It looks to me as a complete outsider that all the designers are exclusive, but they have their own personal stores, too. What's up with that? I ------------
The only person you are selling with at your own place, is yourself. I guess they don't store a personal store as competition.
----------------------------- A: I am not Anne & do not even know who 'Anne' is. B: I was referring to how you know she went to Catscrap, (ie. You said, 'She went to Catscrap.') she isn't there now, so how do you know? Answer = you don't - you are full of crap.
June 19, 2010 2:33 AM
No, not full of crap. I was referring to Kristen Rice now being at Catscrap. Guess I should have spelled it out for you.
True, she's not Anne. I used to sign all my posts, but I hardly post anymore. I still read every day though, and even though I wish there was something to talk about, all appears to be well in digiland.
I am enjoying all of the posts on copyright at DST, so let me throw something out there. Are most of those who infringe on copyright from eastern Europe? Because I get the feeling that those girls just don't give a dammn about that sort of thing, as long as they can find a picture of someone else's kid taken by a professional photographer. Or is there an endless supply of babies with giant flowers on their heads in Poland and the Czech Republic?
Yes I think the majority of people abusing stockphoto's and stolen photo's are from Eastern Europe. They do seem to have little regard for copyright laws or tou's. Alot of pirate site originate there also. They really do not add much to the community as a whole. I guess I should also add that there are a few of them that are very friendly and abide by the "rules" but the majority of them don't seem to. You will see them on the boards with tons of posts but they are all for the praise game, happy place or GSO's. I used to take part in those threads but they have made it so that I no longer enjoy them. It started with the praise games and multiple submissions to see who could get the most comments. Then they started on the GSO's posting the friends LO's just to get their friends to post theirs. Some of them were truly amazing works of art but alot of it was crap so I stopped looking. They just seem to want tons of praise and GSO's so they can get on CT's and get free kits. I often wonder how much they actually spend to support the community. I have noticed a few shops opening with the owners based in eastern europe and I am staying far away from them because I would hate to give them any information because I just don't trust them. I know its not right to lump them all together but from what I have seen I can't help feeling that way.
^one of the worst offenders of no-credit, baby-photo stealing. And it is always in the praise game, GSO. I won't leave comments on her layouts. She's a thief.
True, she's not Anne. I used to sign all my posts, but I hardly post anymore. I still read every day though, and even though I wish there was something to talk about, all appears to be well in digiland.
I am enjoying all of the posts on copyright at DST, so let me throw something out there. Are most of those who infringe on copyright from eastern Europe? Because I get the feeling that those girls just don't give a dammn about that sort of thing, as long as they can find a picture of someone else's kid taken by a professional photographer. Or is there an endless supply of babies with giant flowers on their heads in Poland and the Czech Republic?
-- Anne xxxxx
Lol well Anne, there you are. Wonder who is confusing you with someone else?
Yes, the majority of the offenders do seem to be from the Eastern hemisphere. I think they feel they can get away with it because they can use the whole language barrier excuse. I have noticed some of them blatantly use Anne Geddes pics in their layouts. Yeah, like Anne Geddes would allow that!
I'm don't trust those designers/scrappers as a whole although I'm sure there are some that are honest. My daughter was browsing bing for a bottle image the other day for a tattoo she wants. She found the perfect bottle and showed me. Well lo and behold that very same bottle turned up in a CU set the very next day. It's a pretty blue bottle with a stopper but I cannot remember who had it.
What's up with those hideous pink and blue kits Barb Speck put in the product gallery at DST? Looks like someone puked a bunch of pink and blue paint. Yuck.
I look at that gallery and think whats the point. If they were works of art I don't think they would be so prolific and they are not well done. The shadows and light sources are all wrong. If you are going to do fantasy LOs at least spend some time to make them proper.
Not all of the GSO whores/ photograpy copyright abusers are from Eastern Europe. I also noticed many French girls. And this person is American, so language is not an issue for her http://www.digishoptalk.com/gallery/showgallery.php?ppuser=24715&cat=all&page=1 What are designers thinking when they give to people like her a dozen of CT spots and put crap like that in store newsletter to advertise kits?
What's up with those hideous pink and blue kits Barb Speck put in the product gallery at DST? Looks like someone puked a bunch of pink and blue paint. Yuck. ----------------------
Barb Speck is an overrated hack who thinks she knows it all.
what really disgusts me the most is that the designers, who are always crying about pirating actually use these l pages to advertise for them. When I see a bunch of LO's for a kit that look like they mostly all use lifted photos I refuse to buy that kit or that designer. Until people start speaking with their $$$ this will continue to happen IMO.
Not all of the GSO whores/ photograpy copyright abusers are from Eastern Europe. I also noticed many French girls. And this person is American, so language is not an issue for her http://www.digishoptalk.com/gallery/showgallery.php?ppuser=24715&cat=all&page=1 What are designers thinking when they give to people like her a dozen of CT spots and put crap like that in store newsletter to advertise kits?
------ too bad she isn't using real photos the layouts aren't bad if they weren't just advertisements. she either thinks people are dumb enough to think she has that many kids or doesn't give a shit what anyone thinks. I see she is scrapping for Dreamland Digital or whatever the crap it is I guess she thinks those designers don't care what photos she uses.
Well, I recently bought a trial membership over at clickinmoms, and those women are rabid about protecting their images. I don't think an aneurysm is out of the question if they ever found one of their pictures used in a layout. If other photographers are even half as concerned with copyright violation, I'm surprised, or shocked really, that it's so blatent at DST.
Recently I found a bunch of the altered artist designers with stolen images in their kits. All of those designers were American. So what's worse, stolen images on your layouts, or stolen images you are selling?
I have to ask, why do some of you say about someone 'she thinks she knows it all'. It just makes you look ignorant and childish. My five year old throws this at me when I'm asking her to do something.
Are you threatened by someone who has a brain or can't you come up with a really good insult?
LMAO Hi Barb - Nice to know you still read the blog :P
June 19, 2010 8:41 PM --------------------
Folks, this is simply amazing. Apparently, this blog is a haven for those with psychic abilities. They are able to divine exactly who is posting, despite the inconvenience of so-called "anonymity." Unless you are saying or agreeing that someone sucks, you yourself must be said person. This tried and true method has become a mainstay of DST HOF, and I say it's time to branch out into other areas, such as predicting winning lottery numbers and stock market fluctuations.
The 'know it all' part comes from the mental picture one gets after viewing her (barfSpeck's) 1000s of posts where she just happens to mention she practically invented digital scrapbooking...and if it weren't for her....and her abilities....I skip reading her posts so not sure what the ellipses should say.
My fave girls, Bohemian Arts, are from Eastern Europe and I'd truth them with my credit cards or bank statement any day.
Anonymous knew Kristen Rice was going to Catscrap because she got an email newsletter.
The Lauren Reid and her own store post was a comment based on a comment from the previous page - had nothing to do with Catscrap.
