I saw the infamous "sexy" layout. Unfortunately I didn't have the sense to save it off for future discussion. My first thought was I hope that is a stock photo, because having a third party capture that image might be more awkward than posting it in a scrapbook gallery. Second, the title didn't work for me, it was something like "every life is precious". I think a more appropriate title may have been "Do me now".
Did you all rush out to buy the kit to scrap your last sexcapade? Any recommendations for kits appropriate for scrapping your after hours adventures. Does anybody really scrap that?
Carry on with whatever is going on...CU sharing, DST banning, digital art vs. digital scrapbooking, Christina Renee's grand re-opening, GSO thread abuse....
1,445 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 801 – 1000 of 1445 Newer› Newest»Maybe Jessica was using Audrey's template LOL
I think if you had a big enough library of back issues and too much time on your hands you could probably find endless examples of this. I'm quite sure many designers use magazine sketches and layouts as the basis for templates and kits, I know I do.
Personally I don't see anything wrong with it, it's not a direct copy of the original artwork, only of the composition. And you can't copyright shapes, so fair game.
I have a template (don't remember where I got it) very similar to that cover layout quite a while ago...............it was a freebie I picked up somewhere. Playing the devil's advocate here as I don't know anything about either person, who's to say the original layout wasn't from a template or scraplift to begin with?
why would you buy that? just use brushed metal from Alien skin, and adjust the color.
_____________
Better yet, just download filter forge and do it yourself for free.
A regular scrapper doesn't want CU because they are not designers!!! Why would they want to spend the extra money on it?
---
I buy CU all the time. I'm not a designer. I just want the flexability of the item.
But I usually just wait for $1 sales.
why would you buy that? just use brushed metal from Alien skin, and adjust the color.
July 31, 2009 4:01 PM
----
Alien Skin is expensive!
As for the layered file, Photoshop already has a script to do that for you, quickly. :)
Go to File -> Scripts -> Export layers to files...
Choose your destination folder and preferred file format.
Photoshop will do it's thing, just sit and watch (or go make a coffee)
Hope that helped.
But you can't expect there to be a different price just because YOU decide not to use the CU licence
----------
Excuse me, not the OP but ScrapGirls manage to have their kits in both CU and PU categories. They've been doing that for year. It can't be that hard. Sheesh.
anyone ever buy anything from Pixelworks @ Scrapartist?
----------------------
If you ever bought from Michelle Godin formerly of SBG and liked the product, you'd be okay. It took me a while to put a name to the face in her logo at SA but then I realized it was Michelle. Nice to see her back. I liked her stuff.
I am loving http://shop.scrapbookgraphics.com/product.php?productid=25099&cat=0&page=1 but cannot pay 7.50 for it..........
-------------
I thikn that looks ugly, but each to their own. If you want to make some here are some tuts:
http://www.tutorialjungle.com/display.php?t=liquid-metal (use the same filter on a filled square to get the background and merge together for the final effect)
http://www.webdesign.org/web/photoshop/tutorials/metal-ripple-tutorial-photoshop-liquid-metal-tutorial.7058.html
http://www.photoshopzilla.com/Free-Photoshop-image-tutorial-%E2%80%93-how-to-create-shiny-chrome-melted-liquid-or-chrome-background-image._87.html
Some images you can use and save as patterns and then use the pattern overlay style:
http://www.art.eonworks.com/free/textures/liquid_metal_texture_011.png
http://www.art.eonworks.com/free/textures/melted_metal_texture_031.png
http://www.art.eonworks.com/free/textures/metal_texture_pattern_029.png
See how easy that was? This took me less than five minutes to find on google. I'm sure there is a ton more out there.
Anonymous said...
Excuse me, not the OP but ScrapGirls manage to have their kits in both CU and PU categories. They've been doing that for year. It can't be that hard. Sheesh.
July 31, 2009 7:01 PM
-----
Yeah they do. But the PU price at ScrapGirls is roughly the same as the CU price in the rest of digiland. It's NOT difficult, it's just not worth the time and effort for the few extra, very low value, sales it would make.
Or to put it bluntly, if you want it, buy it. And if you don't (because you think it's too expensive), don't.
Playing the devil's advocate here as I don't know anything about either person, who's to say the original layout wasn't from a template or scraplift to begin with?
.........................................
Jessica Sprague is a big name in the paper scrapbooking world. I was curious so I looked and these are the SAME layout down to the placement of the circles. Who'd give a shit if it was for a freebie, but it's not. It's for money. Eh, just shows she's not that original.
Audrey Neal is a name in the paper world too. I think she's better known there than she is in the digi world. She's appeared in a few books plus she co-wrote one.
http://www.amazon.com/Paper-Pixels-Scrapbook-May-Flaum/dp/1892127938/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249089049&sr=1-1
Or to put it bluntly, if you want it, buy it. And if you don't (because you think it's too expensive), don't.
July 31, 2009 7:56 PM
-------------
That's not an answer.
You just don't get it regarding CU. The beef is that designers would rather design for CU rather than regular scrap items. CU is about the $$$. If designers would at least admit that and I would respect them more. A regular scrapper doesn't want CU because they are not designers!!! Why would they want to spend the extra money on it?
It's fine. Keep designing CU and I'll keep on not buying it.
---------------------------------------
It's not me that doesn't get it. I don't charge extra for CU and neither do a whole lot of designers. Just because something is CU also doesn't mean that it's not a scrapkit and just items. There are a lot of CU full kits out there if you bothered looking and you won't pay any more for them then if they were advertised PU. If you don't want to buy CU that's up to you but you might be missing some really fun kits because you've put your blinders on.
Read my lips NOT ALL CU IS MORE EXPENSIVE!!!
I also don't buy Scrap Girls because their CU stuff isn't any better then other designer's stuff and their CU prices are rediculous.
See how easy that was? This took me less than five minutes to find on google. I'm sure there is a ton more out there.
did you bother to download one of these and look at the ppi=72 not great for printing and certainly not usable for designer goods.
did you bother to download one of these and look at the ppi=72 not great for printing and certainly not usable for designer goods.
July 31, 2009 8:54 PM
------
What? The tutorials were no good either?
I did print out one of those images used as a style on an alpha and it was fine. Did you actually print them out as a style first before being thankless?
Did you guys see that there is a Mulberry Lane designer at Polka Dot Potato? I don't know if it's AD or not, but the style are similar.
Those look like old crappy paper kits from 4 or 5 years go. I wonder if it is her. Wonder if Ashley knows?
It costs what it costs, take it or leave it.
July 31, 2009 3:18 PM
I'll be happy to leave it, bitch.
anyone ever buy anything from Pixelworks @ Scrapartist?
----------------------
If you ever bought from Michelle Godin formerly of SBG and liked the product, you'd be okay. It took me a while to put a name to the face in her logo at SA but then I realized it was Michelle. Nice to see her back. I liked her stuff.
July 31, 2009 7:04 PM
-----------
I just HATE when designers change their nickname. What does she have to hide?
Audrey Neal is a name in the paper world too. I think she's better known there than she is in the digi world. She's appeared in a few books plus she co-wrote one.
http://www.amazon.com/Paper-Pixels-Scrapbook-May-Flaum/dp/1892127938/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249089049&sr=1-1
......................................
Right. She just takes layouts done by other scrappers that are featured on Creating Keepsakes and sells them as her templates. Writing a book doesn't mean she didn't take a layout from 2007 and use it for her profit.
I love how designers who found the almighty buck in selling CU can't admit that's why they do it.
Higher prices for CU is the norm. If you don't charge that then you are the exception. Go to Shabby Pickle, After Five, etc. and I can guarantee you an element pack is at least a couple bucks cheaper than their CU elements.
