the main element of a logo. Though I can’t throw any stones in that direction. But something as high profile as this shows just a tiny lapse of judgement.

Joe: You wrote,
“An absolutely incredible feat of nothing… there must be some kind of witty Zen quote for this somewhere?” How about “Trampling Feat Faces Defeat?”

Share a thought