The 'know it all' part comes from the mental picture one gets after viewing her (barfSpeck's) 1000s of posts where she just happens to mention she practically invented digital scrapbooking...and if it weren't for her....and her abilities....I skip reading her posts so not sure what the ellipses should say. -------
Agreed to that, although the name calling is not necessary. I'm asking why the 'know it all' is applied to many another people as well.
What is really pathetic are the "designers" who download from royalty free sites, not paying the full price for digital distribution rights for the images, and then profess their own copyright of the image in their CU kits. Just because you put something in your kit, doesn't make you the owner of it. And, I will bet my own rep that these nits didn't pay upwards of $200 for an image of a bottle to use in a cheap $5 kit. Its really makes me laugh when I see them scream that someone is stealing their products. The copyright drama is so overblown and I really hope that one day someone calls out the real thieves for all to see.
Including a CU item in a kit and naming the file from that kit with the designers initials IS NOT claiming copyright to that item. As long as the original artist has been credited in the TOU of that kit no wrong doing has taken place.
No. That is not true. You can't use images from royalty free sites for commercial, digital distribution without paying for premium license. Its a big fee. I normally see them sit about $200 and the upwards per image. Please. What CU designer ( or PU Designer) is going to fork out that amount for one item for a kit?
So, regardless of how you word your TOU, if you didn't pay for the digital distribution rights as outlined, you are in violation of the photograph's TOU and therefore stealing the image. You have no right to say what anyone else can do with that image if you yourself have not paid for the legal right to use it.
I don't want to get into another he said she said copyright drama here - but I am really tired of people claiming copyright on stuff that they 1) did not originally design themselves, and 2) tools that they do not have the legal right to use. Then, if they see someone else using that image - the copyright infringement flag gets waved and threats are made. I say, show me your license on the image and then let's talk.
You can't use images from royalty free sites for commercial, digital distribution without paying for premium license. Its a big fee. I normally see them sit about $200 and the upwards per image. Please. What CU designer ( or PU Designer) is going to fork out that amount for one item for a kit?
-----
They can't get a high enough quality image to put in a kit directly from the site without paying the royalty fees. And many of them are watermarked until the fee is paid. So then how are they getting that image if they aren't paying the fees?
There are some place that require permission for commercial use. http://www.sxc.hu/ is an example. Then we won't have any way of knowing if they obtained permission without checking with the original stock owner. Are you willing to do that.
And I honestly believe that it isn't the same designers stealing who are crying out about copyright violations. You are lumping them all into one group. If they are stealing I would think they would want to be under scrutiny and call attention to themselves.
Not true. I just downloaded a bunch of photos for a school project for my daughter from a royalty free place. They were all high resolution photos and weren't watermarked or anything. Just because they are on a royalty free site and are high resolution, doesn't mean they are free for the taking. To say that because someone has a high resolution photo they must have permission or bought permission is a fallacy.
(btw, the site I used allows use of the photographs for personal use. So no copyright violation there!) Royalty free does not equal commercial use royalty free. I think that's the error in many designers' thinking.
Commercial use for a lot of places such as Deviant Art means you can manipulate the artwork and sell it as a PRINT ... not copy and paste it "as-is" into a kit and sell it as a PRODUCT.
I had to say something b/c I couldn't pass up the word verification: ballses
No. That is not true. You can't use images from royalty free sites for commercial, digital distribution without paying for premium license. Its a big fee. I normally see them sit about $200 and the upwards per image. Please. What CU designer ( or PU Designer) is going to fork out that amount for one item for a kit? ______________________________________
You who think you know all about the copyright laws of stock photo sites are pure idiots at best. Why don't you try and learn what you are talking about before you make yourself look stupid. There are high quality, royalty free and public domain sites that don't ask for fees and don't require licenses. They don't require you name the photographer and they don't even make you name the site. Why don't you do your homework before making stupid comments.
ere are high quality, royalty free and public domain sites that don't ask for fees and don't require licenses. They don't require you name the photographer and they don't even make you name the site. Why don't you do your homework before making stupid comments.
June 20, 2010 4:35 PM
----------
True, but some of those sites also have stolen images that they are redistributing. They don't police every image that goes up. If you want to be sure, it's better to pay for it. At least that way, if it is stolen, you have some recourse.
True, but some of those sites also have stolen images that they are redistributing. They don't police every image that goes up. If you want to be sure, it's better to pay for it. At least that way, if it is stolen, you have some recourse.
June 20, 2010 7:33 PM --------------------
And what recourse is that exactly? Will the internet police come riding to the rescue and refund your money?
She might not get her money back but at least she can show that she bought the item and didn't steal it. When a designer is challenged about an item used in a kit and she can show that she bought it in good faith, the original owner of that item won't vilify that designer - instead going to the person who sold it to them.
"They don't require you name the photographer and they don't even make you name the site. Why don't you do your homework before making stupid comments."
Back at you.
My entire point is that if you didn't pay or invest in an image you downloaded from a royalty free space, or if you didn't create it yourself and you are using it in a CU kit, you have no right to tell anyone how they can use that image.
You can't claim copyright on something you did not create. And this entire POV is based on solo images - such as bottles, frames, ribbons, etc - not incorporated as part of a new piece, but just extracted and sold as an element for CU.
My entire point is that if you didn't pay or invest in an image you downloaded from a royalty free space, or if you didn't create it yourself and you are using it in a CU kit, you have no right to tell anyone how they can use that image.
You can't claim copyright on something you did not create. And this entire POV is based on solo images - such as bottles, frames, ribbons, etc - not incorporated as part of a new piece, but just extracted and sold as an element for CU. ____________
If I take a photograph, extract what I want and make that into something else then I most certainly can call it mine I most certainly can tell someone else what I want done with it. It's no different then taking clip art making it into a brush or a shape and calling it mine and limiting it's use as well. I also didn't just pull this info out of my butt but have a resource published in the Photoshop world who knows all about copyright issues and what you can and can't call your own,
If I take a photograph, extract what I want and make that into something else then I most certainly can call it mine I most certainly can tell someone else what I want done with it. -------------
That depends entirely on what you took a photograph of. If it's Micky Mouse, then no, you can't extract it and turn it into something else. If it's the Eiffel Tower at night with the lights on, then no, you can't extract that either. Both of those are under strict usage rules.
Seriously...sites and blogs want you to play their challenges...well if you do send the prize to the winner...been 3+ weeks with no response even though I have tried multiple times to contact!
That depends entirely on what you took a photograph of. If it's Micky Mouse, then no, you can't extract it and turn it into something else. If it's the Eiffel Tower at night with the lights on, then no, you can't extract that either. Both of those are under strict usage rules.
Duhhhh I was talking about Public Domain or Royalty Free photos of things that are perfectly legal. I know that Disney and certain tourist attractions are not but funny that you can take and extract the Eiffel Tower from a daytime photo. I mean some of us do have a bit of common sense.
taking clip art making it into a brush or a shape and calling it mine and limiting it's use
This isn't usually okay, either.
wv is intois... as in, using your intois, you could draw something original, instead of ripping off someone else's art.
It most certainly is if you have permission to do just that. Why don't people get that if you have permission of the site, the original artist etc. anything is possible and when you alter something usually more then 50% you can say it's yours. That's the key making it different then what it was.
Folks, this is simply amazing. Apparently, this blog is a haven for those with psychic abilities. They are able to divine exactly who is posting, despite the inconvenience of so-called "anonymity." Unless you are saying or agreeing that someone sucks, you yourself must be said person. This tried and true method has become a mainstay of DST HOF, and I say it's time to branch out into other areas, such as predicting winning lottery numbers and stock market fluctuations.
Now that is priceless!! ROFLMAO Thanks for the laugh!!
If anyone knows what the lottery numbers are going to be this week I sure would love your opinion. Otherwise it's just that your opinion and it really makes you look like the jealous bitchrs that you are. Go try and impress someone who gives a damn. Barb, Tina, Royanna, Marcie, Susie Q and all the rest that get mentioned in this blog will outlast most of you underrated designers who have a bone to pick just because you think people listen to you. It's amazing that they are all still in business. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???
when you alter something usually more then 50% you can say it's yours. That's the key making it different then what it was.
June 21, 2010 9:04 PM
-------
Turning an object into a brush is not changing anything by 50%. I know what you are saying, but there are a ton of designers out there who just take a graphic as is and resell it. Reselling anything is a definite no-no. There are also a ton of designers who steal stuff from DA and sell it. It's strange that these days designing has become synonymous with fencing.
Barb, Tina, Royanna, Marcie, Susie Q and all the rest that get mentioned in this blog will outlast most of you underrated designers who have a bone to pick just because you think people listen to you. It's amazing that they are all still in business. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??? -------------
Well, golly gee, McDonalds is still in business too, doesn't mean it's good. But there will always be people out there who don't recognize crap when they meet it.
Well, golly gee, McDonalds is still in business too, doesn't mean it's good. But there will always be people out there who don't recognize crap when they meet it.
Well obviously you are the Queen of Crap Knowing so I guess that means we should all bow down and worship your highness!! What's one's crap is another one's treasure. Guess they have those who think their designs are just fine or why the hell do you think they would stay in business. I mean really this business hardly makes a dent in anyone's pocket book. At this point you have to love what you are doing because no one is getting rich. Plus they have to put up with people like yourself who really wouldn't know crap if you stepped in it. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion such as it is.
Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by an abnormal love of self, and an exaggerated sense of superiority and importance.
Well guess that about describes nearly everyone who posts on this blog. Y'all love yourself beyond belief and definitely have an exaggerated sense of superiority and importance. Besides thinking you are always correct in what you might want to post whether it is crap or not. Here a crap there a crap about decides it. Most everything on here is pure and simple crap. And before you ask why bother with this blog... I need a few laughs in my otherwise boring life.
Well obviously you are the Queen of Crap Knowing so I guess that means we should all bow down and worship your highness!! What's one's crap is another one's treasure. Guess they have those who think their designs are just fine or why the hell do you think they would stay in business. I mean really this business hardly makes a dent in anyone's pocket book. At this point you have to love what you are doing because no one is getting rich. Plus they have to put up with people like yourself who really wouldn't know crap if you stepped in it. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion such as it is.
Well guess that about describes nearly everyone who posts on this blog. Y'all love yourself beyond belief and definitely have an exaggerated sense of superiority and importance. Besides thinking you are always correct in what you might want to post whether it is crap or not. Here a crap there a crap about decides it. Most everything on here is pure and simple crap. And before you ask why bother with this blog... I need a few laughs in my otherwise boring life.
June 22, 2010 5:54 PM
-----------
I just love it when people like you come here and say "i need a laugh". What does that say about you? I guess it says that you are a sad and pathetic individual, one that needs to be pitied. You come here for a laugh? I can think of much better places to go.
Well, golly gee, McDonalds is still in business too, doesn't mean it's good. But there will always be people out there who don't recognize crap when they meet it. -------------- Well obviously you are the Queen of Crap Knowing so I guess that means we should all bow down and worship your highness!! What's one's crap is another one's treasure. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What? Do you have shares in McDonalds or do you honestly think it's a treasure? I pity you.
I just love it when people like you come here and say "i need a laugh". What does that say about you? I guess it says that you are a sad and pathetic individual, one that needs to be pitied. You come here for a laugh? I can think of much better places to go.
People like me enjoy being a bit scarstic sweetie. Don't get your knickers in a knot.
It most certainly is if you have permission to do just that. Why don't people get that if you have permission of the site, the original artist etc. anything is possible and when you alter something usually more then 50% you can say it's yours. That's the key making it different then what it was.
This almost has to be Barb. She pulls that 50% number out of her ass and states it as if it were factual (which, it most definitely is not) She thinks she is an authority on the matter, and wants everyone else to think that as well, but is absolutely not.
Fact is, if an average person can tell that your "work" was created by even LOOKING at someone else's work, that is a copyright infringement. That doesn't mean any simple thing that obviously looks a certain way and happens to look like another artists rendition is infringing... common clip-art type pieces will often have similarities due to the fact that certain things just look a certain way.
But if someone has a detailed piece of work - whether it is a detailed drawing, or very intricate or unique design, and you can tell that a 2nd person couldn't have created "their" piece without looking at the original piece, then it is, in fact, a DERIVATIVE work, and copyright remains with the ORIGINAL creator of the 1st piece.
So no, turning something into a brush does not make it "yours" nor give you the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with it. If it was a public domain image, then it is still a public domain image, unless you have ~substantially~ changed it, to the point of being almost unrecognizable.
And even if you have someone's permission to use something, they are not going to give up their copyright; it remains with them.
I obviously do not absolutely know that it was Barb who made that comment, but it sounds exactly like the garbage that she spews out as if it were gospel truth, when it is not. Gawd, I hope she doesn't actually start 'mentoring' new designers :O
I obviously do not absolutely know that it was Barb who made that comment, but it sounds exactly like the garbage that she spews out as if it were gospel truth, when it is not. Gawd, I hope she doesn't actually start 'mentoring' new designers :O ---- I hope not as well, the one thing I purchased from her was blurry and jagged.
This almost has to be Barb. She pulls that 50% number out of her ass and states it as if it were factual (which, it most definitely is not) She thinks she is an authority on the matter, and wants everyone else to think that as well, but is absolutely not. --------
It isn't. She always post with her name, unlike the rest of us anons.
I hope not as well, the one thing I purchased from her was blurry and jagged
well gee did you let her know, let the store know, give her a chance to fix what was wrong. I went looking and it appears most of her kits have quality checks at CU.com and from personal experience I know Digitals QCs all their designer's kits. I think I'm going to have to go see if she has any freebies so I can check first hand but lets talk about previews did you happen to check out Redu's new stitches, thought about buying them until I saw the enlargement and talk about them looking bad and of course she is now only selling at SBG. Why you keep harping on the same old designers makes me wonder if they might have pissed in your cereal cause there are a lot more new ones I'd rather know about.
So no, turning something into a brush does not make it "yours" nor give you the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with it. If it was a public domain image, then it is still a public domain image, unless you have ~substantially~ changed it, to the point of being almost unrecognizable.
Talk about narcssistic. LOL You just have to be right huh?? Hate to tell you you don't know what you are talking about. Do some research and figure it out.
But if someone has a detailed piece of work - whether it is a detailed drawing, or very intricate or unique design, and you can tell that a 2nd person couldn't have created "their" piece without looking at the original piece, then it is, in fact, a DERIVATIVE work, and copyright remains with the ORIGINAL creator of the 1st piece.
-------------------------------
Well actually if the first person created it without looking at something else, than it's *possible* that the 2nd person could have as well, it would not be the first time that two independant designers both came up with a similar concept without having any clue about the existence of the other. Now, it is not *probable*, but we can't make a blanket statement like "they couldn't have made this without looking at the other".
Some people have no idea what commercial use means.
Sometimes commercial use means that you can use the item in advertisements or newsletters pertaining to your business. It does not mean that you can sell the item in any way.
Sometimes commercial use means that you can use the item in advertisements or newsletters pertaining to your business. It does not mean that you can sell the item in any way.
I guess people never thought to ask the person or site of the stuff they might want to use or even read the Terms or FAQs most sites have.
well gee did you let her know, let the store know, give her a chance to fix what was wrong. _______________________ When I buy a faulty product, I ask for a refund, whether it be a pair of jeans, a cell phone or a digital image. Why on earth would I contact the designer or give her critique? Not my job, only my money and I don't play games with my money. It should never EVER be up to the customer to critique a designer's work.
Why designers think they're so damn above the rest of the world is just plain ignorant. You're selling digital images, for crying out loud! Anyone with a computer, digital manipulation software and a bit of time can do it. Zero talent needed. Y'all need to get your heads slapped out of your asses and back down to reality.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Your explanation doesn't really make sense. If you purchase faulty product do you only ask for a refund? Don't you explain why you want the refund and give the company a chance to rectify the situation?
If I bought a pair of defective Levi jeans, I wouldn't demand a refund and never buy a pair of Levi's again. I would return them and ask for a different pair. Sometimes a faulty pair slips through the cracks. Why shouldn't a designer be given the same courtesy?
I hope not as well, the one thing I purchased from her was blurry and jagged
well gee did you let her know, let the store know, give her a chance to fix what was wrong. I went looking and it appears most of her kits have quality checks at CU.com and from personal experience I know Digitals QCs all their designer's kits. I think I'm going to have to go see if she has any freebies so I can check first hand but lets talk about previews did you happen to check out Redu's new stitches, thought about buying them until I saw the enlargement and talk about them looking bad and of course she is now only selling at SBG. Why you keep harping on the same old designers makes me wonder if they might have pissed in your cereal cause there are a lot more new ones I'd rather know about.
June 23, 2010 8:48 AM
-----------
You obviously have a personal grudge with her and SBG. I don't know what you are talking about. I own that pack and most of her stitches and they are fabulous.
And guess who's doing the "Quality Control"?? Yep, Barf herself.. Having her QC'ing for stores is a joke. It is HER stuff that needs QC'ing by someone else.
I don't understand the beef with "Barf." I gather this is Barbara Speck you are talking about. But I don't understand where the anomosity is coming from. Have you worked with her or something? Honestly curious.
lets talk about previews did you happen to check out Redu's new stitches, thought about buying them until I saw the enlargement and talk about them looking bad ----------
I would have to agree, they don't look great on the preview. However, they will look great printed out, you will never see the stitches at that magnification on your final product
Sometimes commercial use means that you can use the item in advertisements or newsletters pertaining to your business. It does not mean that you can sell the item in any way.
I guess people never thought to ask the person or site of the stuff they might want to use or even read the Terms or FAQs most sites have.
June 23, 2010 3:10 PM --------
I think a lot of them do read, but either choose to ignore it, thinking they can get away with it, or choose not to understand and still think they can get away with it.
"...If I bought a pair of defective Levi jeans, I wouldn't demand a refund and never buy a pair of Levi's again. I would return them and ask for a different pair. Sometimes a faulty pair slips through the cracks. Why shouldn't a designer be given the same courtesy?" __________________ Well, if digital designs were mass-produced, you might have a valid point. They're not so you don't.
I bought a bad Wii from Best Buy, returned it to Best Buy 3 days later and got a new one. I did not call Nintendo and say, "Hey, this Wii doesn't work right. Here, take it and see if you can fix it and then send it back when you get around to it." Hell no. If I had it for a year and it breaks, I might but only if it was still under warranty and/or it wouldn't cost me more to fix it than it would to purchase a new one.
If I buy a pack of digital flower images and they're really bad extractions with stray pixels and jagged edges, what is the designer going to do, exactly? Am I supposed to sit around and wait until they might fix it to my expectations? LOL NOT. I'll get a refund and then either try and fix them myself or find another similar pack somewhere else. Why would I ever contact the designer? I only ever contact the store itself and I wouldn't want the designer to rectify any situation other than giving me my money back, in the case where the designer in question actually owned the store. There is no replacement for a crappy digital image other than my cash back in my pocket. Have fun playing with your "designers," though. In the time it takes you to play nice with your money and do emails back and forth for however many days until you're satisfied, you could have either purchased new ones elsewhere, fixed the ones you bought or even made your own, for that matter.
If english is not someone's first language, then she shouldn't write english word arts.
June 24, 2010 3:59 PM ..... She just needs to get someone with English as thier first language to proof them for her. I don't think you can rely on a translator for that kind of thing. They give some pretty funky translations sometimes.
Anyone else want to share the shining stars of poorly translated word art?
June 24, 2010 3:01 PM
-----------
What really pisses me off when this happens is that some of the CTMs know it's wrong, but don't have the decency to let their designer know. You know they know it's wrong because they've made it right on their preview LOs.
I didn't say it was mispelled (perhaps a remedial course in reading would be helpful?). I pointed out exactly what was off ("Delight this moment"), and linked to the kit that contains the word art. The time you spent wondering about where the imaginary mispelling was could have been used to look at the CT layouts (same page as linked) that utilize the awkward phrase.
Doh! Drink a little coffee before you post, and maybe you can avoid sounding like a simpleton.
Little bit of a change of topic, what is the best smallish forum/gallery? I want to hear the good, the bad and the fugly..we ARE on a anon blog here!