Right. She just takes layouts done by other scrappers that are featured on Creating Keepsakes and sells them as her templates. Writing a book doesn't mean she didn't take a layout from 2007 and use it for her profit.
August 1, 2009 1:20 AM
======================
AUDREY NEAL has just lost my business! I am so shocked by this blatant copying. I thought she was original and I have always purchased everything she has put out. I'm in such disbelief. You can call it what you want but in my opinion that's just horrible to take something from someone else and copy it so perfectly and sell it. It's not about law, it's about morals and I just found out how little Audrey has.
SHAME ON YOU AUDREY!
jeeze, has anyone noticed that SSD has gone sooo downhill lately? Why is it that old SNAGGLE TOOTH (Robin) forces them to pump out so much weekly? Everything looks the same anymore and unoriginal. Its all beginning to look like vomit on an ssd preview. yuck ma-guck.That new elf kit is so hideeous. Oh and I agree on the Audrey thing. How sad is that? I cannot imagine what she was thinking copying it right down to the very placement of circles! I'm not impressed with her at all!!Maybe she would be comfortable teaching her kids to steal too..???????
You people are so stupid. The placement of elements on layouts is not copyrightable. Anyone can freely and legally make templates from other people's layouts. It may not be the moral thing to do but it is not illegal.
AUDREY NEAL has just lost my business! I am so shocked by this blatant copying. I thought she was original and I have always purchased everything she has put out. I'm in such disbelief. You can call it what you want but in my opinion that's just horrible to take something from someone else and copy it so perfectly and sell it. It's not about law, it's about morals and I just found out how little Audrey has.
SHAME ON YOU AUDREY!
August 1, 2009 2:00 AM
------------------
You are such a twit. You know that the Easter Bunny is real. Yes, he is. You read it on this blog, so it must be true. Could you be any more stupid?
I just HATE when designers change their nickname. What does she have to hide?
July 31, 2009 11:52 PM
-------------
She didn't change her nickname. She used to sell as Michelle Godin, her real name and now she sells under a business name. How do you know she didn't get married and just didn't want to have her married name out there but she didn't want to use her old name either? You don't.
It's not always about hiding. I'm sorry that you think it is. What have you go to hid, seeing as you post anon?
Oh and I agree on the Audrey thing. How sad is that? I cannot imagine what she was thinking copying it right down to the very placement of circles! I'm not impressed with her at all!!Maybe she would be comfortable teaching her kids to steal too..???????
August 1, 2009 2:09 AM
-------------
How sad is that you have no idea who made the original LO or template but you are willing to believe that Audrey stole it? Are you comfortable teaching your kids to make assumptions without knowing the facts?
Did you guys see that there is a Mulberry Lane designer at Polka Dot Potato? I don't know if it's AD or not, but the style are similar.
July 31, 2009 9:20 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Those look like old crappy paper kits from 4 or 5 years go. I wonder if it is her. Wonder if Ashley knows?
July 31, 2009 9:29 PM
---------------
This Mulberry Lane is something called Angela. I bet AD stole the name. And why not, she's steals everything else that's in digi.
Agree on that elf kit at SSD but... I never like that designer's stuff. Was confused when she joined that store, and still am.
To each his own, right? I bought a bunch of SSD stuff today, including the elf kit. Admit I don't like the elves, but some of the other stuff is cute.
To compare Audrey with Jessica is ridiculous. Jessica makes her own templates and teaches classes using them. I haven't seen the layout in question, but my guess is it is one of those.
Anonymous said...
Can designers that design templates at least not copy right from the cover of Creating Keepsakes? This cover "Carefree" was created by Jessica Sprague.
Sorry, could only find a copy on ebay
http://tinyurl.com/m5cf7o
and Audacious Desgins at We Are Storytellers
http://www.wearestorytellers.net/boutique/product.php?productid=17216&cat=0&page=4
Curious if Jessica Sprague gave her Audrey Neal the ok to use her exact composition.
July 31, 2009 4:10 PM
------------------------
omg that's exact!
As I said, it's not illegal to make templates from someone else's layouts. You might not like it or think it's moral but it isn't illegal.
Why don't you email Jessica and let her and Audrey work it out? It doesn't really matter unless Jessica cares! And you don't for sure that permission hasn't been granted. I would prefer to do that before jumping all over someone. They are both connected in the paper industry so you don't know what's going on behind the sceenes.
Cut and paste the links from the original poster and you can see that they are the same exact layout. Even I can tell that.
Must be lots of Audrey Neal fans because if it was someone like Gina Miller people would be yelling "unoriginal!" "copycat". This blog makes me laugh.
Good clearance stuff at Catscrap. I love that store.
Just curious, how do you know that LO is by Jessica Sprague? That isn't either of her kids and from the cover alone it doesn't say who did it...
Curious if Jessica Sprague gave her Audrey Neal the ok to use her exact composition.
___________________
There must not be any good gossip out there if people are going this far to try and dig something up. Jessica and Audrey are good friends. I believe they have been for some time, and have even collaborated on projects together in the paper industry.
I am sure either Jessica used Audrey's template or Jessica gave Audrey permission. If it means that mush to you, contact the people involved. But I am pretty sure you'll just be wasting your time (and theirs).
The people on this blog are some of the most dumb I've ever seen, read or known about. What the hell difference does it make to you what someone else is doing with stuff that isn't yours? Y'all are a sad bunch of gossiping cows.
Just curious, how do you know that LO is by Jessica Sprague? That isn't either of her kids and from the cover alone it doesn't say who did it...
I'm sure the poster just pulled it out and made it up. I would think the credits are inside the magazine.
I think people have a problem with spending money on templates that were not that persons idea. QP's based on CT designs the CT person gets some kind of compensation for it. It is complimentary for someone to want to copy a layout. When they are making money from it ethically I don't know.
Must be lots of Audrey Neal fans because if it was someone like Gina Miller people would be yelling "unoriginal!" "copycat". This blog makes me laugh.
August 1, 2009 12:09 PM
--------------
Wrong on both counts.
Someone on 2peas has to have a copy of it... ask there- they should know who did the layout.
You would think she would have listed a cover of CK mag on her resume...
http://audneal.typepad.com/my_weblog/scrapbook-resume.html
Maybe she has a contract with JS? I mean, isn't this commercial use?
I think it's funny that some of you aren't thinking that Jessica took it from Audrey.
You would think she would have listed a cover of CK mag on her resume...
http://audneal.typepad.com/my_weblog/scrapbook-resume.html
Maybe she has a contract with JS? I mean, isn't this commercial use?
August 1, 2009 10:25 PM
---------
Did Jessica list it?
maybe Jessica is Audrey and it is a complete conspiracy.
we should make them send us a picture of them side by side....with a newspaper with the date..with Amanda being the photographer...
.................................................................................................
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Only if LilyAnne Taylor joins in.
I know these are free, but good grief aren't they against some sort of copyright?
http://honeydesignsandideas.blogspot.com/
In this case I could scour the web and throw together free kits too.
I know these are free, but good grief aren't they against some sort of copyright?
http://honeydesignsandideas.blogspot.com/
In this case I could scour the web and throw together free kits too.
I'm sure Marvel Comics would be interested in seeing her work if only to tell her YOU CAN NOT USE IT!!
Too bad because her style is interesting. I don't trust what she puts in her kits after seeing the Marvel copyrights being used like that.
LOL another one for stop piracy - don't steal my stuff, but they have no problem ripping off others for their own pleasure.
Someone on 2peas has to have a copy of it... ask there- they should know who did the layout.
----------
I have this CK issue - Aug. 2007 and the cover page is by Jessica Sprague. No where does she list in her credits that her page is from a sketch or sketch template. Assume what you want from that.
Photo by Getty Images - CK's covers are mostly professional pics geared towards that months theme.
Credits from inside the mag:
"Carefree" by Jessica Sprague
Supplies: Cardstock Bazzill Basics; Pattern paper: Being Kit by Jen Wilson; Swirl brush: Rhonda Swirls Brush by Rhonda Farrer; Chipboard rings: Technique Tuesday; Ribbon Clips: Heidi Swapp for Advantus; Mini brads: Junkitz; Ribbon: Creek Bank Creations and Fancy Pants; Die cut letters: QuicKutz; Fonts: Marcelle Script and URW Typewrter, downloaded from internet.
It just makes you realize that these people are not as talented as you thought they were, or as they're hyped up to be. (Jessica or Audrey- or whoever)
JS hasn't updated her resume in years.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
The people on this blog are some of the most dumb I've ever seen, read or known about. What the hell difference does it make to you what someone else is doing with stuff that isn't yours? Y'all are a sad bunch of gossiping cows.
August 1, 2009 5:28 PM
ITA!!!!! ROTFLOL!!!!!!!
Anonymous Anonymous said...
maybe Jessica is Audrey and it is a complete conspiracy.
we should make them send us a picture of them side by side....with a newspaper with the date..with Amanda being the photographer...
.................................................................................................
August 1, 2009 11:24 PM
THAT'S it!!!!!! She's her and her's she!! LOL!!!!! and I'm the one that did the original layout!! sniff!! No one even asked me if they could use it as a template!! bawahahaha!!!
So, why don't you drop her a post in the forum & ask her lol
http://www.jessicasprague.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=65
anyone ever buy anything from Pixelworks @ Scrapartist?
----------------------
If you ever bought from Michelle Godin formerly of SBG and liked the product, you'd be okay. It took me a while to put a name to the face in her logo at SA but then I realized it was Michelle. Nice to see her back. I liked her stuff.
July 31, 2009 7:04 PM
-----------
I just HATE when designers change their nickname. What does she have to hide?
____________________________________
She has nothing to hide. You just need to know what you're talking about. http://pixelsarthouse.com/blog/2009/06/pixels-art-house-open-for-business/
If you don't care, then don't care...but don't try to start something about a perfectly reputable designer.
I've been keeping a notebook of layout sketches since I started scrapbooking in 2000. Normally, if I like a layout from a magazine or ad, I'll make a note underneath it to distinguish it from one that I've come up with myself. This is an instance where I must not have made note of the original source. When I do my templates, I flip through my notebook and use ones I've created. It was an honest mistake, and I'll be taking the template out of the shop now. It was never my intention to steal Jessica's ideas or her work; I have a lot of admiration for her. (And she's welcome to the $12.00 I've made off that particular template, ha!)
Don't let them make you feel bad Audrey. Anyone with any brains knows it's not illegal to make templates out of other people's layouts. I believe most people make their own templates though. If you didn't intend to copy that layout you shouldn't be make to feel bad. Ignore the nasty bitches on this blog.
Kudos Audrey for stepping up right away.
NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE NEW SPACE PLEASE
^^^^^^^^^^^
Why? If space is so precious to you, why did you waste so much of it?
just me or have you noticed an increase in the number of designers closing up shop the last couple months? the dst forums are full of retirements these days ... I just saw that Blythe Evans is retiring now too.
Scrapping is dying (or rather mutating into other things) and people aren't spending money on kits any more. Hardly anyone makes a living from designing for digital scrapbooking any more, and for many it's no longer worth the effort for the meagre returns. Plus, designers get bored too, and designing ONLY for scrapbooking does get pretty tedious after a few years.
So I'm not surprised at all to see so many designers pack it in, there will be many more doing the same over the next year or two.
Some blame the recession, others the influx of new designers, but personally I think it's just a doomed market, destined to shrink dramatically over the coming months and years. I think the number of new designers entering the market is the result of the recession, with people trying to make extra money to supplement falling or disappearing incomes, but unfortunately they are a bit late. About as much money to be made as a new digital designer now as there would be in brokering Lehman Brothers stock.
Lets pimp our self when we own the store lol
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/showthread.php?t=203952
That is redick.
That is redick.
August 3, 2009 9:22 AM
first off, ew.
second- redick? is that like rEdiculous?
Audrey said...
I've been keeping a notebook of layout sketches since I started scrapbooking in 2000. Normally, if I like a layout from a magazine or ad, I'll make a note underneath it to distinguish it from one that I've come up with myself. This is an instance where I must not have made note of the original source. When I do my templates, I flip through my notebook and use ones I've created. It was an honest mistake, and I'll be taking the template out of the shop now. It was never my intention to steal Jessica's ideas or her work; I have a lot of admiration for her. (And she's welcome to the $12.00 I've made off that particular template, ha!)
============
Oh come on Audrey! I am so sick of the lame excuses from designers who think this kind of thing is ok. You and I both know you made that excuse up. Pathetic really. I never expected this from you and unfortunately you have lost my business over it. I really was a big fan. The girls who said it is not illegal are 2 million percent right but what bugs me is the lack of morals. It just seems to me that designers are coming up with every excuse in the book to get by with this kind of activity. Look at Amanda Dykan, Ashley Olson or how about Jodie (the one that stole all that charity money). All excuses that we are forced to believe. Just disappointing.
PS - Your "ha" at the end of your statement says it all. Nice attitude.
Oh come on Audrey! I am so sick of the lame excuses from designers who think this kind of thing is ok. You and I both know you made that excuse up. Pathetic really....
PS - Your "ha" at the end of your statement says it all. Nice attitude.
Word.
Exactly. No one would copy the layout that exactly if they were sketching it into a notebook. That close of an exact copy can only come from copying the layout while it sits in front of your face. Just how stupid do you think we are?
just me or have you noticed an increase in the number of designers closing up shop the last couple months? the dst forums are full of retirements these days ... I just saw that Blythe Evans is retiring now too.
August 3, 2009 7:08 AM
______________________
I hate to see this. New faces, more designers means more to choose from.
The pleathora of CU and S4H items only came about because newer designers were more open minded than many of the older ones.
It's good when the status quo isn't set by a handful of self-appointed experts.
Why am I not surprised by the complete idiocy of this community? You all love to jump to conclusions and make stupid judgments based on assumptions and your own moral code. If I was Audrey, I'd leave the template up. There's nothing illegal or wrong with what she did, even if she did do it on purpose. I've seen template makers use layouts from the galleries as "inspiration" without permission from the layout designer and no one's bitching about that. The layout was from 2007! If I had sketched a layout in my notebook from 2007 and hadn't labeled it with the information from the mag, I wouldn't have remembered it wasn't my idea. Would you? I'm sorry, I've been living my life for the past 2 years and things like that don't take top priority in my memory.
It's good when the status quo isn't set by a handful of self-appointed experts
___
Well said. I love variety and love that some designers aren't scared to try new things.
Call it an excuse if you'd like but it's the truth. At one point I copied that layout I to my notebook, and yes I was exact about it. But I forgot to add the credit at the bottom. A mistake that I owned up to with no hesitation, and I even pulled the template. If you are such a big fan, I would love to continue this conversation with you via email, yet it seems you would rather remain on here and badmiuth me in anonymity. It's sad that your first instinct is to immediately condemn me as a liar or a thief and someone with questionable morals. What happened to giving someone the benefit of the doubt, or at least contacting them about an issue rather than resorting to a smack blog to let your opinion be known? You are entitled to think whatever you like of me, obviously, but it seems that regardless of what I say, you've made up your mind. Perhaps that ha! Was an ill-chosen method for trying to inject a little levity into the situation. I didn't mean to sound as though I wasn't taking this seriously. Then again, it's obvious from past precedent that once your name comes up here, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Audrey
This girl has fans. A blog just for her.
http://designers-disasters.blogspot.com/2009/01/designers-or-thiefs-you-decide.html
That's old crap. Why dish it up again? Bored are you? If you're going to dish dirt, make it fresh dirt.
The girls who said it is not illegal are 2 million percent right but what bugs me is the lack of morals. It just seems to me that designers are coming up with every excuse in the book to get by with this kind of activity. Look at Amanda Dykan, Ashley Olson or how about Jodie (the one that stole all that charity money). All excuses that we are forced to believe.
wow. you are comparing a template that earned her that was taken from another person's layout (that she only made a 12 dollar profit on) to someone who stole hundreds of dollars from the scrapbook community? that's a really big jump don't you think? do you really think her purpose was to rip everyone off and then laugh over how stupid you all are to believe her?
and really? who is forcing you to believe these excuses? either you believe them or you don't, I would think. there's no forcing going on. that is just ridiculous.
The pleathora of CU and S4H items only came about because newer designers were more open minded than many of the older ones.
-----------
And then unfortunately we had a plethora of new designers who can't design, don't quality check and just produce crap.
It was exciting about two year ago, but now it's just gone to blah blah land.
How much did Ashley Olsen really owe?
Oh come on Audrey! I am so sick of the lame excuses from designers who think this kind of thing is ok. You and I both know you made that excuse up. Pathetic really. I never expected this from you and unfortunately you have lost my business over it. I really was a big fan.
-------------
I doubt very much you were a very big fan. If you were truly a fan, you'd give her the benefit of the doubt instead of slamming her over a mistake. You are clearly just trying to stir the pot.
Now that I can't hav it, I REALLY want that template.
hmmm...
that HoneyDesigns site... you guys are bemoaning poor Marvel... but I didn't say any Marvel characters on that site.
I saw Superman...
who is a DC character.
Maybe I didn't dig around long enough to find any Marvel characters.
^^^^^^^
Thanks Stan Lee for setting the record straight.
I just checked out Daisy Trail and notice that Mulberry Lane is no longer listed as one of the designers, but her two products are still up. Also, the announcement of her shop opening has been removed from the forums.
Interesting.
Scrapping is dying (or rather mutating into other things) and people aren't spending money on kits any more. Hardly anyone makes a living from designing for digital scrapbooking any more, and for many it's no longer worth the effort for the meagre returns. Plus, designers get bored too, and designing ONLY for scrapbooking does get pretty tedious after a few years.
You're kidding right?? I guess then the money I'm making is what play dough?? Yeah the market is saturated, yeah some designers who were making big big bucks have gone on to other avenues or retired because their incomes dropped but there are plenty designers who have been in this for the long haul and the haul has been just fine and status quo. Digital scrapbooking isn't dying/scrapbooking isn't dying but I'm sure right now some, priorities have changed. Many have had to go fine a full time jobs. But and this is a big but, there are plenty of people out there with good jobs, good incomes and still putting out the dough to buy kits. Actually it would be great for the industry to shrink a bit but you wouldn't prove it by the number of stores that still open every week and the number of designers that fill those stores.
Ignore my typos-my fingers are tired. I know what I meant to type just read between the lines.
^^^^^^^
Thanks Stan Lee for setting the record straight.
August 3, 2009 6:45 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHA! booyah!
hmmm...
that HoneyDesigns site... you guys are bemoaning poor Marvel... but I didn't say any Marvel characters on that site.
I saw Superman...
Who is a DC character.
Maybe I didn't dig around long enough to find any Marvel characters.
------------------------
You're right, you didn't. She has removed her kit so you are only seeing the layouts. The kit contained Spiderman, Hulk, Captain America and Ironman in the preview. Yes, Superman and Batman are DC but the majority of it looked like it was Marvel.
I just checked out Daisy Trail and notice that Mulberry Lane is no longer listed as one of the designers, but her two products are still up. Also, the announcement of her shop opening has been removed from the forums.
Interesting.
August 3, 2009 8:09 PM
-------------------------------
Maybe they think people are stupid and will think The Dyke has been booted. She is also absent from the Wacom site now. Wondering if removing her photo is just a front.
wv: mereact - the "mere act" of pretending to fire a designer might not leave Daisy trail in a good light LOL
Anonymous said...
You're kidding right?? I guess then the money I'm making is what play dough??
August 3, 2009 8:40 PM
-----
I said 'hardly anyone', not 'no-one'. The vast majority make little to nothing, literally. Including several 'mid-range' designers, hence all the resignations.
I contacted Marvel the other day. Seems she has taken it down since.
You're right, you didn't. She has removed her kit so you are only seeing the layouts. The kit contained Spiderman, Hulk, Captain America and Ironman in the preview. Yes, Superman and Batman are DC but the majority of it looked like it was Marvel.
August 3, 2009 10:03 PM
Y'all are getting your panties in a wad about this honey chick for nothing. She can't design to save her life. She has to give the stuff away..any store willing to take her as a designer is a store that needs to close up shop.
I just downloaded the egypt kit at honey's blog and was really disapointed and very glad it was free. She has a looooong way to go in learning to design. Her papers are okay but a little blurry but the clipart is absolutely horrendous. I think she litterally right-clicked pictures from the web. They're extremely blurry, badly extracted, full of jagged edges and everything is pre-shadowed with a wide, ugly shadow. There isn't one usable item in that entire kit. Everyone is worried about the hero elements from whoever but I'd bet a million bucks that every single image/element she has in every one of her kits aren't hers. Digital piracy blog my ass. Just because she didn't steal from another digi designer means jack shit...why are people so ignorant?
Too the store that offered her a position to sell (somewhere in the comments on her blog)...you might want to take that back.
that HoneyDesigns site... you guys are bemoaning poor Marvel... but I didn't say any Marvel characters on that site.
I saw Superman...
Who is a DC character.
Maybe I didn't dig around long enough to find any Marvel characters.
___________________
What's yer point there with that little bit of moot information?
All of you self-appointed "copying" and copyright police need to get a grip. You're nothing more than a new generation of bored, hypocritical buybodies.
You're cyber-Mrs. Kravitzes
K, boss lady. Whatever you say.
She's only 17.
And I'm only 19. Your point?
Anyone creating kits for free or otherwise, websites, blogs, etc need to brush up on their copyright/fair use laws. Regardless of your age! Here is food for thought:
http://www.creativemediaweb.com/blog/bay-area-website-design/copying-images-on-the-internet-is-illegal
That's fine and dandy but the people who don't care still won't care and will never care. Nothing anyone says will do any good. They are blind, dumb and deaf, they'll continue to be self-righteous in their acts, come up with excuse after excuse, play the victim, insult and place blame on anyone who tries to tell them how and why they're wrong.
We will never be seen as individuals who actually care about our work, the people that actually take time to learn to design or as the ones trying to bring some sort of decency, quality and a little bit of conformity to this industry. They will never see us as people trying to protect our own copyrights to make it a fair playing field for everyone. All these folks will ever see us as are "buybodies" with nothing better to do (whatever that means).
There is no ruling authority and all we have is copyright law to back us up. It's everyone's responsibility to make sure they are doing right but who is supposed to say something to the people who just don't care? There isn't anyone but for the folks that actually do care.
It's a waste of time to say anything to any of these people. All you can do is report them to whomever you feel they are stealing from and move on to the next clueless one.
I'm sure the pirates and their faithful side-kick protecters will begin their name-calling session after this.
This girl has fans. A blog just for her.
http://designers-disasters.blogspot.com/2009/01/designers-or-thiefs-you-decide.html
August 3, 2009 4:24 PM
wow news to me. I have not long been in this industry and from what I can tell her name is always linked with the word pirate. And this is just from this blog. Why is she still in this industry? Why is she still selling?
this news is dated January, YAWN...Strech.. Obviously you you are missing some information here. It`s the one thing I hate about these blogs, lots of speculation, gossip, grudges and a whole bunch of no-names who know everything. I am a no-name who knows nothing so carry on.
