翻譯：http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MjM5MDQ1ODA0NQ%3D%3D&mid=401098600&idx=1&sn=e8ad027535e4f9ed411381f3e5e4fccc#rd
反對通過眾包選擇標誌：美國平面設計協會致東京奧林匹克委員會的公開信
上周的早些時候，為深陷抄襲醜聞的2020年東京奧運會徵集新標誌的競賽已經結束。組織者收到了15，000份設計稿，它們來自為贏取1,000,000日元（8,250美元）和東京奧運會開幕式門票而展開競爭的參與者。雖然我們相信奧林匹克委員會採用全面放開的遴選方式是出於良好意願，我們依然有責任讓奧委會認識到美國平面設計協會反對比稿行為的堅定立場。因此，我們的執行官最近向東京奧林匹克組織委員會主席YoshiroMori發出了這封信。
--
尊敬的YoshiroMori主席：
我們注意到您啓用了眾包（公開徵集）競爭的方式來為2020年東京奧運會募集標誌。作為世界上最大，歷史最悠久的職業傳播設計師聯合會，美國平面設計協會（AIGA）呼籲您重新考慮遴選程序。
日本在平面設計方面的職業水準和傳統一直廣受贊譽，日本平面設計中的視覺圖像令人驚嘆，字體極富生命力，同時又將簡潔，直觀和優雅之美展現到了極致。本屆奧運會標誌的遴選因爭議而蒙上了一層陰影，對此我們十分理解。但我們仍然認為，您的決定對諸多積極理念之一造成了負面影響，而這些理念，正如世界各國所見，恰是興起於日本：如深厚的視覺設計傳統，在視覺創新上的探索和對每種職業的尊重。
眾包競爭的方式要求設計師們無償地貢獻自己的創意和耗時甚久的勞動，以期為自己的作品贏得入選機會。這違背了國際通行的傳播設計師工作標準。從本質上說，這是對設計師職業規範的損害。職業規範能夠保護設計師和客戶的利益，也保障了產生傑出設計作品的潛在可能。因為任何傑出的設計都是設計師與客戶共同合作的結果，其目的是創造一個能完全滿足客戶的興趣和要求，彰顯客戶想要傳達的理念的作品。如果在設計之前沒有客戶一方的積極合作，這一目的是不可能達到的。
其次，如果設計東京奧運會標誌的角逐不是對訓練有素，經驗豐富的職業設計師開放，而是對社會大眾開放的話，不僅是對廣受贊譽的日本設計行業的不尊重，也表明對東京奧運會組委會而言，毫無經驗的人士與擁有專業評判力和職業技巧的人士享有同等地位。
第三．東京奧組委將會利用創意人才所付出的成千上萬個小時的勞動，卻不用向提交設計作品的人支付報酬（這否定了創意機構的價值）。即使設計作品能夠最終入選，相比組委會從標誌被數以百萬次地使用中所獲得的極為豐厚的標誌使用許可費，設計者所能得到的報酬卻非常少。很可能設計者所得到的報酬會遠低於組委會為了限制設計者的收入而在法律事務上所花的費用，儘管設計者創作的標誌對東京奧組委來說具有全球價值。這難道公正合理嗎？
最後，標誌的知識產權應該歸設計師所有，而東京奧組委制定的合同可能使它如願以償地擁有標誌的永久所有權。
我們對本屆奧運會的願景報以掌聲，它體現了我們認為日本所具備的那種有氣魄的樂觀主義和遠見。我們也認為本屆奧運會標誌的遴選標準是十分適當的——尤其是對象徵意義，原創性和審美水準的重視。為了選出最優質的奧運會標誌，我們認為正確的程序應該是這樣的：首先就如何開展這一項目徵求職業設計師的觀點，設計師應有自己設計的其它案例來支持自己的觀點。然後委員會與一位選定的設計師合作開發創意——這一程序尊重設計行業，也最有可能為本屆奧運會帶來歷久彌新，令人難忘的標誌。
此致，
RichardGrefé
美國平面設計協會執行官
-----------------------------------------------------------
Against Crowdsourcing Logo Design: an Open Letter From AIGA to the Tokyo Olympic Committee
Earlier this week the competition to design a new logo for the plagiarism-plagued Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games came to a close after organizers received nearly 15,000 entries from people vying to win JPY 1,000,000 ($8,250) and tickets to the opening ceremonies. While we don’t doubt that the Olympic Committee had good intentions with an open-call contest, we feel compelled to bring them up to speed on AIGA’s strong stance against spec work. To that end, our executive director recently sent this letter to Yoshiro Mori, president of the Tokyo Olympic Organizing Committee.
Dear President Mori,
It has come to our attention that you have launched a crowd-sourced competition to design the emblems for the Tokyo Olympics 2020. As the largest and oldest professional association of communication designers in the world, AIGA would like to urge you to reconsider this course.
Japan has a universally admired graphic design profession and legacy, imbued with stunning visual imagery, strong typography, yet simplicity, directness, and elegance in its highest and best form. We understand the controversy that has already placed shadows on the identity for the games. Yet, we believe that you are compromising one of the powerful messages others in the world perceive as emerging from Japan: a strong graphic and visual design tradition, innovative visual explorations, and respect for every profession.
Competitions that ask designers to contribute their creativity and hours of work without remuneration in the hopes of their work being selected are against the global standards of professional practice for communication designers. In essence, a compromise of the ethics of the profession that protect the interests of designers, clients, and the potential for extraordinary outcomes. The reason for this is that any remarkable design is the result of a designer working with the client to create an outcome that captures all of the interests and needs of the client and the messages to be illuminated. This cannot be done without a collaborative engagement with the client in advance of designing the results.
Secondly, if the competition is open to the broader public rather than trained and experienced professionals, it demonstrates both disrespect for a universally respected Japanese profession and also suggests that the interests of the committee are served as easily by those with little experience as those with judgment and skill.
As a third matter, while the committee takes advantage of thousands of hours of creative talent without compensation (which denies the value of creative enterprise) from those who submit designs, the selected design is compensated at a rate well below what is appropriate for a mark that will be reproduced literally millions of times, providing the Committee with the means of extraordinary levels of licensing income. It is very likely that the rewards to the designer for the mark that will provide global value to the Committee that is considerably less than the legal fees simply to restrict the designer’s reward. Is this fair and appropriate?
Finally, the intellectual property should remain with the designer, while the committee contracts for the perpetual rights in use it may wish to have.
We applaud the vision for the games, which reflects the generous and expansive optimism and perspective we associate with Japan. And we believe the criteria for the selection of the emblems are very appropriate—particularly symbolism, originality, and aesthetic sensibility. As a process for arriving at the finest mark, we believe seeking a statement from professional designers on how they would approach the project, supported with other examples of their work, and then engaging a professional designer to develop ideas with the Committee would be the appropriate course—one that respects the profession and is most likely to lead to a lasting and memorable mark for the games.
Sincerely,
Richard Grefé
Executive director
