Skip to content ↓

25/01/08

Coversourcing: Update

Update: See comments for an update on eligibility and location - we’re working on it!

Well, it’s getting busy out there. We’ve got 61 entries so far, with more coming every day.

This busy-ness is not without its problems however - we’ve already lost a few noble entrants out there. Some bowed out for unknown reasons (possibly because of some of the tough things being said in some of the comments - play nice guys - while others have ducked out because they were told (by the crowd) that their use of stock imagery had been used on previously published book jackets.

And on that note - a word about stock. The terms and conditions make it clear that entrants must:

be (a) the undisputed original work of the entrant, and (b) previously unpublished. Entries must not be unlawful or breach any third party right. Entrants will acquire the prior written consent of all relevant rights owners and all licensed work must be clearly and accurately accredited.

Now, we know a lot of you are designers (including one of you who said that being a designer means you “don’t read things like briefs”, let alone terms and conditions) - but this stuff is important. We know because Random House’s lawyers said so. This - along with the non-eligibility of non-UK residents - is probably the most important rule.

However, we know this may be crippling some of your creativity - those of who who prefer to use stock than originating your own imagery. So we’ve got RH to agree that you can use stock imagery so long as you provide the information we’ll need to clear it. Of course, if it’s out of the park expensive, it won’t wash, and this will be taken into consideration by the panel, and you won’t win. So really, the most original (read: originated) designs / illustrations / photos have an advantage, but we thought we’d clear this up.

The upshot is: please add a comment to your entry on this site citing (and linking to) the source for the image.

Other great news is that we’ve had our first collaborative-minded submission, with pagalina posting her artwork for others to build from. More please!

We also have our first LOLcatz entry.

Finally a word about comments. It’s great how vocal (and in the vast majority of cases, constructive and positive) you are all being. But there have been some fairly uncalled-for attacks on entries, which really isn’t what we’re looking for. Anyone can enter, anyone can comment - and anyone can win. So - please keep it polite and constructive - and keep it coming!

Posted by Peter Collingridge in Apt Studio work, Design, coversourcing.

  1. # Comment by pagalina @ 3:22 pm, January 25, 2008:

    On the eligibility of entrants by location, I’m not sure why a project on crowdsourcing wouldn’t access a global group of designers. Limiting to UK + Ireland, i’m sure is easier than say dealing with customs/language/etc from a entrant in Timbuktu, but isn’t that the very nature of the ‘net to be international?

  2. # Comment by yahoowonder @ 4:23 pm, January 25, 2008:

    Yikes! I’m not from the UK. I guess that would mean I’m out of the running :( Didn’t read that part I suppose. Hope you reconsider…

  3. # Comment by Brady @ 5:57 pm, January 25, 2008:

    Yes, I feel that that the location restrictions should have been made very clear (IN BIG BOLD LETTERING) from the beginning. Why not make this item # 1 on “The Rules” page, not tucked away somewhere in the Terms and Conditions. The nature of the crowd is that it is heterogeneous – especially so on the internet. Why limit the pool of contestants, and why limit them to one geographic area? You should have at least forced contestants to register, using a mailing address, so that you could have alerted contestants that they were ineligible. Perhaps a way around the legal complications would be to stipulate that prize money would not be paid out to contestants outside of the UK and Ireland.

  4. # Comment by Peter Collingridge @ 6:30 pm, January 25, 2008:

    Hi Brady, Yahoowonder, Pagalina (and all entrants)

    We know the location restrictions *suck*. We fought very hard, repeatedly, to try to get them lifted, using all your arguments (and many others).

    The lawyers at Random House explained the situation to us - and it sounded all kind of understandable, legally - but it still sucked.

    I’ve asked them to come back and (1) explain why this is to you all and (2) to again reconsider their position. And this is going to happen next week - so don’t lose heart.

    We really hope that there is a way around this - which is one of the reasons why the first page of the site isn’t BIG LETTERS saying “Do Not Enter unless….” but we can’t make any promises. We do feel that we made it pretty clear that you need to understand the terms and conditions ( http://www.coversourcing.co.uk/rules ) but hear you on this.

    Stay in touch - we’ll put out an update next week.

    Cheers

    apt

  5. # Comment by Thom @ 11:38 pm, January 25, 2008:

    The voting system is rather obviously flawed (if this has been addressed elsewhere I apologize). Because it is based on an average score someone like acejet can have more 4 and 5 scores than anyone else but still be ranked third, because of the number of lower scores he receives. As such, he can have over 300 more votes than other entries and still not be the top entry. In fact, because he has so many more votes it is harder for him to increase his score, since each 4 or 5 vote does not effect his average as much as the entries with less votes.

    I know this is basic math and perhaps this is not how the votes will eventually be interpreted. But looking at it now it seems acejet is being penalized for having more people vote for him.

  6. # Comment by Peter Collingridge @ 1:36 pm, January 26, 2008:

    Hi Thom

    Thanks for your comment about the voting. It’s not perfect - but it does the job we need it to. If Flickr had some kind of rating metric - it would have been easier for us, but there were some good open source tools out there, to which we were committed to using for this project.

    I draw your attention to the fact that (1) the voting is to get a top 20 for the panel and (2) that we have a voting period after submissions close - two weeks - during which time the playing field should be leveled.

    One thing about AceJet’s entry is that he firstly got it in early, and then followed up by mobilising his mates, blog-readers and early visitors to vote for him. That in itself is, I guess, a part of what any crowdsourced operation, from Threadless to Cambrian House, accepts is part of the model itself. But as you rightly suggest it works both ways for him.

    Still, it’s all rather interesting. Thanks again

    Peter

  7. # Comment by Antonio @ 7:02 pm, January 28, 2008:

    I really hope they allow people from outside the US to enter. I already submitted a design, which is in the top 20, but then found out later that you have to be in the UK or Ireland which is really lame. I’m keeping it up there in hopes that the rules change.

  8. # Comment by Vincenzo @ 8:36 pm, January 28, 2008:

    The rules says “resident of UK or Ireland.” I’m a British citizen living in the US, with no permanent UK residence. Does that wash?

  9. # Comment by Brady @ 8:23 pm, February 4, 2008:

    Any update on the location/geographic restrictions? I would hope that this would be resolved before top twenty entries are selected and locked in.

    Many thanks!

  10. # Comment by Thom @ 10:25 pm, February 8, 2008:

    As much as I appreciated the response, and accept that its purpose is to narrow a top-20, it didn’t address the basic issue - that the voting system is flawed. But I guess that would only matter if you were trying to have some sort of competition here.

  11. # Comment by Peter Collingridge @ 10:35 am, February 9, 2008:

    Hi Brady - there is an update here:
    http://aptstudio.com/timesemit/2008/02/06/coversourcing-legal-update-from-random-house/

    Cheers

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment