Sorry, I was out of town and knew when I checked the blog today and saw that many comments something must be going down. I must admit I haven't read it all, but I skipped to the last page to read the ending. I kind of feel sorry for her, as she seems to play the victim card and blame others for the situations she creates or fabricates. I still have many questions...like who is the hat girl in the hotel? How is MB involved in this? Who leaked the first screen shot of the DST post?
Carry on...
1,339 comments:
1 – 200 of 1339 Newer› Newest»Kami is a bit too "omg top secret" for me. This isn't espionage, it's scrapbooking. What could that email possibly have said that she can't legally talk about?
May 1, 2009 10:35 PM
Well, it says personal information. So there is probably personal information in there which prevents her from just publishing the email.
When will you all ever be happy, first you all bitched about wanting the truth, now that you have the truth now you want to bitch about how the truth was worded or furnished!
So, we've had the bullet hole in the door story. What will she say now? Poisoning? Soap poisoning?
she speaks!!!
http://digiscrapaddicts.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18267&postcount=11
Funny how she doesn't bother addressing the stamp copying issue!!
She is freaking crazy. Memory Mixer put her up to this? Their are reputable people saying that she stole from them, and copied their work, but she still claims to be innocent?
there are plenty of other folks that write books and are bigger celebs than she is. They do not have these "problems".
What happened with MemoryMixer the first time?
Wow that confession is DISGUSTING! What a holier than thou cow! I cannot believe she justified her actions by saying that companies would actually tell her to do this! Wow Memory Mixers should be proud of themselves for supporting her in this...yeah right, I know I will never go there! I hope she really does leave digi but sadly I don't think she will.
And this line "I made ScrapOrchard and Shabby Pickle a lot of money in the short time I was there" doesn't sound like someone who just wanted "to design- which again- is all I wanted to do" sounds like a greedy pirate who wanted the $$$ bad enough to do illegitimate things. What a wack job! Poor poor Amanda! being sarcastic there ;)
Misunderstanding? How is it a misunderstanding? We get "NO PIRACY!" and TOU's bashed into our scrappy brains, yet this "designer" has a misunderstanding with an artist's terms of use?
Weak. Just weak.
Oh snap Stacy Carlson
Thank you Stacy Carlton. I know Amanda Dykan will still swear up and down that she "had permission" to use the things she traced, or that it was a misunderstanding, but it is good to see evidence coming out in the open by store owners.
Amanda Dykan has stolen from me as well, but I just don't want to get involved publicly because these things have a way of very quickly turning on the accusers (as someone pointed out in the last thread). Suffice it to say that she is an unbelievable liar and that she borderline psycho.
I would think it is safe to accuse Amanda at this time. Big name reputable people are posting about her lies and theft.
Did she pirate Amanda ROckwell too? Copying tutorials, maybe, is my guess? Or something else?
------------------------------------
Yes, and Amanda is not the only persons tutorials she is copying.
Profile of the Sociopath
This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.
* Glibness and Superficial Charm
* Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
* Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
* Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
* Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
* Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
* Incapacity for Love
* Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
* Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
* Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
* Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
* Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
* Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
* Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
* Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
Other Related Qualities:
1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
3. Authoritarian
4. Secretive
5. Paranoid
6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
7. Conventional appearance
8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.)
kudos to Pink Cat for asking that the remaining pay of 'LilyAnne' be donated to Breast Cancer Research.
I feel bad for the stores involved as well, their reputations are on the line here also.
Anonymous said...
Amanda Dykan has stolen from me as well, but I just don't want to get involved publicly because these things have a way of very quickly turning on the accusers (as someone pointed out in the last thread). Suffice it to say that she is an unbelievable liar and that she borderline psycho.
May 1, 2009 11:53 PM
==================================
I too am in the same situation at this moment but do not want or need the drama. I know that sounds really pathetic but my digi career is moving along happily so I resign to stirring up more shit.
It's enough for me that she has been caught and outted and hopefully she will get the help she needs. Additionally Pink Cat (that paper company or whatever) has decided to not release her from any wrong-doing. Does that mean a suit will ensue? Just curious about that.
Vindication. If you wait long enough you can experience a moment of justice.
Wonder what Amanda's so supportive gal pals think of her now? Notice how she had to throw in the "death in her family" part - try to get the sympathy of the crowd before dealing out the weak explanation.
Oh and I would love to know what ole "Opeysmom" thinks now. All her preaching from the box to Ruby about how we shouldn't be discussing this crap in an open forum. Good for Ruby! And Bravo to Shannon for banning Amanda. Nice job!
I just may not get this smile off my face for weeks.
Let's not forget when Amanda first started designing digi, she was with PDW, who promptly canned her ass for, guess what, copying from a stamp company!
Yep, she copied from Paper Salon then too and if I'm correct had a designer on their team that worked for SSD also (maybe that's how she was caught. What balls this girl has. I waited for this day to come and I knew my patience would pay off. Vindication is right on! Do you guys think she will be sued?
WV: Nurvo - Ha! Now that's so fitting!
At least now it has all been made public, perhaps it will be harder for Amanda to find a place in the world of digiscrapping. I sure hope so, I hope any subsequent Alias's will be found out much quicker, but I moreso hope that she will not attempt the same things over and over again like she has done to date, unbelievable that she has got away with it over and over for so long.
I can seriously understand why people would want to stay out of this, but I would really like to see a full list of everyone she has copied/stolen from.
2;44-she responded in the same thread and ripped her a new one
FULL THREAD
http://digiscrapaddicts.com/forum/showthread.php?p=18267#post18267
Amanda's "apology" is really anything but.
I really hope that those designers who are saying that Amanda stole from them but they won't come forward will rethink on that issue.
She really needs to be held accountable for all of the things she has done. If all the designers and companies that she has stolen from present a united front, maybe she will stop getting away with her schemes.
She needs to be stopped
Let's not forget when Amanda first started designing digi, she was with PDW, who promptly canned her ass for, guess what, copying from a stamp company!
May 2, 2009 3:31 AM
Perhaps if this first instance theft had been made public, and evidence had been put out there, she would not have gotten away with this for so long.
Thieves like Amanda count on everyone's fear and silence, and it's what ennables them to keep hurting people and stealing from them.
For once, Yay Opeysmama! Her opinionated personality works quite well this time.
I'd really like to see an explanation from Shabby Pickle on why they left LilyAnne's kits up as long as they did, knowing FULL WELL what was going on.
I hope that people who purchased LAT kits and doodles from Shabby Pickle will do chargbacks with Paypal.
Laura and Faith should be ashamed of themselves. Their actions have hurt all of the designers who sell there.
Does her husband know what a liar he sleeps with? What about her sons? How can she look her children in the eyes? How tragic & frightening this is at so many levels.
You know, in my book Sociopaths can't possibly be safe, responsible parents. I mean, seriously, what else does she steal, who else is she manipulating? She is completely delusional and imagines events and cold hardheartly calculates rationale for her behavior. How in the world can her sons be safe in the hands of this mentally ill woman?
You all may think this is too harsh to say out loud. But her mental illness doesn't stop at the threshold of digital scrapbooking.
She needs serious help and her family needs to know just how on the fringe she is. Seriously. Maybe she will become the gun strapping scrapper she once imagined was after her and go take it out on other people.
How can you judge about what Laura and Faith did. There is nothing wrong with waiting until proof and giving someone the benefit of the doubt. I knew all along that Amanda was LilyAnne. But there is nothing wrong with delaying action until there is proof. When things started to look obviously fishy they removed her and disabled kits. So quit judging!!
Problem is that Laura and Faith both had all the facts and knowledge BEFORE the same became public at DST and DSA. They chose not to act on it.
Bases were covered before anything went public, nobody can deny they didn't know - other collab designers pulled their kits with LilyAnne way before Faith, other store owners shut LilyAnne's stores way before Laura did. Ask yourself, did THEY do it without proof? No, they had the exact same info as Laura and Faith, difference is they decided to act before they were forced.
Faith didn't know...
[Faith didn't know...]
I have it on good authority that while Faith did NOT know, her store owner did. Why SP left LAT/AD's store open so long after getting that news is beyond me
At this point, I might assume that Amanda didn't draw these either: http://www.memorymixer.com/catalog/designs/630-Henrietta-and-Friends-Embellishment-Pack. Anyone know if they are legal and where they are from?
By the time the other stores had enough evidence to pull her kits, SP also had enough. The fact that they didn't speaks volumes about Laura. Upstanding designers wouldn't want to be associated with a store owner who puts dollar signs above honesty and ethics.
[Faith didn't know...]
I have it on good authority that while Faith did NOT know, her store owner did. Why SP left LAT/AD's store open so long after getting that news is beyond me
----------------------------------
And meanwhile she was sticking up for LAT over at DST. I truly do believe that she didnt' know at that point. Faith ended up deleting her post I assume so she didn't look like a total fool. I'm sure she doesn't thank SP for that.
SP was a victim of Amanda's deception. I hate that the victims have to be drug through the mud when in this case they are already facing the humility of the deciption. Isn't that enough? You don't know for sure exactly what they knew and when they felt like the information was actually good information.
They are no doubt also getting a number of chargebacks at this point. Not that it isn't waranted. I'm just saying that they are already having to deal with the consequences. They don't need others to tear them down further with speculations.
If you don't like them, then fine, don't buy from them. But don't make it seem like they were all wrapped up in Amanda's warped game that she was playing. That was Amanda deceiving them, not them playing along.
Question...
A post from "Kate" referred to a copycat DST site. What site was she referring to?
I am sorry any of the stores are getting charge backs. It's not like the stores can get the money back from Amanda.
Would people be happy with store credit instead of hurting the pocketbooks of the stores who are already hurting?
Oh come ON 3.23, Laura Deceatis knew exactly the same information as the other stores, everything was shared with everyone concerned. Only SP decided NOT to act upon it, when the others had, and even after receiving emails from countless people asking why Amanda Dykan was selling in her store, using pirated items. Jeez, even the DST virgins knew all about it before SP did anything.
I'm sorry, I just don't buy the innocent line. And I won't be buying anything else from SP either. I seriously doubt I'm alone in that.
Anyone that Amanda stole from needs to get together and file charges against her and or a lawsuit. She needs to face some real consequences for her actions.
Question...
if the original screen shot where Amanda posted as Lily came from DST, a moderator had to post it. The later shot from Shannon showed more information (specifically that it came from Shannon's computer) where the original one had that part cut off. Isn't that against the rules for that DCR that is supposedly private?
Just a-wonderin.
wv: gapar...My mouth was a-gapar when I read Amanda's post.
I am sorry any of the stores are getting charge backs. It's not like the stores can get the money back from Amanda.
Would people be happy with store credit instead of hurting the pocketbooks of the stores who are already hurting?
_______________________
It looks like the stores hadn't paid Amanda all the money she had 'earned' by selling in them, so they're probably just going to refund instead of paying her. I saw somewhere (DSA maybe?) that after they refund the CU customers, they'll donate the remainder of LAT's pay to some kind of cancer research.
Maybe they should donate it to road safty instead, according to the SO owner, 'LilyAnne' told her all about how her 6 year old daughter had been killed in a car accident. Dycho, you really are one sick mother fucker.
Does Amanda Dykan still own getdigiwithit.com
hahaha wv=asurl or in Amandas case ASS url...
WOW DID YOU SEE THIS????????
another one bites the dust........
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/showthread.php?t=189516
actually i am really impressed with how this store is handling this situation, and the fact that the designer stepped up, admitted she was wrong is much better than the amanda situation
I agree. The stores that have charge backs as a direct result of her deception and piracy should definitely ban together and file a criminal lawsuit. She has been manipulating and laughing at this community for a very long time.
Enough is enough. Maybe if she is forced to pay out of her own pocket for her lies, just maybe she will understand the meaning of restitution and making things right. Posting a BS response and half ass apology in a single forum is not enough. It is not even close.
^^^^^^^
I agree much better handled. The owner of Element Scraps did a nice job of letting the community know exactly what happened. I am glad to see this in the digital scrapbook world. We need more store owners like her.
**********************************
**********************************
**********************************
**********************************
**********************************
**********************************
Marking
May 2, 2009 4:38 PM
Amanda never owned GDWI. It is/was, not sure now, owned by Design Originals and run by Amanda. Amanda stepped down a long time ago.
One of the other designers is in charge now. I'm not sure which one. I think it's Duchess.
Amanda never owned GDWI. It is/was, not sure now, owned by Design Originals and run by Amanda. Amanda stepped down a long time ago.
-------------------------------------
No, she just acted like she owned it along with the doodles and tutorials she stole!
I don't understand the issue on making your own stuff, ESPECIALLY if you're going to sell it for commercial use. I just don't get it. And if you're going to use a third-party resource, it's really not difficult to figure out what's legal and what's not to resell as a new design resource.
I mean, I've seen teddy bears, other stuffed animals, children's toys, scanned paper from traditional scrapping...it goes on and on and on and it's really, really sad. There are SO many usable resources out there. Obviouly both Amanda and Theres make enough money that they can put some of it towards new software or whatever else. The possibilities for new, original and unique ideas are endless. There is absolutely no reason or excuse anyone can have for using someone else's stuff, other than they're lazy. If you're not creative enough to design your own items or want to dish out the dough for a proper license, you shouldn't be designing, PERIOD.
isnt Design Originals co-owned with Amanda Dykan and some other chick?
thus meaning Amanda TECHNICALLY owned getdigiwithit...
Copyright infringement happens so often. And a logical excuse is "I didn't know". I think stores should have all designers read (and sign that they have read) a document that thoroughly explains copyright. At least the store would have done what they could do to inform their designers about what copyright means.
If you're not creative enough to design your own items or want to dish out the dough for a proper license, you shouldn't be designing, PERIOD.
---------------------------------
That is one reason I chose not to be a designer.
I may scan something in and use it on a personal layout that I print and put in an album. I generally do not even post layouts online. But to scan stuff in, extract it and sell it IMO is wrong.
wv = mines (I should only sell stuff that in mines)
I mean, come on...how hard would it have been for Teres to get some buttons, scan them and build the same frikkin things herself that she stole, photographed and extracted? I could make the same exact goddamn things from scratch in PS in about 2 hours. Lazy and very, very weak.
May 2, 2009 4:50 PM
I was just stating the facts and hoping that another store wouldn't get thrown under the bus since they aren't affiliated with her any longer. I wasn't defending Amanda.
'LilyAnne' told her all about how her 6 year old daughter had been killed in a car accident. Dycho, you really are one sick mother fucker.
___________________________________
This just makes me even sicker. What a WHACK job. Argggggggg. And to think she was calling us names last year.
May 2, 2009 4:56 PM
No, Design Originals has been around for a long time. Longer than Amanda I think. Their site says,
Design Orignials came out with the first comprehensive scrapbooking book 10 years ago.http://www.d-originals.com/index.php?cPath=24
I think Kristy Krouse's mom is one of the higher ups if she doesn't own it. I'm not positive on that though.
kudos to the owner of ES for the way she handled the Theres situation! This is exactly how this type of thing should have been handled all along!!
I was thinking about this earlier today. Do you think it would be tacky of me to add a new tag line to all of my previews that says: "My doodles may be crap but at least I drew them myself!" Yea? Maybe? WDYT? LOL
Seriously, Amanda. For all of the endless hours you must spend looking for other artists doodles to copy on the internet, you could have become a Master Doodler 5 times over.
May 2, 2009 5:17 PM
So she ran getdigiwithit for Design Originals with Krause, and then left when it came out the designers weren't getting paid...
and now someone else is running it, right?
I just remember her running gdwi and then there was hubub over designers not getting paid...etc..
Im actually starting to wonder if there is ANY digi-tabu that she did not mangage to commit... LOL..
Yes, please, someone who is hurt financially (or any other way!) SUE HER ASS!! She deserves it so many times over! She will just continue to move through life doing this again and again. She'll find another community to rob.
Now, on another copyright matter. I bought Ashalee and Sweet's latest grab bag, and am totally disgusted. Several of the items included are "overlays" that are actually pictures (or scans) of modern, current (and obviously copyrighted) fabrics, even with recognizable patterns on them. NO WAY can I use these items commercially, but now I'm out the money ($7)
Here's a quick rundown on the GB, as a warning to other designers:
DeepnSoft: scans of patterned fabric; obviously modern, copyrighted fabric. completely unusable (unless I want to get sued for copyright infringement), and 2 pieces are simply different angles of the others. they scanned the piece, turned it 90 degrees and scanned again. I am quite capable of turning a paper or overlay on my own, thank-you-very-little!
In the garden overlays1: 4 pieces. 2 images, total. 2 of them are just closer views of those same images.
Fantasy Topping overlays: blurry mess of God-knows-what. ridiculous.
attic buttons 10: poorly lit and with glare spots, very jaggy edges, a few of the buttons are very mis-shaped (not round as they should be) due to poor extractions, and some have dark or light matte; fringe edges that show up on opposite color backgrounds
Old-world patterns: half (4) would be nice, usable patterns if the lines were not all jaggy. other 4 are horrid. most have stray pixels as well; possibly 2 pieces out of the 6 I could use, if they were very well blended in with other overlays.
sweet fabrics 5: fabrics with distracting moire effect, odd angles and random seams. Finally something with nice clean images, but not anything I will use due to the strongly distracting and unwanted moire effect.
totally sweet frabrics 13: nice and clear images, but again, they are patterned, and I am worried about copyright status.
deepnsoft styles - fabrics from deepnsoft overlays used as a pattern overlay. yipee. more copyrighted fabrics that I can't use.
I really want my money back, but doubt if that is possible. none of the items are anything I'll ever use. and I've learned my lesson; no more CU grabbags for me ever.
WV = pions. thats what they are, selling copyrighted fabrics scans as commercial-use products! Bah!
May 2, 2009 6:09 PM
That's how I saw it.
May 2, 2009 6:20 PM -- Ashlee and Sweet have been outted SEVERAL times in the DCR for copying and even reselling OTHERS cu items...
In fact there was a whole site that were sharing the cu etc... half their team left over it. I want to say Randi-Oh was even there at the time and left, I think....
everyone threw their arms up in disgust, several designers quit over it and then everyone forgot it like a week later. As Ashlee and Sweetmade are BOTH still in business...
Glad this amanda crap is finally revealed. Ticked that half of the designers wont come forward to give the rest of the evidence, But hey I guess she must have some pretty good black mail huh?
Kudos to Kami, and the rest of the SO gang as well as Amanda and Stacy for finally having balls enough to shed light for everyone and coming forward. (Believe you me, this crap was going on FOR A LONG time with this chick before all this drama surrounding double personalities started)
As for the new deter toward TheresK, her situation is believable and usually the type of thing that goes on behind closed doors. The fact that it was brought to light was a total promo for ES. There is no doubt about it!
Do we all forget that Angie too had evidence to get rid of AD/LAT? Proof and words that have yet to be shared by her?
But alas, she comes like the big bad professional handing out evidence on something that truly isn't a copyright issue. IT ISN'T! Etsy people are not registered tradmarks, they are people that are creating items FROM tradmarked items(Such as designer fabrics, buttons, papers ECT) and creators of real physical items, Not digital creations or image media formats.
Once Theres took the pictures or scans, she then became the copyright owner over those PHOTOS. Now if she stole the photos FROM Etsy, then you would be looking at Infringment on those creators of the handmade products.
The only way you can scream Copyright at this point is by contacting the paper company that the items were created from, the button company, felt company ect.
But hey, we wouldn't want to do that, then everything handmade or digital designed would have to be pulled for investigation.
But I guess I say, Well done Angie. You did an awesome job on cashing in on a disappointed community!
^^^
@@
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
Read before posting again please, you moron.
But alas, she comes like the big bad professional handing out evidence on something that truly isn't a copyright issue. IT ISN'T! Etsy people are not registered tradmarks, they are people that are creating items FROM tradmarked items(Such as designer fabrics, buttons, papers ECT) and creators of real physical items, Not digital creations or image media formats.
Once Theres took the pictures or scans, she then became the copyright owner over those PHOTOS. Now if she stole the photos FROM Etsy, then you would be looking at Infringment on those creators of the handmade products.
The only way you can scream Copyright at this point is by contacting the paper company that the items were created from, the button company, felt company ect.
But hey, we wouldn't want to do that, then everything handmade or digital designed would have to be pulled for investigation.
But I guess I say, Well done Angie. You did an awesome job on cashing in on a disappointed community!
May 2, 2009 9:03 PM
------------
You have no clue at all, do you? I sell at Etsy and it's my stuff, not Etsy's. I write my own patterns and sell them. I'm sorry, does that mean that copyright belongs to the pen company or the software company because I'm using their products to write with?
You need to go and check copyright law. BTW, trademark and copyright are two very different things.
this WILL all catch up to Amanda Dykan
So if I take a picture of the Mona Lisa, then do I own the copyright?
Sweet. A new business is born.
And you read as well before calling one a moron. The term "copy" covers it, as well as the fact that majority if not almost all of the creators did not go to the extent of getting the proper licensing to cover their "works" for copyright, tradmark ect.
She took a physical product and photographed it. She has a different "item" now. She isn't distrubiting the orginal item and claiming as her own, she is offering a digital format.
Isn't that what almost ALL CU items are anymore? Please dont tell me you believe that half the crap out there is created by the person who is offering them. I can go to michaels any given day and see a TON of the items I see offered in digital kits, and we dont scream foul on them. Or we dont scream foul on those that have real flowers, ribbons, felt buttons you get the idea.
Why? Because they changed the way it was offered. Don't you think there is a creator behind those?
So you are saying this woman on Etsy had no standing to say that her items couldn't be resold in another "format"?
You cannot register copyright in every country as it's not available. Besides, even if you could, you don't have to,
Oh, just ignore this woman's ramblings. It's just Amanda comeback to justify why she has "copyright" to all those designs she tried passing off as her own.
As far as I know, when you buy a CU item, you have a "license" to use them, but the original creator still retains the copyright and they don't become yours. The CU designer then has the right to tell you what you can and can NOT do with her designs. AD did not have permission to create CU items from those things she got off stamps/paper companies/stock photo sites. Now she's trying to justify that with this silly nonsense.
I agree that you cannot take something someone else created, photograph/scan it, extract it and then say it's all you work. You can take generic things like plain satin ribbon, wrap it up into a bow and sell that scanned item, but if it has any kind of "design" on it, you can't. The same goes for all those Prima flowers you see in kits everywhere.
NO, I am not saying that this woman didn't have a right to come up and say HEY I MADE THOSE and she never asked me.
Just like the creator of any other physical product has the right to say the same. And the paper creator and felt creators have just the same right to come running to digi land or etsy for that matter screaming HEY YOU DIDN'T ASK ME!
The whole point I was making is that this is an everyday thing. Tomorrow someone out there will be releasing a kit with physical "realistic" items in their design. And it will not be called on for copyright.
Yet, today this one is brought to light for the entire community as a stunt to make one look better over the others. And to shame one designer over something that is done everyday by TONS of others. Go browse a CU store and see what all is there that is exactly the same as this current situation.
I was just saying my peace that bringing it up now and in such the manner she has was a total blow over and way to cash in on people who felt dupped by stores/designers.
Seriously, she too was one that witheld information from us all on the AD/LAT thing and still contiues to.
What I've wanted to know from the beginning is how LAT got into the shops she did so fast. Didn't the girls at Sun Studio expose some of Amanda's crap and kick her out just a few months ago? The same copying crap that Amanda still denies (but we all know better now). So, was she acting as LAT before this went down? Suddenly LAT is at SP and SO (which is kinda known for being a picky place). How on earth did this faker get up to the places she did? And collab with the people she did? I'm really sorry to say that this whole mess puts Kami, Shauna, Bren, Faith, Laura and others in a really bad light. If I were a designer and someone e-mailed me out of the blue to collab with them, I'd feel very odd about it unless I'd known them for a while. I mean, you're doing this for money. It's a business transaction, you know? Not just "something fun" to do together. She was a newbie. I guess everyone let her cute (stolen) designs go their heads and they saw a way to make themselves more popular. It's really sad.
And if there's one thing I'm certain of, it's that Amanda is addicted to this drama and fame and there's no way she'll ever really leave us. She'll be back as some new designer again. I just hope she screws up her posts again to save us some pain.
Anonymous said...
She took a physical product and photographed it. She has a different "item" now. She isn't distrubiting the orginal item and claiming as her own, she is offering a digital format.
Why? Because they changed the way it was offered. Don't you think there is a creator behind those?
May 2, 2009 9:25 PM
===============================
I'm sure the movie and music industry will then be A-Ok with it if I copied their movies and songs and offered them for sale to others after "changing" them into a digital format???
Glad this amanda ... Ticked that half of the designers wont come forward to give the rest of the evidence, ...
May 2, 2009 9:03 PM
______________________
Each instance of designer pirating is different. Sometimes it's blatant as with the stolen doodles. Sometimes it's harder to prove. When Designer B takes Designer A's harlequin background, changes the scale and throws a couple of grunge overlays on top of that, it's hard to prove the original was not all the "tweaker's" handiwork. Even with markers buried in the original JPEG, the tweaker can clone over them to the point that too few markers are left to make an iron clad case. But there's enough overlap that the original designer feels ripped off.
wv: imshemod
I'm sure the movie and music industry will then be A-Ok with it if I copied their movies and songs and offered them for sale to others after "changing" them into a digital format???
May 2, 2009 9:54 PM
They are already offered in digital format dip sh** so that would different.
So Miss Tiina is the reputable designer who emailed ES? (after the fact anyway)
Anonymous said...
And to shame one designer over something that is done everyday by TONS of others. Go browse a CU store and see what all is there that is exactly the same as this current situation.
I have to agree with this part. I'm very leary of all the CU items that are photos/scans of things someone else has created: christmas ornaments, jewelry, teddy bears, ceramic angels, etc. Do the people who originally made them even know there are digital versions of their designs being sold? If it was just a plain old button or string handcrafted into something new and unique by the CU designer, then she can claim she made it, but not if it has any distinguishing design she didn't come up by herself.
Anonymous said...
I'm sure the movie and music industry will then be A-Ok with it if I copied their movies and songs and offered them for sale to others after "changing" them into a digital format???
May 2, 2009 9:54 PM
They are already offered in digital format dip sh** so that would different.
May 2, 2009 9:59 PM
Not ALL are in digital format. You must be really young to think that. What about vinyl records, tape cassettes, LP records, etc? Are you saying that if I copied that into something that's electronic or digital I have the right to resell it as my own?
Yet, today this one is brought to light for the entire community as a stunt to make one look better over the others. And to shame one designer over something that is done everyday by TONS of others. Go browse a CU store and see what all is there that is exactly the same as this current situation.______________________________
I agree that this situation seems blown way out of proportion. One thing I'm glad about--this is the most professional post I've ever seen from a store and I hope it sets a new trend in openness and honesty. This is what should have been done with Amanda Dykan months ago! I think much more highly of ES now.
Anyway, I don't even understand how you can copyright some buttons and printed paper that someone else made before you. And then claim that someone is violating that copyright by selling little photos of it. It's all a little messed up to me. That being said, this is hardly the first time Theres has been accused of stuff like this. And still she's able to dupe people and collab with them and get herself into new stores. Hey, maybe she's also Amanda in disguise! ;)
But then I think this brings up a good point about CU in general. Everyone is lazy and out for your money here. Designers whine about not having enough time, so they want CU. I absolutely detest people who call themselves "designers" and have kits that are full of nothing but Miss Tina or Faith True's stuff. That's crap. You're not designing anything. I'm so sick of seeing those same things (like the birdies or little animals) over and over again.
And CU designers are also apparently lazy, too. Some apparently don't care what they do, as long as they're making lots of money off the people who are buying their stuff (in the hopes of making money of it themselves). Such a weird cycle. People make your own stuff. I love what this person said: My doodles may be crap but at least I drew them myself!
The Etsy artist took numerous pieces and created new pieces. This made it "her" art. This designer just photographed them, extracted them and then sold them AS hers.
In what stretch of the mind does that not apply as theft?
Store owners can't always tell designers info right away either. That information can be leaked by the designers before the investigation can be completed. That might be why Faith did not know right away.
May 2, 2009 10:08 PM I dont think anyone is saying it isnt theft. I think the point is being made that it isnt JUST the etsy lady getting ripped off there.
Most paper companies have an angel use policy which allows their items to be used to be made into items for sell. They, nearly all, however have a clause that says they can not be manufactured by machine or digital reproduced. Meaning you can cut up this peice of paper and make an airplane, but you can not make copies of that airplane unless you make each one by hand.
The point is that the Theres stuff broke copyright on a grander scale, by taking what ever paper companies paper, converting it into digital format where it could then be mass distributed.
And if that paper happens to be a real newspaper and not some scrap paper product, she could be in a heap of trouble because they hold copyright over their text also....
So she is rollin rights on every level...
*the BIG picture, thats all I'm sayin'*
May 2, 2009 10:15 PM I think Faith didn't know because she didn't want to know.
I have never seen anyone "accidentally" end up in the shitpot as many times as she has...
how many times will she have to get smacked before she opens her eyes and stops being so naive?
The innocent, "I had no idea" is starting to wear real thin on that one.
The Etsy artist took numerous pieces and created new pieces. This made it "her" art. This designer just photographed them, extracted them and then sold them AS hers.
In what stretch of the mind does that not apply as theft?
May 2, 2009 10:08 PM
------------------------------
Thank you! Finally someone who understands copyright!!
I understand copyright perfectly fine, thank you very much.
I just think if your going to smack somebody, why smack em for something little when there is something larger scale going on.
She ripped off the etsy lady AND the paper company. The end.
Another Bitch is outside she make the same like AD not with Stamps, with Illustrations and with Vectors from
http://www.istockphoto.com/index.php
http://www.shutterstock.com/
she only changed small Things
I agree that this situation seems blown way out of proportion. One thing I'm glad about--this is the most professional post I've ever seen from a store and I hope it sets a new trend in openness and honesty. This is what should have been done with Amanda Dykan months ago! I think much more highly of ES now.
---------------
What about the post that Annette of Pickleberrypop made about Tara? She took a bit of flak for doing that, but it was the right thing to do.
a lot of vector swirls and things come from istock and shutterstock...
there are several commercial use ok Illustrator brush makers that either also sell at stock sites or sell to people that sell at stock sites...
swirls are sold and resold ALL the time.
this is getting old.
Is anything ELSE going on?
Now, on another copyright matter. I bought Ashalee and Sweet's latest grab bag, and am totally disgusted. Several of the items included are "overlays" that are actually pictures (or scans) of modern, current (and obviously copyrighted) fabrics, even with recognizable patterns on them. NO WAY can I use these items commercially, but now I'm out the money ($7)
May 2, 2009 6:20 PM
Ugh! I bought this bag also and also very unhappy about it. Your description is spot-on. I can not use copyrighted fabrics or buttons and patterns full of jagged edges for anything! That's crap! I am going to ask for a refund.
I have sad news. No matter how crazy everyone is saying she is, she didn't deserve this. I don't know if it's true or not, but I heard Amanda Dykan killed herself earlier today. I feel sorry for everyone involved.
Well, if this is true it is indeed terribly, terribly tragic. She is a very disturbed woman and her family and friends should have gotten her help long before now. This community is not responsible for anything that she chooses to do or not do with her life. We weren't there when she was lying and stealing and most certainly don't assist her in making her personal life choices.
IF you are just coming in here to try and shock the masses with a fib, shame on you. I see nothing else anywhere about this - so I wonder about you and what your motives are.
where you have this from? i don`t think she made this. thats only the digi world.
I heard thats from sweetmade but is there nothing we can do there?
they have only their own shop or?
And if there's one thing I'm certain of, it's that Amanda is addicted to this drama and fame and there's no way she'll ever really leave us. She'll be back as some new designer again. I just hope she screws up her posts again to save us some pain.
May 2, 2009 9:53 PM
------------------------------
I have to agree with you there, I hope we are both wrong.. but I would be surprised if she doesn't pop up somewhere again.. I for one will be on the lookout. I think I could spot her now as her design style is pretty obvious.
I have sad news. No matter how crazy everyone is saying she is, she didn't deserve this. I don't know if it's true or not, but I heard Amanda Dykan killed herself earlier today. I feel sorry for everyone involved.
May 3, 2009 12:48 AM
----------------------------------
IF that is true, that is truely sad, but this sounds more like something Amanda herself would make up. I hope I am right in this case as much of an awful thing it is to lie about.
How awful that we need to be sceptical of such a thing!
I have sad news. No matter how crazy everyone is saying she is, she didn't deserve this. I don't know if it's true or not, but I heard Amanda Dykan killed herself earlier today. I feel sorry for everyone involved.
May 3, 2009 12:48 AM
----------------------------
That is the kind of news that should not be posted about anonomously, as it just sounds like the little boy crying wolf.
For those who don't feel this is a big issue, let me throw my 2 cent in, they can slap criminal charges on her ass, for a grown ass woman with kids, she can have that criminal record sitting next to her name for the rest of her life and I hope she does! Fool me once, twice, three times too many honey and guess what? this is serious! everyone victimized can be used as witnesses through written statements, her blog, this blog and every other forum can be looked into by the cops, I only wonder if I can go to the cops in Portland and file something on her ass... I don't want to see this woman go un-punished so I'm a brush up on my rights & the law here because there is no way I wouldn't want to go all the way.
You, females may quarrel amongst each other but you are no fools, you did your homework and may not even realize that you have PLAYED A BIG ROLE, you just need to start playing more of a role and get your-self involved take it to these forums and voice your-self, e-mail these photo stock companies, photographers, paper & pattern companies and direct their attention down to the digital scrap industry and watch everyone drop like flies. With you gals putting in the work, damn what a website their could be aimed just for thieves, lol... set aside all the cat fights, you females are intelligent.
I would say thug is a fair assesment.
Ashalee Sweet is one designer to be checking into when you're poking around those stock photo companies
for those who seem to think they know so much about copyright: there is an abundance of legal precedent that says photographs (2-D) are new and different "works" than the items (3-D) that they depict. Thus, a photographer does indeed have a copyright on their photos, and it is not copyright infringement as it is a completely different form. However, there is still the issue of the copyrighted papers and newspapers being used in the images. That is the only copyright infringement that Theres may be guilty of, but only if those papers are recognizable by their creators. When something is changed enough for it to not be recognizable, it is considered a new and different work, and is copyrightable on it's own.
For copyright law, the question is whether you have permission. If you don't have permission, you're infringing.
Anonymous said...
Ashalee Sweet is one designer to be checking into when you're poking around those stock photo companies
May 3, 2009 3:02 AM
-----------------
Last time I checked, Ashalee (Wall) and Sweet(Made) were TWO different designers.........has all this talk of double identities and aliases gone to everyone's heads?
According to a group of lawmakers, 10 years in prison and a $500,000 fine is not a severe enough sentence for copyright infringement in the US. So, a new bill is proposed to strengthen civil and criminal intellectual property laws and increase penalties for offenders.
When a business gets caught selling pirated goods as a "business" regardless if they have contracted designers who were pirating it is seen as distribution of stolen goods knowingly being sold w/o permission someone will not only be fined, there is jail time.
no drama about sweetmade? nothing at DST
no drama about sweetmade? nothing at DST
May 3, 2009 5:33 AM
-------------
There sadly never is.
for those who seem to think they know so much about copyright: there is an abundance of legal precedent that says photographs (2-D) are new and different "works" than the items (3-D) that they depict. Thus, a photographer does indeed have a copyright on their photos, and it is not copyright infringement as it is a completely different form.
-------------
Ah yes, but that is completely different to taking a photo of something that is instantly recognizable, like the Mona Lisa. Which, in fact, you can't actually do, because even though you can take a camera into the Louvre (unlike other museums and/or art galleries who are very particular), you cannot take photos in the picture galleries.
Anyhow, I've gone off on a tangent, while this may be true, it may not be true in all countries as copyright law is universally the most grey areas of all the intellectual property laws in all countries.
I have sad news. No matter how crazy everyone is saying she is, she didn't deserve this. I don't know if it's true or not, but I heard Amanda Dykan killed herself earlier today. I feel sorry for everyone involved.
May 3, 2009 12:48 AM
-----------------
You are, without doubt, one sad little fuck, did you know that?
I'm with you, sick & twisted
I have sad news. No matter how crazy everyone is saying she is, she didn't deserve this. I don't know if it's true or not, but I heard Amanda Dykan killed herself earlier today. I feel sorry for everyone involved.
May 3, 2009 12:48 AM
-----------------
Who told you that? Dycho?
That is just sick. No one wants her to die, okay? I think everyone just wants her to get help. God, whoever wrote that makes me want to puke. Not funny.
Wow! I hope your not that sick to just say something like that, if that be the case, I would never wish that on anybody and from reading her apology she has a lot, going on in life but I would never want to see anyone resort to that.
Wow! I hope your not that sick to just say something like that, if that be the case, I would never wish that on anybody and from reading her apology she has a lot, going on in life but I would never want to see anyone resort to that.
Wow! I hope your not that sick to just say something like that, if that be the case, I would never wish that on anybody and from reading her apology she has a lot, going on in life but I would never want to see anyone resort to that.
May 3, 2009 6:48 AM
-------------------------------
I think it is safe to say that no-one wants that and that is so not something to joke about.
I can't believe someone went and posted that. If it were real, I suspect the smack blogs are not where it would be announced don't you?
well, IDK she invested a lot of time in the smack blog, if you read her apology.
if women/mothers are this sensitive when they get caught well then pirate all you want cause this is something I couldn't live with. Wow! such a short time that I've been a scrapper or even at DST and I'm not even wanting to even be apart of any of it...this would be the lowest of the low.
I don't think this is Nesi
Hard to say. I skipped the post once I saw the name.
Whoever wrote the whole suicide thing... if it's wrong, you're just as bad as someone who makes up stories about dead children.
I don't think this is Nesi
May 3, 2009 7:56 AM
***********************************
I have to agree on that assessment. Those post are actually readable and make sense. I haven't read one thing that Nesi typed at DST that I was able to comprehend. And this Nesi actually punctuation, not something DST Nesi normally does.
As for the suicide post on Amanda, that goes beyond the realm of sad and pathetic. Why in the world would you post something like that? AD is what she is, but that's just a despicable post.
Someone called me about the suicide post this morning. There are a lot of things being said about me that aren't true. Thank God this is one of them. I'm not dead. I don't want to stir up more by posting. I just want to say that I'm alive and well. And don't worry- I'm gone from the digi community. Enjoy your sad little world.
"Sad little world"....... Nope! Not anymore....... well, not until you "reinvent" yourself again which I'm sure you will.
Amanda, I will ignore your last little jab, but thank you for posting and letting us know. No one wishes for that, it was just sick.
Someone called me about the suicide post this morning. There are a lot of things being said about me that aren't true. Thank God this is one of them. I'm not dead. I don't want to stir up more by posting. I just want to say that I'm alive and well. And don't worry- I'm gone from the digi community. Enjoy your sad little world.
May 3, 2009 9:45 AM
***********************************
Amanda, I'm glad to see that you're alive and physically well. As for things not being true, well no one is going to believe that anymore, there's just too much proof. As for our sad little world? Well if you truly do bow out and bow out for good, it will make one little corner of our world a little bit brighter and happier.
the AD/LAT is not finished yet, lol...
why, I do wonder what new information today will reveal?
..."sad little world" - Puhleeese...and what Amanda, your world is better than ours? You are truly a pathetic, unimaginative human.
The cases are building against you girl. You have really pissed off this industry for the last time. Instead of making up lies about your death to keep yourself on the front page, I would be getting an attorney lined up to hold your hand in court. Go get help. Your sons certainly deserve better from their parent.
As far as I know, when you buy a CU item, you have a "license" to use them, but the original creator still retains the copyright and they don't become yours. The CU designer then has the right to tell you what you can and can NOT do with her designs.
May 2, 2009 9:44 PM
***********************************
BINGO! That's exactly what it is. A license to use the product and most of them also include the condition that you don't use it EXACTLY as is, ya know? Change it up a bit?
I knew when so many designers started using sooo many CU items from other digi designers this was bound to happen! What ever happened to learning your software, taking your OWN photos and making things ON YOUR OWN!?
As for the button and felt analogy? I call BS! That's why stores like Hobby Lobby and even the craft sections in the dollar stores sell them for! They are for making CRAFTS that are a lot of times then SOLD as a FINISHED craft item! There is absolutely nothing wrong in purchasing fabric, felt, flowers, etc... making something or even scanning them and extracting to offer in a digi kit! GEEZE!
Amanda you are one sick, twisted piece of work. We all know that you're not going to leave-if you were, you'd already be gone.
I hope you're saving up for an attorney-you're going to need a good one.
She still has friends that call her?
Dycho is such a loser that she can't even be a fake online persona and succeed at it.
She still has friends that call her?
May 3, 2009 10:39 AM
No. She's completely full of shit. She's the one who came here and made that sick post about suicide. Look what she told Shauna as LAT-that her 6 yo DD had died. She's a psycho, and she's in for a world of hurt when what she has put out there comes back to her in spades.
The cases are building against you girl. You have really pissed off this industry for the last time. Instead of making up lies about your death to keep yourself on the front page, I would be getting an attorney lined up to hold your hand in court. Go get help. Your sons certainly deserve better from their parent.
May 3, 2009 10:31 AM
Amanda has lied about so many things that her husband and sons are probably also just a figment of her crazy imagination. If she's not already in a mental hospital, she will be soon.
May 3, 2009 10:34 AM
...first thing that was well said in a while ....
Lawyer up, Dykan!
Enjoy your sad little world.
________________
And you enjoy yours. I have to wonder what it's like inside your head but at the same time, I really, really don't want to know.
any word on bud club that has Amandas face as the teacher over at Digi Town Square?
there are a ton of little designers...playing and giving away and just dabbling in designing...
please any news other than pm Rick...the secrecy sucks
Define "digi community" Amanda. I'm sire our definition would be different.
pack your bags Amanda, and enjoy your stay at Rusk ;)
Now what about Kate (owner of Digital Candy) saying she went to college with LilyAnne?
Any info on that with the kate and LAT? I would love to see a SS of that. I heard she was swearing to the CT she knew LAT just last week.
It sounds like Kate was helping Amanda try to cover her tracks-but WHY?
All the Jesus freaks are "praying" that Amanda seeks help. *eye roll*
Now what about Kate (owner of Digital Candy) saying she went to college with LilyAnne?
May 3, 2009 12:15 PM
--------------------
She never said that, someone else said that about Kate. Here's Kate's reply from previous post:
Anonymous Kate said...
The owner of DC is someone named Kate and they don't know her irl, they were close friends over the internet so I don't know how she could possibly know both LA and AD irl.
_____________________________________
Yep, that would be me. And to set the record straight. I have never met AD or LA IRL, I have only ever worked with Amanda while she was at DC, I have however been in touch with her about the bud club as I knew she was wanting someone
to purchase the club from her. We are not hosting her Bud Club, we just purchased it from her and have moved it to our "DST copy cat" site - which she has posted that in the Bud Club section of the site. I just thought I would clarify a few things, seeing as you didn't know who owned DC.
April 27, 2009 9:03 PMA valuable lesson here in making sure of what you are saying, instead of just remembering what you heard.
Fact - Kate from DC stated to the lillyanne cts that she was lillyanns "BFF" in the private ct forum before the scraporchard ct forum opened. That makes me think Kate knew all along. Better be ware of Kate.
[Yep, that would be me. And to set the record straight. I have never met AD or LA IRL, I have only ever worked with Amanda while she was at DC, I have however been in touch with her about the bud club as I knew she was wanting someone to purchase the club from her.]
Well yeah, of course she said that AFTER the fact.
Wow girls don`t you have kids or work at home? why you would talk about all day for day for the same stuff.
Amanda is gone.. hopefully she comes never back.
And when you all use cu stuff it`s your Turn WHY YOU USE CU ITEMS don`t you have own ideas.
Always there is the same Stuff from Amanda Rockwell btw their overlays are often the same in her Set`s or all the vectors from Misstina wich i know from some books from my kids.
Or the pirated Stuff from Digital Crea
All is the same come up with your own ideas.
YOU ARE ALL LAZY
AND not Designer when you use finished CU STUFF
and than you talk about this like little childs.
Sorry bad industrie where we Start there don`t was cu Stuff and now all Use this.
Don`t buy it so you don`t have problems.
And big Designers in big Stores are not always good with copyright too.
^^^
someone needs to brush up on their English.
Maybe it's Sweetmade!
Fact - Kate from DC stated to the lillyanne cts that she was lillyanns "BFF" in the private ct forum before the scraporchard ct forum opened. That makes me think Kate knew all along. Better be ware of Kate.
May 3, 2009 2:15 PM
-------------
Not a fact, unless you can prove it with a screenshot or something. Otherwise, it's just more blah blah blah
Fact - Kate from DC stated to the lillyanne cts that she was lillyanns "BFF" in the private ct forum before the scraporchard ct forum opened. That makes me think Kate knew all along. Better be ware of Kate.
- - -
Come on. Kate says that she's LA's BFF, she's one of LA's references on her applications to tons of stores, she's also a friend of AD, she buys AD's Bud Club for her crappy new site and you think that there is ANY DOUBT that she knew and was part of this deception?
WV= ijit "If you believe Kate's innocent, you're an ijit"
May 3, 2009 2:56 PM
got it bad for her don`t you?
I wonder if anyone could tell me who this whole thing got started with Amanda Dykan. I was on a CT that had to pull all the collab kits that they had with her and just said not to post any layouts using her stuff. Anyone care to tell me who she stole from and how they found out.
Amanda is the guilty party in all this. Amanda is the one that the charges and lawsuits will be filed against.
May 3, 2009 2:35 PM - Hey Theres!
Read through the previous post. Read through the DST thread. Read through the DSA thread. There is simply too much to recap.
Which designers actually have design degrees or advanced college coursework in design? i know to, but they're too nice to post here ;-)
Not a fact, unless you can prove it with a screenshot or something. Otherwise, it's just more blah blah blah
May 3, 2009 3:25 PM
____________________________________
http://i42.tinypic.com/vf8uj8.jpg
My money is on the fact that Kate didn't "buy" the Bud Club at all, but is merely 'fronting' it for AD.
ok, after seeing the latest screenshot, the obvious conclusion:
Amanda is also Kate
it wouldn't surprise me a bit
It sounds like Kate was helping Amanda try to cover her tracks-but WHY?
May 3, 2009 12:59 PM
---------------------------------
Ummm it wasn't Kate that posted remember!! It linked to her site not her blog profile.
Or Amanda faked that account. Would NOT surprise me to hear that she posed as Kate.
Wouldn't surprise me at all. Look who just started as a designer at Digital Candy, couple days ago.
http://www.digitalcandy.us/shoppe/manufacturers.php?manufacturerid=80
Take a good look. Pay particular attention to the glitter styles, the preview style, and the triple scoop ice cream and bulldog clip in the Seetly Sinful kit.
Then have a look at this site:
http://www.amandadykan.com/shoppe
What do you see about the glitter styles (and their previews), the ice cream in the Cake and Ice Cream kit, and the bulldog clip in the Almost Like Love kit?
Now I am prepared to accept that maybe the clip and ice cream are from CU items. Would be interesting to know if the owner of those has any receipt from Lil Missy. If they don't, do they have one for Dycho?
The glitter previews are identical, and even some of the sets are almost identical (eg All that Jazz at Digital Candy, and SugarPlum Dreams at Dycho's store).
Given that we know that Digital Candy have been fronting LilyAnne knowing full well it was Dycho, and given their long association with her, can we assume that Lil Missy is the latest Dycho incarnation?
I must admit, even I thought she would take longer than 24 hours to make her comeback, but hey, I ain't tired of drama yet...
Isn't that what almost ALL CU items are anymore? Please dont tell me you believe that half the crap out there is created by the person who is offering them. I can go to michaels any given day and see a TON of the items I see offered in digital kits, and we dont scream foul on them. Or we dont scream foul on those that have real flowers, ribbons, felt buttons you get the idea.
Why? Because they changed the way it was offered. Don't you think there is a creator behind those?
May 2, 2009 9:25 PM------------------------
I make all mine own stuff to resell as CU.
...The whole point I was making is that this is an everyday thing. Tomorrow someone out there will be releasing a kit with physical "realistic" items in their design. And it will not be called on for copyright. ...
May 2, 2009 9:52 PMWell, it SHOULD be called on for copyright.
This is getting ridiculous how designers use all kinds of copywrited material in their kits. And a lot of CU designers as well. I think people should really start to make a point and stop buying from those designers. Before buying, ask the sources. If the designer handmakes/draws everything herself (and not copy/trace other people's work), then it's fine.
Stop buying from people who uses or resell patterned fabrics, teddy bears and other's child stuff, any copywrited bibelot (ornament) they buy at the store and photograph...
Blogger Amanda Dykan said...
Someone called me about the suicide post this morning. There are a lot of things being said about me that aren't true. Thank God this is one of them. I'm not dead. I don't want to stir up more by posting. I just want to say that I'm alive and well. And don't worry- I'm gone from the digi community. Enjoy your sad little world.
May 3, 2009 9:45 AM
------------------------------
Amanda, why would so many different people be telling lies about you? When so many lies surround someone as they do you it would seem more likely that YOU are the one doing the lying don't you think?
You are at the very least a pathological liar and you need to get help. Please do yourself a favour and do just that.
It doesn't prove that she met her IRL. It's a shame if she has never met her BFF IRL.
Now, on another copyright matter. I bought Ashalee and Sweet's latest grab bag, and am totally disgusted. Several of the items included are "overlays" that are actually pictures (or scans) of modern, current (and obviously copyrighted) fabrics, even with recognizable patterns on them. NO WAY can I use these items commercially, but now I'm out the money ($7)
May 2, 2009 6:20 PM
Ugh! I bought this bag also and also very unhappy about it. Your description is spot-on. I can not use copyrighted fabrics or buttons and patterns full of jagged edges for anything! That's crap! I am going to ask for a refund.
May 3, 2009 12:44 AM
-----------------------------
You should!
And Oscrap should kick Ashalee out of their store.
ice cream:
http://www.commercial-use.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=35_102&products_id=6939&zenid=d6b142096e067a382406d5ea4b6eb87d
Amanda Dykan said...
Someone called me about the suicide post this morning. There are a lot of things being said about me that aren't true. Thank God this is one of them. I'm not dead. I don't want to stir up more by posting. I just want to say that I'm alive and well. And don't worry- I'm gone from the digi community. Enjoy your sad little world.
May 3, 2009 9:45 AM
-------------------------
You're not gone, you're still reading! You're never gone because you like drama. Noboday wants you buried, Amanda, we want you to get help for your family' sake. You are mentally ill.
That's Thaty's border on their preview too (that Amanda designed).
CONCLUSIVE.
Given that we know that Digital Candy have been fronting LilyAnne knowing full well it was Dycho, and given their long association with her, can we assume that Lil Missy is the latest Dycho incarnation?
I must admit, even I thought she would take longer than 24 hours to make her comeback, but hey, I ain't tired of drama yet...
May 3, 2009 4:29 PM
Amanda="Kate"
I've emailed Thaty to ask her to check whether Little Missy has a record of purchasing the ice cream. Don't expect to get a reply if the answer is yes.
Nah, I don't think Amanda is Kate. Kate was on the DC CT back before she bought it, and before Amanda would have had a reason to "be" her.
What's more likely is that Kate and Amanda became friends through DC (which also explains why Amanda's store remained active far longer than it should have when she was outed originally).
They are still friends, so that is why Kate helped her set up this LilyAnne thing and they did whatever they are doing regarding the Bud Club.
This new designer will turn out to be Kate. And of course you can tell who is "helping" her learn to design.
I also doubt highly that Kate set up LilyAnne's CT forum for a few reasons. First off, why is LilyAnne member 1 and Kate 2. And Kate isn't even admin, just "member". Also, I'm pretty sure Kate's husband is the tech brains behind that operation.
There's no reason that I can imagine why Kate would apply to be on LilyAnne's CT. Obviously the statement that they were BFF had to be a lie, they'd have had no reason to meet in the digital world since LilyAnne never sold at DC (yet has their blinkie on her blog). So, since the BFF bit is a lie, that leaves us with her just being the CT lead and helping her set up the forums. That would not happen. Random store owners that you do not sell for do not apply to be on your CT and set up your forums.
Kate is up to her ass in this one.
And little missy uses dashes in her descriptions *gasp* it MUST be her. LOL
...
Or the pirated Stuff from Digital Crea
...
May 3, 2009 2:35 PM
____________
What stuff?
Anonymous said...
I've emailed Thaty to ask her to check whether Little Missy has a record of purchasing the ice cream. Don't expect to get a reply if the answer is yes.
May 3, 2009 5:03 PM
Oh please! Thaty is known to copy her designs from stock sites. So, Amanda (Little Missy) is just pirating another pirate.
Not the point, if Dycho has purchased and Missy hasn't, we're on to something.
I've also tracked down the clips, and emailed the producer of those too.
May 3, 2009 4:29 PM
This is PATHETIC! AMANDA, GO AWAY!
Anonymous said...
Not the point, if Dycho has purchased and Missy hasn't, we're on to something.
I've also tracked down the clips, and emailed the producer of those too.
May 3, 2009 5:19 PM
Your point is good but my point is that you shouldn't stop there. If you're chasing a pirate, why not chase them all?
What you think 4.29 is Amanda now?
Digital Candy is definitely hiring Amanda Dykan under the name Little Missy and I think Kate, the owner, is fully aware of it.
My advice to all digital candy's designers: leave now!
Does anyone really know "Kate"?
Your Idol Thaty <- who only makes her own things( eye roll):
http://digicopycats.blogspot.com/2008/07/someone-else-loves-istockphoto.html
When did Kate buy Digital Candy?
Digital Candy got busted when they went with their new preview for using non-approved stuff..and guess who set up their site?
Amanda Dykan.
Amanda made the previews using Flergs previews. Which are sold for CU but not for an entire store, only for a designer. You have to get permission to use them for a store. Amanda was confronted and they were told to change the previews, which they did.
Oh good question! Do you think Kate could be Amanda as well?
It says on DC forum that Kate joined in Jan 08, so I doubt it.
Or Amanda Dykan would have had that double ID for a long time.
Or Amanda Dykan would have had that double ID for a long time.
May 3, 2009 5:42 PM
Totally possible with someone as crazy as Amanda Dykan. Look how bizarre the whole LAT thing seemed at first, but it was her.
If Amanda Dykan is not Kate, there's still some very strange connections and coincidences that need to explained by Kate.
Or Amanda Dykan would have had that double ID for a long time.
May 3, 2009 5:42 PM
or Amanda could have changed the joined date once she bought DC.
One of "Little Missy's" kits has some of my CU items in them. And these CU items haven't been in my store for a while now so there's no way she could have bought them recently. I have no sales from Amanda or Kate or LilyAnne though so I'm interested in seeing who she is in her "big reveal" then she'll be getting an email from me if I have no record of her buying the CU items.
Your Idol Thaty <- who only makes her own things( eye roll):
http://digicopycats.blogspot.com/2008/07/someone-else-loves-istockphoto.html
________________________________
I have never liked Thaty's overpriced, over-fluffed, over-pimped, over-pink crap.
Why some people kiss her ass like she's a CU goddess is beyond comprehension.
Yeah, Digital Crea has a whole lot of shit I see everything is pirated but the question is whats their law on pirated goods/copyright laws?
Sucks that their over-sea because they'd be the next target.
Anonymous said...
Yeah, Digital Crea has a whole lot of shit I see everything is pirated but the question is whats their law on pirated goods/copyright laws?
Sucks that their over-sea because they'd be the next target.
May 3, 2009 6:14 PM
__________
I would really like to know because I bought some CU from them recently and I don't want pirated Cu in my stash. Can you provide an example?
I wonder how Amanda Dykan will look in orange stripes?
Hmmmm... Will be very interesting to see who this "mystery" designer 'little missy' at DC turns out to be...
Any bets?
May 3, 2009 6:30 PM Wonderful! Orange will be a great compliment to her pasty white skin and firery auburn hair.
Although I think horizontal stripes really are not that flattering to full figured folks.
Maybe she will luck out and they will have ALL Orange instead of stripes!
I'm praying for you Amanda!
:)
I wounder if those who bought kits from Amanda/LA at other stores will be requesting their money back with their reason being copyright infringement/Stolen goods? lol
If, so I feel sorry for these businesses because they'll be "red flagged" to most likely being investigated. See what happens when you do know whats going on but don't act, I wounder what the fine will be for those businesses?
The sad thing for those businesses who may want to sue her for fines is that Amanda can go to court and lie her way out again.
Her fatal flaw is that she had a business, distributed stolen property and re-distributed those products to other companies. It keep stacking for her and I don't see how she cannot get jail time with everything else.
***smoke break***
thought i was over the drama but you all just keep sucking me right back in again. no willpower to stay away dammit.
And this one takes us over the hump...
Post a Comment