So, I came across this article about the twitter bird actually being stock art from iStockphoto. It's an interesting article, but it seems as though the writer is a bit upset that Twitter did not hire the designer. I understand that there are many people looking for cheap work, especially when the economy is hurting, but the purpose of stock art is to let anyone use it under the license it was given. Stock art shouldn't be crappy images, but quality art to be used as a "tool" for the designer. If a designer has some quality work that they may not use or does not fit for where they are headed, why not make a couple bucks by having someone else license their work. It's all how it is used. If you slap items together, it will probably look terrible. It's only tools. Should companies hire designers to do what they want? Yes, but sometimes at the beginning it may not be the case. It still does take money to spend money.
Here is the article about the Twitter Bird.
Read Me
Here if you want to follow me on twitter.
http://twitter.com/joebarondesign