She can't design to save her life. She has to give the stuff away..any store willing to take her as a designer is a store that needs to close up shop.
---------------------------
She's only 17 years old.
Get your granny panties out of the bunch they're in.
I love coming here to read the gossip, but the volume of anger that is in some posts is laughable.
August 4, 2009 3:12 PM
you are very right, and not the only one that thinks that
August 4, 2009 12:29 PM
Why is she still selling?
------------------
Why don't you pull your rent-a-cop badge out and go stop her?
Surpise! Nancy Comelab is retiring again.
I, personally, am getting really tired of seeing "Piracy" screamed everywhere.
Piracy, Copyright Infringement, and EULA breach are all very different puppies. Designers want to be treated like professionals then they need to brush up on the legal issues that affect (effect?) their chosen field.
Someone misusing products (ie- using an item as CU when it is sold PU = EULA Breech. Its only piracy if they are SHARING the original designers files. And its only Copyright Infringement if they are duplicating and selling exact copy.)
If you're going to cry bitches, at least cry about the correct issue.
Weird stuff on DST this morning! It's all been deleted now but someone named "Jo Co" or something similar was accusing Jimena of being a Photo Thief. "Jo Co" spammed DST with several messages calling her a photo thief for stealing an image from Flickr. Jo co provided a link to the flickr site; however it was private if you tried to open it.
Jimena then provided the link to the image she had used & it was from getty images.
Then poof! All of the photo thief posts & a very short thread disappeared too.
Anybody know what that was all about? My internet went down for a few minutes & when it came back up, all of the posts were gone. *Poof!
Im out of da loop...
who all has announced they are retiring or closing up shop in the last say, two weeks?
Designers Retiring?
Stores/sites closing?
Someone misusing products (ie- using an item as CU when it is sold PU = EULA Breech. Its only piracy if they are SHARING the original designers files. And its only Copyright Infringement if they are duplicating and selling exact copy.)
----------------
Thanks for the lesson. It is indeed very interesting. So, in the case where a designer uses another designer's PU item, stock photo, or clipart, but makes something else with it, then it's a EULA Breech, not a copyright issue because the item has been modified. Is that correct?
And copyright only applies if an item is actually 'copied' as is without modification?
And Piracy is only when an item is shared with others when it's against the EULA?
So 'copying' someones idea isn't illegal AT all is it? Nor is copying someone's design as in sketches, scraplifts or templates.
However copying someone's copyrighted photo and using it in a layout without permission IS copyright infringement.
So if we apply that to all the 'accused' over the years:
Faith True: Nothing illegal
Sweetmade: EULA violation and maybe copyright infringment
MsPimptress: EULA violation, but maybe pirating if she shared files
Audrey Neal: Nothing Illegal
Amanda Dyken: ???
All the scrappers who use stock photos against the TOU and without permission: Copyright infringement
In regard to Honey Designs, I'm not sure what her age has to do with anything.
Is this an excuse for the poor work? Sorry, check out some other websites and see 14, 15 and 16 years old with art work that will blow your mind.
Is this an excuse for not knowing about copyright? Again, this is something that teens know about. All that music downloading and crap that follows means that they know about copyright, even if in a vague form. Also, Honey Designs said she checked with the artists of the drawings from the fan sites to see if she could use them. So, she was aware that some protocols had to be followed.
I'm really not following the excuse, she's only 17. So what? What does that mean?
Weird stuff on DST this morning! It's all been deleted now but someone named "Jo Co" or something similar was accusing Jimena of being a Photo Thief. "Jo Co" spammed DST with several messages calling her a photo thief for stealing an image from Flickr. Jo co provided a link to the flickr site; however it was private if you tried to open it.
Jimena then provided the link to the image she had used & it was from getty images.
Then poof! All of the photo thief posts & a very short thread disappeared too.
Anybody know what that was all about? My internet went down for a few minutes & when it came back up, all of the posts were gone. *Poof!
------------------------
Interesting! I didn't see any of it!
for those who posted the "she's only 17" comments....I need your help. Please link me up to your blogs! I'm a new, young designer and I am in need of some images I can use for my kits I'm going to throw together.
I know... She was probably just waiting... *waiting* for a chance to tell me to "get your granny panties out of the bunch they're in." So lame.
And by the way, by stating that she was 17 didn't infer anything. It's just rare that a designer is 17 years old.
Surpise! Nancy Comelab is retiring again.
August 4, 2009 4:32 PM
-----------
I didn't even know she was back in business.
Aw, don't be shy Bunny, you didn't have to delete your post. Tell us what you think.
well - I am shy.
no, not really.
But I decided it would have ticked off some in the business, and I really don't want a bunch of ticked off designers emailing me... so... lol.
Im interested to know what designers and stores are closing too.
Do you think that it is because big paper companies are launching their digital lines now. Stamping Up and Hero Arts both just announced they are adding digital, which I think is awesome.
Im interested to know what designers and stores are closing too.
Do you think that it is because big paper companies are launching their digital lines now. Stamping Up and Hero Arts both just announced they are adding digital, which I think is awesome.
Have you seen the Hero Arts stuff on 2Peas? I'm not impressed -- and it's really expensive.
To be honest, I think those companies are branching out into digital a a way to stay afloat, by widening the audience they reach.
re: hero on 2peas
Bought all the Hero "vintage" stuff today. its better then the previews.
why is 2peas so much higher then everyone else? I have always wondered that.
I've spent a lot of time in the DST Gallery lately and the layouts are starting to ALL look exactly the same. And although I drooled over this look when it first came out, I'm getting really tired of it now. Artists that I used to admire don't even impress me anymore because this style has become so OVERDONE!
They are all small fantasy scenes, centered on the page, blended softly into a cloudy background. Check it out:
http://tinyurl.com/ld98k6
http://tinyurl.com/m43fuw
http://tinyurl.com/l8yfze
http://tinyurl.com/mdg5xl
http://tinyurl.com/mg6yq6
To me, this look is starting to get tired...YAWN!
re: hero on 2peas
Bought all the Hero "vintage" stuff today. its better then the previews.
why is 2peas so much higher then everyone else? I have always wondered that.
I don't know, but they screw their designers over. Designers only get 50% commission on their sales, when 80% is the average for most sites. Also, 2Peas retains the rights to any products that designers post there, even if the designers leave. I don't know why anyone would sell there.
I don't know, but they screw their designers over. Designers only get 50% commission on their sales, when 80% is the average for most sites. Also, 2Peas retains the rights to any products that designers post there, even if the designers leave. I don't know why anyone would sell there.
August 4, 2009 10:46 PM
-----------
YIKES!
They are all small fantasy scenes, centered on the page, blended softly into a cloudy background. Check it out:
http://tinyurl.com/ld98k6
http://tinyurl.com/m43fuw
http://tinyurl.com/l8yfze
http://tinyurl.com/mdg5xl
http://tinyurl.com/mg6yq6
To me, this look is starting to get tired...YAWN!
August 4, 2009 10:44 PM
--------
This style never appealed to me, I don't hate it, but it's not my thing. I don't mind fantasy, but this doesn't really seem to be fantasy to me.
I don't know why anyone would sell there.
August 4, 2009 10:46 PM
-----------
Exposure. 50% there is probably better than 80% elsewhere. Why else would Meredith, who used to sell at SBG, go to 2Peas and stay? It must be better money, even if the commission is less, which I can't vouch for, as I don't know for sure.
Do you think that it is because big paper companies are launching their digital lines now. Stamping Up and Hero Arts both just announced they are adding digital, which I think is awesome.
......................
Nope. I don't think it's because of that. These big paper companies launch their collections as digital because it's a little bit of work for a few extra bucks.
You have to keep in mind that most artists that work for these paper companies are graphic designers. They already do the majority of their work on the computer.
But these companies don't make a ton of money off of their digital either. Look at Prima. That came and went faster than I typed this sentence.
The customers they draw are more of your paper scrap variety. Those who can print out their own papers or hybrid scrappers who like to coordinate their digital and traditional products. Maybe even a few paper scrappers who want to try digital.
I think they try to tap into the market, but it hasn't quite caught on yet. And it won't. At least not with your typical digital scrapbooker, who is accustomed to getting jammed pack kits for next to nothing.
This is totally off Topic but I was browsing through Digi free and came across a site that had some free stuff. Well not only to my disappointment was in tagger sized crap and it was just that crap. Not because of the size but this girl could not design if her life depended on it! She had a kit called pop my cherry. WTF is this digital world coming to? I understand the concept behind using kits to create a tag as they call it but that to me is just drawing the line. I scrolled down looking to see what else was on this site and she had a kit with condoms in it. Now who in their right mind would buy such distasteful items. Oh yes I think I will create a scrap page with condoms and whip cream. Get real.
ROFLOL... I need to see that kit.
If it is all about exposure then why did crystal wilkerson leave and take a spot in jessica sprague's shop? Why is danielle Thompson selling through her blog now?
And I have heard that Meredith has inquired about selling at other shops, so I'm not sure I believe she is all that satisfied there. In fact, I have heard similar things about a number of their designers. Selling there seems to be more like an act of desperation.
And WHY would Mary ann wise leave DD to sell at twopeas? Surely DD pulls in a much larger percentage of the digital world than twopeas does.
^^^^
So, a couple of designers leave, but look at how many have stayed.
As to what you heard, well, I hear a lot of things, that doesn't make it true.
Nice attitude AUDREY! Could care less if you think I was a fan or not. I think your attitude is extremely ugly and it is obvious with your last post that you lack professionalism as well. Sad, sad, sad. This blog is here so we can post anon without having designers know who we are. I'm not as stupid as you.. so please dont make your idiotic offer to speak to me via email. You know I dam well would never even bother. But I do have a right to say how I feel (just like you). So live with it bitch!
Mrs. Anon
seriously? if you had the magazine why would you need to copy the sketch? liar.
and $12 or $12,000 its stealing for whoever thought it was a few measly bucks. but again, i think its her morals being questioned
Nice attitude AUDREY! Could care less if you think I was a fan or not
------
I said that about you being a so called fan, not Audrey, not that you will believe me, because clearly, you are not only a moron, but pigheaded and of course, your truth is the only truth.
seriously? if you had the magazine why would you need to copy the sketch? liar.
and $12 or $12,000 its stealing for whoever thought it was a few measly bucks. but again, i think its her morals being questioned
August 5, 2009 1:35 AM
------------
Aw, no rediculous thrown in there PixelGypsy?
Nice attitude AUDREY! Could care less if you think I was a fan or not. I think your attitude is extremely ugly and it is obvious with your last post that you lack professionalism as well. Sad, sad, sad. This blog is here so we can post anon without having designers know who we are. I'm not as stupid as you.. so please dont make your idiotic offer to speak to me via email. You know I dam well would never even bother. But I do have a right to say how I feel (just like you). So live with it bitch!
Mrs. Anon
August 5, 2009 1:32 AM
++++++++++++++
You'd know all about ugly now, wouldn't you? This is a wonderful example.
As to what you heard, well, I hear a lot of things, that doesn't make it true
____________________________________________________
There is a lot on this blog that isn't true, just speculation and someone's inane idea that to name names must make them feel better about themselves and the fact that they can say whatever they want on an anon blog. Names get thrown out all the time-the last time anything was true happened to be about AD and someone else ran with the knowledge did a little homework and found out the truth. They they had their name smeared all over the Blog.
Audrey it's better to not even comment. They make you Queen for the Day with their flaming and then they forget about you and go on to the next somebody that pisses them off. Obviously they know every thing they have on their computer and who made it and when it was made, etc etc so they won't dare make that same mistake-yeah right.
and of course there are all the Mrs Anon's that call others bitches and don't realize that they act just like what they are calling others. I mean really do you have a life?
and to all those who think ideas can be copyrighted they can't, nor can templates, shapes, because templates are really just shapes put on a page, so learn the copyright laws and learn the stock photo site regs because not every stock site has copyright photos and there are a heck of a lot of photos out there that can be used on LOs that don't need any credits at all.
Sheesh come on people get your facts straight before you spout off. it's terrible to think that new scrappers or designers come here and take all the garbage as truth and you think you are helping better the industry????????????????????????????????
Blog owner-
*New space please
*Please delete the overused reference to "underwear" being bunched up in the ass
*Delete any posts where they think the correct spelling of "Damn" is "Dam"
Thank you.
Know what Ms. Anonymous 7:05?
Your opinion matters about as much as anyone else's in this idiot factory. This place is the Jerry Springer show of digiscrapping and whoever thinks their opinion actually matters here is pretty goddamn stupid.
That's the only truth there ever will be on this blog.
This blog has its purpose; it's just "dormant" at times. It was the only news/information (you have to filter it yourself) for the Ashley Olsen saga. God forbid you open a thread demanding answers on DST. The only thread where people were able to "kindof" express their views? The one Ashley opened "This is me feeling horrible" or whatever that shit was. Oh yeah, Shantilly Faire, Amanda Dykan, digiscrapdesigner, and on, and on, and on... People came HERE for information because they could not get it from DST.
Nice attitude AUDREY! Could care less if you think I was a fan or not. I think your attitude is extremely ugly and it is obvious with your last post that you lack professionalism as well. Sad, sad, sad. This blog is here so we can post anon without having designers know who we are. I'm not as stupid as you.. so please dont make your idiotic offer to speak to me via email. You know I dam well would never even bother. But I do have a right to say how I feel (just like you). So live with it bitch!
Mrs. Anon
so if you think her response lacked professionalism, how would you have preferred her to respond?
Even well known designers don't know copyrights. Sharpie markers!
http://daniellecorbittdesigns.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=41
i think audrey is better off not having a bitch like you for a fan
Danielle Corbitt is well known?
coughcoughfilesharingcoughcough
Sharpie markers.
Actually not a copyright issue. If the designer took a photo of markers she owns, then she owns the copyright to the photo and can do what she likes with it, including selling it. Sharpie maybe own the copyright to the logo, but since it's not a use of the logo, just a photo of the entire pen, it means nothing. I seriously doubt Sharpie would give a crap, it's not like people no longer need to buy a pen to write with since they've bought a picture of one...
August 5, 2009 9:58 AM
well said!
i buy sharpies and crayons fr my kids whole class, am i braking the law by giving them away? lol
Sharpie markers.
Actually not a copyright issue. If the designer took a photo of markers she owns, then she owns the copyright to the photo and can do what she likes with it, including selling it. Sharpie maybe own the copyright to the logo, but since it's not a use of the logo, just a photo of the entire pen, it means nothing. I seriously doubt Sharpie would give a crap, it's not like people no longer need to buy a pen to write with since they've bought a picture of one...
August 5, 2009 9:58 AM
----------------------------
Yeah right! So I can take a pic of Mickey Mouse and use it because I took the pic! Bullshit!
i guess what i'm most curious about is this, since when did customers beocme the copyright police? if you don't agree with what a person is selling, then dont buy it, right? what good does it really do to come on here and bitch about stuff you think designers are doing wrong? does it make them change what they are doing? do they even know you are complaining? i guess some of them do since they come on here too and alot are porbably reading too but i guess i just dont understand what it helps to go on and on about it all.
10.44 not the same thing in any way. Mickey Mouse exists in no form OTHER than as intellectual property as 'he' is not a real thing. His image and appearance are copyright because they ARE what he is. A Sharpie pen is a pen. It's Sharpieness is not it's only attribute, and it exists as a pen, not as an image.
Forgot to add, you do not and cannot own Mickey Mouse whereas you can and do own your Sharpie pens, another reason why it's a totally spurious comparison.
"Sharpie" is a trademark issue.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/infringe.html
http://inventors.about.com/od/trademarks/a/Trademarks.htm
http://www.asmp.org/articles/trademark-faq.html
"Can I take photographs showing buildings that are registered trademarks?
As long as you are making the photograph from a public vantage point, you have the right to go ahead and shoot.
But first, read the next question.
What can I do with photographs that show trademarks, logos, or buildings or props that are themselves registered trademarks?
Generally, such photographs should be safe for editorial uses. You should make sure, however, that you specifically point out in your paperwork that you do not have any releases or permissions and, if possible, have the client indemnify you against any claims arising out of their use of the photograph. Remember that violations of third-parties rights come primarily from the use of the photograph, not the photograph itself, and you have no control over that use once you have agreed to license it.
When you get to commercial use, things become a lot more tricky, and there is no answer that can apply in the abstract — it will always come down to all of the details of the usage, including what the usage looked like. Let's assume the buildings have trademarked material on them, like names, logos, etc., or may even be registered as trademarks, themselves. Not every use of a trademark is a trademark use. Re-read that sentence carefully. What it means is that, just because a trademark appears in a photograph, that does not mean that the use of the photograph violates the rights of the trademark owners.
Trademarks started out, not as property rights, but as a form of consumer protection to keep the public from being confused as to the source of a product or service. So, if you have a photograph of Ford corporate headquarters and use it in a brochure for, let's say, Dupont, you have probably created the impression in the public's mind that there is some affiliation between or endorsement of the two companies and/or their products by the other. A reader might well assume that the two companies are related, or that Ford cars use Dupont paints or plastics, etc. This would most probably violate Ford's trademark rights.
On the other hand, if you had the same photograph in a brochure for the Detroit Chamber of Commerce, most people would probably assume that the only relationship between the two is that Ford is located in (or near) Detroit and that the Chamber's function is to boost business in the Detroit area. That does not seem likely to violate Ford's rights.
The same is true for trademarked props. A still life showing writing paper and a Mont Blanc pen would probably be fine to use on a brochure for a law firm or literary agency, but seems likely to cause problems in an ad campaign for Crane stationery. If you took a photograph of a Harley-Davidson motorcycle and sold it as an uncaptioned poster, the chances are that it would be legal. If you added the Harley-Davidson Bar and Shield logo to a corner of the poster, most people looking at it would probably believe that the poster was an officially produced or licensed product of Harley-Davidson, and you would probably be liable for trademark infringement."
Clear as mud, eh?
Well you made a point and then contradicted it with your own 'evidence'. It's NOT a copyright issue, at worst it's a trademark issue. However I don't think that anybody could reasonably draw the conclusion that the kit has anything to do with the Sharpie company, so it's not even a trademark issue (by your own evidence). To be on the safe side, as the quote you gave says, it would be wise to say 'Not a Sharpie or Sharpie-endorsed product' in the description. But even that is just covering bases for the sake of covering them.
THREE ISO Wizard of Oz threads on the first page at DST, someone have a new kit coming out?
Oh Geez, people! Just stay out of trouble and don't use a sharpie pen in your kits!
well said!
i buy sharpies and crayons fr my kids whole class, am i braking the law by giving them away? lol
________________________
Apples and oranges, moron.
i guess what i'm most curious about is this, since when did customers beocme the copyright police? if you don't agree with what a person is selling, then dont buy it, right?
----------
I guess you are the kind of person that turns the other way when someone does something wrong. Nice attitude.
But to answer your question, since you clearly don't know anything, customers are concerned because if they unknowingly use a copyrighted image on their pages and the copyright holder sees it, they are the ones who are going to get into trouble in the first instance, not the designer. The designer is going to get it later, but the customer is going to get hauled over the coals first.
THREE ISO Wizard of Oz threads on the first page at DST, someone have a new kit coming out?
August 5, 2009 1:41 PM
----------
Again? How strange. This also happened a few weeks back.
THREE ISO Wizard of Oz threads on the first page at DST, someone have a new kit coming out?
August 5, 2009 1:41 PM
---------------------------
Did you notice the dates of those threads?
Once was started in August 2008, the other in October 2008. Only one was started this year and that was in June.
Wait a minute. Didn't a designer get into heaps of trouble for doing exactly what this other designer you are talking about doing just a few months ago. They had bought items off of Etsy (I think it was paper flowers with buttons or something like that), photographed them, extracted them, and sold them as CU items. What's the difference between doing that and taking a picture of a Sharpie marker and putting it into a kit? Am I missing something? Is it the fact that one was CU and one was PU? Should that even matter?
WV:floggam
If you flog one designer, you have to "floggam" all.
i guess what i'm most curious about is this, since when did customers beocme the copyright police? if you don't agree with what a person is selling, then dont buy it, right?
----------
I guess you are the kind of person that turns the other way when someone does something wrong. Nice attitude.
But to answer your question, since you clearly don't know anything, customers are concerned because if they unknowingly use a copyrighted image on their pages and the copyright holder sees it, they are the ones who are going to get into trouble in the first instance, not the designer. The designer is going to get it later, but the customer is going to get hauled over the coals first.
what a condescending bitchy attitude you have. one more question, if you can bring yourself to answer it. i'm sure you won't mind since i know nothing and you know everything.
if you think what these designers is doing is wrong, then what are you actually doing about it? bitching about it on an anonymous blog doesn't actually serve any purpose, does it? well, other than making you feel superior and making you think you can talk down to anyone you choose. i mean, sure, you aren't "turning the other way when someone does something wrong," but what are you actually doing? nothing except running your bitchy mouth, right? is anything you are doing or saying on here actually getting designers to stop breaking copyright or getting scrappers to not use stock photos?
Im interested to know what designers and stores are closing too.
-------------------------------
We are story tellers is closing.
what a condescending bitchy attitude you have. one more question, if you can bring yourself to answer it. i'm sure you won't mind since i know nothing and you know everything.
if you think what these designers is doing is wrong, then what are you actually doing about it? bitching about it on an anonymous blog doesn't actually serve any purpose, does it? well, other than making you feel superior and making you think you can talk down to anyone you choose. i mean, sure, you aren't "turning the other way when someone does something wrong," but what are you actually doing? nothing except running your bitchy mouth, right? is anything you are doing or saying on here actually getting designers to stop breaking copyright or getting scrappers to not use stock photos?
August 5, 2009 6:29 PM
---
The only bitch here is you. Look at your reply. You must feel very superior right now, calling me names. I didn't make you feel you inferior, you did that all by yourself.
I actually do do something about people breaking copyright etc. I don't just sit here and run off the mouth like you do.
I'm so sowwy your wittle feelings got hurt. There there, mommy's gonna kiss your wittle boo boo.
Im interested to know what designers and stores are closing too.
-------------------------------
We are story tellers is closing.
August 5, 2009 6:39 PM
--------------
Was there an announcement? Just curious.
what a condescending bitchy attitude you have. one more question, if you can bring yourself to answer it. i'm sure you won't mind since i know nothing and you know everything.
*************************
Chill out! Who peed in your cereal in this morning?
We went from granny panties being bunched up to "Who peed in your cereal in this morning?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your point?
hmmmm. you never did explain what it is you do when someone's doing something wrong in the digiworld.
If stock photos are in the public domaine they don't always have the photographers name. I use a lot of stock and I have no idea who the photographer is and there is no way to find out.
July 6, 2009 9:45 PM
Ditto but you can sing to the choir and there are those who think they know more then we do. I doubt they have done their research as they just talk out of hand and oh by the way.
Many photographs are looking professional because the people taking them have damn expensive cameras, have possibly taken classes in photography that make their photos look professional. It's amazing considering the cost of those cameras that so many scrappers and designer's own them but they do.
hmmmm. you never did explain what it is you do when someone's doing something wrong in the digiworld.
August 5, 2009 8:06 PM
------------
I don't have to explain myself to you. Whatever I say, you are going to dispute and then tell me what a condescending bitch I am, so why bother?
7:56:
YOU'RE NOT WITTY!!!!
7:56:
YOU'RE NOT WITTY!!!!
August 5, 2009 9:14 PM
--------
I wasn't trying to be, not sure why you said this.
All you all in preschool or what?!
^^^^^^^^^^^^
What an irrelevant question.
We Are Storytellers IS closing. They just sent out the email
DiscTalkRadio and now WST. Deann is 0 for 2!
Yep, I just got the news about WAS. I'm not surprised really. Sad for the designers but I'm sure they will find other stores.
"DiscTalkRadio and now WST. Deann is 0 for 2!"
Wow, not even sure what to say about that, there's more than a few successful entrepreneurs in this world who have a worse track record, not to mention digiscrap people who have started a few stores and moved onto something else.
Does anyone have the inside scoop on why we are storytellers is closing? (I can make my own assumptions, but...... I'd rather read the gossip)
It will be interesting to see what stores the designers end up going to!
Are there other stores closing soon?
Just another store that over-hyped themselves and put rediculous prices on their (somewhat cheesy) stuff. Customers are wising up. I don't understand why people are so surprized.
Just my worthless opinion. I don't know..I browsed but never actually bought anything there because of the prices and the fact that the items for sale were really nothing special.
Christina Renee finally has a new kit in store ... looks gorgeous. Great to see her back.
gag. Christina please do not use the blog for advertising, use your mailing list for your spam. Blog readers know you are unstable and fly by night. Not interested in your quarterly kit release, go take your meds.
I have a question for those of you who seem to oppose any comments from people complaining or pointing fingers at designers pirating or infringing on copyrights.
Why do you feel the way you do? If you're just a simple digiscrapper/customer, is it because you like getting the stuff, regardless of where it came from or that you feel it doesn't hurt anyone? If you're a designer, do you just feel you have the right to use it and that you're really not hurting anyone?
I'm simply curious and I'm not trying to be bitchy. There seem to be a quite a few that come to the aid of those being accused or complained about, using the jealousy card or whatever. I just can't understand why anyone, customer or designer, would think it's okay. Whether it's something as blatant as sharing stuff or something as simple as taking images from the web and using them commercially to make free kits to share. This is an anon blog, so I'm not looking to name any names about anything, I'm simply looking for reasoning behind all the backlash towards people trying to point out piracy and copyright infringements.
If you're a designer, take this honey designer for example, and you just take images from the web and throw a kit together, do you honestly think you're doing a good job and you deserve the praise that you get from your blog visitors? Again, not trying to provoke anger, just honest answers.
if the people who are posting here are actually DOING something about those issues, then that's fine. more power to them. but i don't see any action being taken, just a bunch of people complaining anonymously. maybe all the crap talk just overshadows it.
another thought. that honey designer you named. maybe she doesn't know that she's done something wrong. she should, perhaps, but she doesn't. how does bringing it up on here do anything to educate her or let her know that what she's doing is wrong? from outside appearances, this blog looks like a place to bash designers and scrappers, anyone that you think is doing something wrong (whether they actually are or not). it seems like nothing but a place for speculation and gossip. is anyone going to the trouble of contacting this person and letting her know that what she has done is wrong? some designers or scrappers read the blog and see when they are being talked about, but not everyone does.
So what makes the difference between a successful digi-store and one that shuts down? Why does one store turn a profit while another closes its doors?
I like the new look at SBE. About time they freshened it up and it looks and navigates great.
Guess they must be doing alright.
We Are Storytellers IS a great store, but when they first came out they had unrealistic prices for their stuff. Once you start that trend you can lower prices all you want, but who is going to come back. I just wonder where the designers will end up going. I do love a lot of their stuff.
Christina Renee, she could be crazy as a loon, but her stuff is really good. Her new chain alpha is cool. If you don't like her or her stuff, don't buy it. And this is not Christina.
It JUST means that we'll HAVE TO ENDURE more of THIS writing from HER on the BOARDS!
I'm sure a lot of the WST will be absorbed into places like ScrapArtist, TLP, SPD, SBG, 2p's maybe...they're big enough names they definitely won't have trouble getting a spot somewhere.
Speaking of 2p's...I've found it really strange the mix of designers over there. They're sort of ..umm..'oldschool/oldstuff'. Definitely not as trendy as they have the paper side. I wonder if they thought bringing out 'name brands' in the digi world (even if they aren't the preeminent names any longer) is what it will take to get the merging digiscrappers in their store.
STOP SPELLING THE WORD RIDICULOUS WITH AN E!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's not rEdiculous, it's rIdiculous.
if the people who are posting here are actually DOING something about those issues, then that's fine. more power to them. but i don't see any action being taken, just a bunch of people complaining anonymously. maybe all the crap talk just overshadows it.
August 6, 2009 11:00 AM
--------------
You have no idea what you're talking about. Don't make assumptions that nobody is doing anything about those issues. I do. I email designers, I let my friends know and yes, I stay polite. But it takes time to educate people so maybe you don't see any global result but once in a while, something good comes out of it.
STOP SPELLING THE WORD RIDICULOUS WITH AN E!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's not rEdiculous, it's rIdiculous.
_________________
stfu.
I'm rather new to this blog, what's with the Christina Renee hating? Just wondering, I think her stuff is pretty nice. I picked up on the 2 new items already and they're quite nice. Unless maybe there's some kind of history I don't know about. Either way, won't stop me from buying her stuff if I like it.
but i don't see any action being taken, just a bunch of people complaining anonymously. maybe all the crap talk just overshadows it.
August 6, 2009 11:00 AM
--------------
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I had to email you when I took action. Please give me your name, so I can rectify the situation.
I'm rather new to this blog, what's with the Christina Renee hating?
---------
Where is there hating? There are comments about her being crazy, but I don't see any hate. I wouldn't call her loony, but she is rather flaky. Long history there.
Just another store that over-hyped themselves and put rediculous prices on their (somewhat cheesy) stuff. Customers are wising up. I don't understand why people are so surprized.
Just my worthless opinion. I don't know..I browsed but never actually bought anything there because of the prices and the fact that the items for sale were really nothing special.
August 6, 2009 7:53 AM
--------------
Were you rejected Pamela?
Should that 'rijected'?
1000 woowoo
'm sure a lot of the WST will be absorbed into places like ScrapArtist, TLP, SPD, SBG, 2p's maybe...they're big enough names they definitely won't have trouble getting a spot somewhere.
---------------------------------
It always makes me laugh how people think these are the "good" stores. Take a look at web stats people!!! Divine Digital gets almost TWICE as much traffic as Shabby Pickle and After Five Designs. Just an example to show how confused some of your are. :)
Hopefully these designers will get on somewhere with some actual traffic.
But they don't "fit" at Divine Digitals- that's why she mentioned them.
But they don't "fit" at Divine Digitals- that's why she mentioned them.
=========================
They don't fit at DD because DD is sub-par and the WAS designers are not. DD has WAY to many designers and the majority of them stink. I imagine they're traffic is just up from the Royanna pity party.
Post a Comment