I'm looking for a digi home WITHOUT a bunch of drive by postings in the gallery, WITHOUT a plethora of rabid CT members, and where I can get some nice, honest comments. Preferably not attached to a store.
I'm not on any CT's nor do I use a lot of kits or elements. I just like the feedback, like the fellowship, like to check out gorgeous pages. Most importantly I don't like to feel ignored because I don't use kits/elements.
There's a topic about this at DST but I haven't really seen anywhere that looks that promising on the list.
Deviant Scraps looks ok but it's got a store with it and looks like most of the gallery posts are using store product, as I guess they should being a extension of a store of course. Ripal's forum/gallery? I'm not sure.
Does such a place exist in digi land or am I gonna have to start a place that like myself? LOL!
It's small but the ladies seem nice. I'm lurking there (never join though.) I actually like the "Hot or Not" daily threads they have. I think it's a kind of honest feedbacks from scrapbookers and potential customers that designers should hear about.
I didn't say it was mispelled (perhaps a remedial course in reading would be helpful?). I pointed out exactly what was off ("Delight this moment"), and linked to the kit that contains the word art. The time you spent wondering about where the imaginary mispelling was could have been used to look at the CT layouts (same page as linked) that utilize the awkward phrase.
Doh! Drink a little coffee before you post, and maybe you can avoid sounding like a simpleton.
June 25, 2010 1:57 PM
-----------------
English is not my first language (and no, I don't write word arts, lol). So, what is wrong with "delight this moment"? Is it wrong to say that? It's not a proper english expression?
English is not my first language (and no, I don't write word arts, lol). So, what is wrong with "delight this moment"? Is it wrong to say that? It's not a proper english expression?
June 25, 2010 3:53 PM =============================
English is not my first language (and no, I don't write word arts, lol). So, what is wrong with "delight this moment"? Is it wrong to say that? It's not a proper english expression?
June 25, 2010 3:53 PM
--------------------
Okay, blushing a bit here--I thought your English was fine, and didn't guess you weren't a native speaker. Yes, the other poster is correct that it should be "Delight in this moment."
I do appreciate that many designers are speaking English as a second (or even third, fourth, etc.) language, which certainly gives them an edge on me, lol. I just find it amusing when the translations come out wrong, and somehow either no one catches it or no one wants to say anything, so it just keeps getting used over and over again. Not saying the writer is stupid, just that it makes me laugh, so not personal at all. I can only imagine what kind of word art I'd create with my nonexistant Russian language skills and google translator.
And before the "Did you bother letting the designer know?" crowd comes calling, no I didn't and no I won't. If she doesn't care enough to have her translations checked before using them in a kit, why should I care enough to show her the mistake?
What really pisses me off when this happens is that some of the CTMs know it's wrong, but don't have the decency to let their designer know. You know they know it's wrong because they've made it right on their preview LOs.
June 24, 2010 7:26 PM __________
I agree that sometimes the CTMs are a little bit rude. I mean, if you CT for a designer, it should be because you like her and her work so you should be nice enough to let her know when you notice a mistake. It's rude to just make a word art right on your own LO but without telling your designer about it.
I didn't say it was mispelled (perhaps a remedial course in reading would be helpful?). I pointed out exactly what was off ("Delight this moment"), and linked to the kit that contains the word art. The time you spent wondering about where the imaginary mispelling was could have been used to look at the CT layouts (same page as linked) that utilize the awkward phrase.
Doh! Drink a little coffee before you post, and maybe you can avoid sounding like a simpleton.
June 25, 2010 1:57 PM
--------------------------------
I'll drink some coffee if you get rid of the bitch attitude.
Doh! Drink a little coffee before you post, and maybe you can avoid sounding like a simpleton.
June 25, 2010 1:57 PM
-------
Follow your own advice simpleton. I was referring to the post above mine that said you had misspelled something in your native English. Doh!!! That's what this ^^^^ means, post above me.
Deviant Scraps looks ok but it's got a store with it and looks like most of the gallery posts are using store product, as I guess they should being a extension of a store of course. Ripal's forum/gallery? I'm not sure. --------
I like DS but it has it's moments. It's very up and down with forum activity. I don't use any of the store products in my gallery posts.
The fact that most of the CTM pages do not look that great says a lot. Most of those CTMs can pretty much do anything with anything, but those pages are not the best. I don't like Lorie's stuff anyway, but she should stick to what she knows. Anyhow, it doesn't look that different from her Castle kit in the Creative Fusion and her Prairie Kit. Not sure where the DA reference comes into it.
Ewwww. Lorie Davison went all Deviant Art with her latest kit. Not my taste, so I'll look at it like I just saved $12.00.'
-----------
I think Lorie did an amazing job on her latest kit and it is not that different then the honeybees before. It's more of a guys, boys kit. I havent looked at all CTM pages but some are pretty amazing.
^^^^^ Look the same to me. Why don't you contact the designer that released it first..two years ago! It doesn't do any good to just tell us here. You could report it to the stop digital piracy blog, that looks like it could use some action.
^^^ Nevermind, I do see some slight differences. There are more holes in the spout, the handle at the top is different(a bit), and the bottom on one has an addition.
^^^^^ Look the same to me. Why don't you contact the designer that released it first..two years ago! It doesn't do any good to just tell us here. You could report it to the stop digital piracy blog, that looks like it could use some action.
__________________________
Uh...these are CU products. Its not digital piracy if someone purchased a CU product to use as CU. Geez. Bored any and looking to stir up pots??
I don't know any designer who allows her CU templates to be sold as CU templates. 99% of the time the template must be filled with papers and sold flattened and only for PU. The only difference in those templates are that the more recent one has a slightly larger gap between the handle and the lid and the handle comes down over the side. Looks to me like it was not just "copied" but more likely the second person bought the originals and slightly altered them. That's even worse than copying from scratch.
Uh...these are CU products. Its not digital piracy if someone purchased a CU product to use as CU. Geez. Bored any and looking to stir up pots?? _______________________________ Uh... You're an idiot. I agree this particular example is grasping at straws but if you think that's what the term "commercial use" means, you're in for a world of hurt.
Uh...these are CU products. Its not digital piracy if someone purchased a CU product to use as CU. Geez. Bored any and looking to stir up pots??
June 27, 2010 8:55 PM ^^^ No, I was honestly asking for opinions before I contacted the original designer. But if ya wanna be a bitch I can sure as tooting be one right back.
Uh...these are CU products. Its not digital piracy if someone purchased a CU product to use as CU. Geez. Bored any and looking to stir up pots?? ---------
Yes it is if it against the TOU. You're just a stupid jerk.
Does anyone know why the hell DST now has links that are 5 miles long? Even when you click a link to go to someone's shop, or any other links, the link starts out as DST with a "redirect" in it, making the links long and clumsy.
I think that that part is because then they can artificially inflate the number of clicks happening on the website (to look good to a potential future buyer of the site.) So now it even counts the clicks that are LEAVING the site as on-site clicks. Looks pretty damn sneaky, manipulative, and downright shady if you ask me.
I had noticed the same thing a while ago, while trying to visit the blogs of a blog train (nothing to do with the dst itself). It caused my system to run so slow I had to quit the whole thing. It seemed strange though!
Based on the rumor mill, Holly and Lizzy probably won't be the only designers leaving SPD in the next few weeks. I've been hearing a lot of REALLY bad things about how the team is getting treated at SPD these days.
Well Kasia did set up her own store only a few months back. Things that make you go hmmm. I know she's still at SP but she has the opportunity to get out if she wants.
I wonder if Hugh Hefner gave permission for this....... I think not! http://scrapswithattitude.blogspot.com/
June 29, 2010 9:57 AM -------
why for?
She changed it. The original one had the "Playboy" (trademarked) logo as a title, and the trademarked bunny-ears included in the preview and kit. This one looks like the ears still might be tucked behind the other stuff, but she changed the title to "PlayToy".
I left a comment on her blog earlier today that they were both trademarked images.
She did more than "change it". The freebie that was there to start with was a diff mini kit. The preview on the blog now is the kit that was originally for sale in her store. I left a comment yesterday about it being copyrighted but of course it was moderated and wasn't approved.
Oh, she removed that playBOY freebie completely. The image on her blog is now just a preview for the kit. She must have had a few comments about copyright (that she didn't publish on her blog) and quickly removed the freebie.
Anyone here know if this ebay seller is legit? (expressionsoutlet) I see a lot of stuff like alphas that I recognize from different designers. One being scrappin-cop. I already sent her an email but there are other recognizable alphas that I don't think she made.
Anyone here know if this ebay seller is legit? (expressionsoutlet) I see a lot of stuff like alphas that I recognize from different designers. One being scrappin-cop. I already sent her an email but there are other recognizable alphas that I don't think she made.
The sets have more pictures of individual items when you look inside.
-------------------- Well, since Scrappin' Crap's stuff is CU, then the seller can sell it even if she didn't make it herself. Only Scrappin' Crap would know if the seller purchased a CU license in order to do so.
Why even bother posting this crap here? Better yet, why am I responding?
What I really want to know is what's the deal at SPD? I've never had anything but poor CS there. I don't even shop there anymore because of it. Maybe I'm not alone? Or maybe they got together with Elemental Scraps and plan on marketing the exclusive with a "twist" crap method of doing business.
What I really want to know is what's the deal at SPD? ******************
Back at ya with the whole crap post. Who the fuck cares? Oh, you do. My bad. Say, how about you let others post what they want and and we'll all let you ramble about useless things that you care about? Fair?
What I really want to know is what's the deal at SPD? I've never had anything but poor CS there. I don't even shop there anymore because of it. Maybe I'm not alone? Or maybe they got together with Elemental Scraps and plan on marketing the exclusive with a "twist" crap method of doing business. ----------------------------
Holly is opening her own store - from what I hear she's been "running things" at SPD for a while. FizzyPop (who's been helping Holly with administrative things at SPD) will go with her. I imagine several of the SPD designers will, too.
I suppose the rationale is why not open up your own? Because it's just that easy - you know. Everyone else is doing it.
Oh wait, that's right, that's how Shabby Pickle came to be!
Then Holly and Lizzy can find out what a pain in the ass it is to run your own X-cart store and be responsible for all the bills and site problems, and they can go MIA and let a couple of their team members run it for them, then THOSE team members can get fed up and open THEIR own store.
It's the ciiiiiiiircle of liiiiiiiiiife ....
I don't get why designers can't just move to a different store when they're upset like they used to in the old days. Now they all decide to open up their own stores like they've suddenly sprouted business acumen overnight. It's obviously a pain in the ass to run your own store, otherwise so many designers-turned-store-owners wouldn't go MIA after the novelty has worn off. It's like adopting a puppy without acknowledging the fact that it's going to grow up to be a dog.
Just pay your commission and save yourself the headaches.
OMG! Not another new store?!! As much as I like Holly, there is way too many new stores these days. I can't keep up with all of them. I will stay with the ones I know. I think it's a bad business decision from Holly's part. So, SPD is going down. Is it the same with A5D? is it why Kristen has left? And is Cinnamon going to join her permanently at Catscrap?
if Holly and Lizzy were running things at SPD, why would you assume they'd end up bailing on their own store? Seems like its a GOOD business decision to open their own store. As long as they're working for SPD, Laura gets all the cash and they do all the work.
if Holly and Lizzy were running things at SPD, why would you assume they'd end up bailing on their own store? ------------ Because I like to assume things. It's fun for me.
Here's how I figure the plot will play out. They start out with just a couple of designers, they want to be elite and different - because no one has ever tried THAT before. Then they realize that the customers don't necessarily just follow you because they're sort of set in their habits, but the server bills and cost of software maintenance need to be covered somehow. So the next thing we know, there's a Designer Call out there. Just going to add a few more designers, you guys! Because these bills aren't going to pay themselves and I guess this is more expensive than I originally thought! And after the initial shiny and new feeling wore off, the sales sort of dwindled.
Somewhere around this point about 25% of the designers who followed them over to their new store (yes, I pulled that percentage out of my ass) will realize that this was a mistake and they'll move again to a store that's been around a while. They're not going to ride out the growing pains, nothing personal.
So "New Store" will announce their 20 new designers! No longer a unique little boutique store - now they're just a mega-store of designers, most of them you've never heard of, most of them not worth a crap. But there will be one or two new people who stand a chance, but you really have to sift through all the crap every week to find their stuff.
Now the "How hard can it be?" owners are faced with three times more designers than they thought, three times more customer service issues, a bunch of bad press over the bad designers they added, CT members who go missing, marketing plans, holiday sales, etc etc etc. So they bury their head in the sand, start to avoid their email, fall behind on sending out the newsletters, fall behind on planning new challenges, new customer interactions and on keeping their site fresh and relevant.
Then they find an unsuspecting designer or team member who's eager for a power trip and ask them to "take care of a few things" for them. Then the "few things" become "everything that sucks".
That's how I see it all playing out.
But if I'm wrong, what do I care? If I'm right I'm going to look like a freaking prophet, though!
Well, let's hope Holly and Fizzy (whatever is her name) read this and avoid this scenario. It really sucks that everyone (or a lot of people) think they are going straight for a disaster and they are not even opened yet!!!!!!
But if I'm wrong, what do I care? If I'm right I'm going to look like a freaking prophet, though!
June 30, 2010 4:08 PM ^^^^ No, you will not look like a prophet because you are anonymous and we have no clue who you are. Kind of like a golfer playing solo that gets an ace.
Then Holly and Lizzy can find out what a pain in the ass it is to run your own X-cart store and be responsible for all the bills and site problems, and they can go MIA and let a couple of their team members run it for them, then THOSE team members can get fed up and open THEIR own store.
It's the ciiiiiiiircle of liiiiiiiiiife ....
I don't get why designers can't just move to a different store when they're upset like they used to in the old days. Now they all decide to open up their own stores like they've suddenly sprouted business acumen overnight. It's obviously a pain in the ass to run your own store, otherwise so many designers-turned-store-owners wouldn't go MIA after the novelty has worn off. It's like adopting a puppy without acknowledging the fact that it's going to grow up to be a dog.
Just pay your commission and save yourself the headaches.
June 30, 2010 10:48 AM
This is without doubt one of the funniest and probably the most truthful thing I have ever read on this blog.
It's like adopting a puppy without acknowledging the fact that it's going to grow up to be a dog. ____________________________
LOL No. Maybe it would be like adopting a puppy simply because it's cute without acknowledging the fact that it is going to pee on the rug a lot and chew the heck out of your stuff.
LOL No. Maybe it would be like adopting a puppy simply because it's cute without acknowledging the fact that it is going to pee on the rug a lot and chew the heck out of your stuff.
Not to mention the cute little puppy will run away from home and go to the first person that offers him a bone.
It's way too much like the licensed work by Orla Kiely that was in the Target stores a few years back. They are not identical, but it just doesn't feel right to me. I mean there is inspiration and then there is copying. I've always like the designer, so I'm not trying to pick on her, I'm more just getting a sense of what other people think crosses the line.
The stuff's been pulled from Target, but here's a blog post with some photos of them... http://sfgirlbybay.blogspot.com/2009/01/oh-its-orla-kiely-for-target.html
Definetely crosses the line. I was prepared to think you were being nitpicky, but nope--so similar as to be easily mistaken for the exact same pattern.
I don't get why designers can't just move to a different store when they're upset like they used to in the old days....
...Just pay your commission and save yourself the headaches.
I so agree. I don't really see many artistic designers being as much the "business type". Why not let a more business-minded person handle those hassles, if you can?
I would much rather design than get saddled with all those headaches. I love my store (not "my" store, the one I sell at) and would never want all the headaches that come with owning and running a site. I'm thankful for a wonderful owner/site-manager, and realistic expectations. Even though we're not the busiest or "most popular" site on the web, we do well enough and I'm very happy there, for 2 years now.
A decent designer can do well at almost any site, if they work at it. No need to hop all over the web. That's just stupid. Sure, I can see maybe moving if you are invited to join a "top-tier" store, but not from site to site to site... *shakes head*
It's way too much like the licensed work by Orla Kiely that was in the Target stores a few years back. They are not identical, but it just doesn't feel right to me. I mean there is inspiration and then there is copying. I've always like the designer, so I'm not trying to pick on her, I'm more just getting a sense of what other people think crosses the line.
*******
Definitely crosses the line. Way too similar (almost exact) to be a coincidence.
You are full of shit. While back I posted a CU pack with felt elements from an etsy shop. That was definitely an artistic work being stolen, and all you smart asses said "just because I looks like an item from etsy, doesn't mean it's an abuse". You fuckhead! And now you see a copyright infrigment because of a color scheme and some generic shapes? Or are you just the same person, posting multiple times and saying the same thing in different words?
July Blog Train: I'll save you a lot of time. Here are the ones (20 out of 101) that are worth picking up (IMO). There are a few more that have one or 2 cute things, but I didn't want to waste my time downloading to get just one item and trash the rest.
http://mikkidesigns.blogspot.com
http://theespressoscrapshoppe.blogspot.com
http://aprilisadesigns.blogspot.com
http://justpassinthrudesigns.blogspot.com
http://girlboygirldesigns.blogspot.com
http://bubblescrapdesigns.com
http://wyldwebdesigns.com/wordpress
http://digilicious.typepad.com
http://angeltown.typepad.com
http://ginnytallent.blogspot.com
http://jen-at-chaos-lounge.blogspot.com
http://steadfast-and-immovable.blogspot.com
http://inspireddesignsbycrystal1.blogspot.com
http://digilovers-addiction.blogspot.com
http://bothmadandgenius.blogspot.com
http://designsbyjmdt.blogspot.com - nice solids
http://albina-s-secrets.blogspot.com
http://polkadotpixels.blogspot.com (this one from polkadotpixels is very over-saturated, but if you tone it down it's okay)
I don't remember anything this ugly but it sure looks the same to me.
July 1, 2010 9:05 PM
--------
Are you saying Audrey's looks like Orla's? No denying it. However, I'm saying that Orla's looks like a ton of other stuff I've seen. Neither are original.
July 2, 2010 1:46 AM ---------------- LMFAO! I haven't looked at all of the previews yet but several of the ones the OP listed as good suck like these 2:
http://bothmadandgenius.blogspot.com/ http://wyldwebdesigns.com/wordpress/ I don't really see anything worth losing HD space over, ugly color palette and crappy designs.
Snob bitch! Go throw your money at Scrapbook Place!
July 2, 2010 2:55 AM
-------
I have no idea who you are but I'm not even going to look at any of the kits. I'm just going to flat out say they are crap. If you are designer, lose the attitude. If you are a CT, you've done a lot of damage.
The OP who posted the original blog train links was not being bitchy, but you sure are. Grow the fuck up and deal with some CC.
I have no idea who you are but I'm not even going to look at any of the kits. I'm just going to flat out say they are crap. If you are designer, lose the attitude. If you are a CT, you've done a lot of damage.
The OP who posted the original blog train links was not being bitchy, but you sure are. Grow the fuck up and deal with some CC.
and it's like you don't have attitude. Give me a break. You wouldn't know a good kit if it smacked you upside the head.
http://bothmadandgenius.blogspot.com/ http://wyldwebdesigns.com/wordpress/ I don't really see anything worth losing HD space over, ugly color palette and crappy designs.
I guess fairly new designer=crap. Wonder which new designers will eventually be the in designers down the road. LOL Ya just never know and everyone is so fickle it makes me want to go in a corner and suck my thumb.
I totally agree about the mega blog train. Those trains used to be pretty good--lots of great stuff, including a great color palette. Now it's a bunch of look-alike crap. Hugely disappointing.
I found at least 30 downloads I liked in the mega train. Some were on the list posted above, some were not. everyone has different tastes. One person saying they're the only good ones is only saying their own opinion. But saying they're all crap without even looking is wrong. (its just your opinion)
Snob bitch! Go throw your money at Scrapbook Place! _______________________ LOL I think you forgot where you are. This is a S-M-A-C-K blog, hun, not a sugary-sweet fuzzy-hugs blog. You want ass kissing, DST is just a mouse-click away.
I think the whole damn mess is mundane, anyway. The colors hurt my eyes, so none of any of it looks appealing to me. To each their own. If you don't like what people have to say and can't take the criticism, you're in the wrong damn business and you better go find a job where opinions don't matter. Designing (anything) isn't for you.
I think the whole damn mess is mundane, anyway. The colors hurt my eyes, so none of any of it looks appealing to me. To each their own. If you don't like what people have to say and can't take the criticism, you're in the wrong damn business and you better go find a job where opinions don't matter. Designing (anything) isn't for you.
LOL and one would really worry about being critisized on a SMACK BLOG. I think not.
Is it just me or does the top photo on this very cute layout look like the poor child has some kind of growths on her head? Other than that the LO is adorable.
I am just an average scrapper, not a designer. I am not active on any CT's, although I have been in the past. I am not active in any "scrapbook community", I don't post on the message boards, and I don't post my layouts online anymore. I read the Digi boards for entertainment, and am constantly amazed at what people share on the internet. I freely admit to reading the scrapbook smack blogs, it is a guilty pleasure.
You can email me at: DSTHallofFame@gmail.com
1,657 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 1657 Newer› Newest»It looks to me as a complete outsider that all the designers are exclusive, but they have their own personal stores, too. What's up with that? I
------------
The only person you are selling with at your own place, is yourself. I guess they don't store a personal store as competition.
-----------------------------
A: I am not Anne & do not even know who 'Anne' is.
B: I was referring to how you know she went to Catscrap, (ie. You said, 'She went to Catscrap.') she isn't there now, so how do you know? Answer = you don't - you are full of crap.
June 19, 2010 2:33 AM
No, not full of crap. I was referring to Kristen Rice now being at Catscrap. Guess I should have spelled it out for you.
True, she's not Anne. I used to sign all my posts, but I hardly post anymore. I still read every day though, and even though I wish there was something to talk about, all appears to be well in digiland.
I am enjoying all of the posts on copyright at DST, so let me throw something out there. Are most of those who infringe on copyright from eastern Europe? Because I get the feeling that those girls just don't give a dammn about that sort of thing, as long as they can find a picture of someone else's kid taken by a professional photographer. Or is there an endless supply of babies with giant flowers on their heads in Poland and the Czech Republic?
-- Anne
Yes I think the majority of people abusing stockphoto's and stolen photo's are from Eastern Europe. They do seem to have little regard for copyright laws or tou's. Alot of pirate site originate there also. They really do not add much to the community as a whole. I guess I should also add that there are a few of them that are very friendly and abide by the "rules" but the majority of them don't seem to. You will see them on the boards with tons of posts but they are all for the praise game, happy place or GSO's. I used to take part in those threads but they have made it so that I no longer enjoy them. It started with the praise games and multiple submissions to see who could get the most comments. Then they started on the GSO's posting the friends LO's just to get their friends to post theirs. Some of them were truly amazing works of art but alot of it was crap so I stopped looking. They just seem to want tons of praise and GSO's so they can get on CT's and get free kits. I often wonder how much they actually spend to support the community. I have noticed a few shops opening with the owners based in eastern europe and I am staying far away from them because I would hate to give them any information because I just don't trust them. I know its not right to lump them all together but from what I have seen I can't help feeling that way.
http://www.digishoptalk.com/gallery/showgallery.php?ppuser=21232
^one of the worst offenders of no-credit, baby-photo stealing. And it is always in the praise game, GSO. I won't leave comments on her layouts. She's a thief.
True, she's not Anne. I used to sign all my posts, but I hardly post anymore. I still read every day though, and even though I wish there was something to talk about, all appears to be well in digiland.
I am enjoying all of the posts on copyright at DST, so let me throw something out there. Are most of those who infringe on copyright from eastern Europe? Because I get the feeling that those girls just don't give a dammn about that sort of thing, as long as they can find a picture of someone else's kid taken by a professional photographer. Or is there an endless supply of babies with giant flowers on their heads in Poland and the Czech Republic?
-- Anne
xxxxx
Lol well Anne, there you are. Wonder who is confusing you with someone else?
Yes, the majority of the offenders do seem to be from the Eastern hemisphere. I think they feel they can get away with it because they can use the whole language barrier excuse. I have noticed some of them blatantly use Anne Geddes pics in their layouts. Yeah, like Anne Geddes would allow that!
I'm don't trust those designers/scrappers as a whole although I'm sure there are some that are honest. My daughter was browsing bing for a bottle image the other day for a tattoo she wants. She found the perfect bottle and showed me. Well lo and behold that very same bottle turned up in a CU set the very next day. It's a pretty blue bottle with a stopper but I cannot remember who had it.
What's up with those hideous pink and blue kits Barb Speck put in the product gallery at DST? Looks like someone puked a bunch of pink and blue paint. Yuck.
I look at that gallery and think whats the point. If they were works of art I don't think they would be so prolific and they are not well done. The shadows and light sources are all wrong. If you are going to do fantasy LOs at least spend some time to make them proper.
Not all of the GSO whores/ photograpy copyright abusers are from Eastern Europe. I also noticed many French girls. And this person is American, so language is not an issue for her
http://www.digishoptalk.com/gallery/showgallery.php?ppuser=24715&cat=all&page=1 What are designers thinking when they give to people like her a dozen of CT spots and put crap like that in store newsletter to advertise kits?
What's up with those hideous pink and blue kits Barb Speck put in the product gallery at DST? Looks like someone puked a bunch of pink and blue paint. Yuck.
----------------------
Barb Speck is an overrated hack who thinks she knows it all.
what really disgusts me the most is that the designers, who are always crying about pirating actually use these l pages to advertise for them. When I see a bunch of LO's for a kit that look like they mostly all use lifted photos I refuse to buy that kit or that designer. Until people start speaking with their $$$ this will continue to happen IMO.
Not all of the GSO whores/ photograpy copyright abusers are from Eastern Europe. I also noticed many French girls. And this person is American, so language is not an issue for her
http://www.digishoptalk.com/gallery/showgallery.php?ppuser=24715&cat=all&page=1 What are designers thinking when they give to people like her a dozen of CT spots and put crap like that in store newsletter to advertise kits?
------
too bad she isn't using real photos the layouts aren't bad if they weren't just advertisements. she either thinks people are dumb enough to think she has that many kids or doesn't give a shit what anyone thinks. I see she is scrapping for Dreamland Digital or whatever the crap it is I guess she thinks those designers don't care what photos she uses.
Well, I recently bought a trial membership over at clickinmoms, and those women are rabid about protecting their images. I don't think an aneurysm is out of the question if they ever found one of their pictures used in a layout. If other photographers are even half as concerned with copyright violation, I'm surprised, or shocked really, that it's so blatent at DST.
-- Anne (in case you care, lol)
I dared to look at Barb Specks new offerings. Little wonder she's known as Barf. Get me a spew bucket!
Recently I found a bunch of the altered artist designers with stolen images in their kits. All of those designers were American. So what's worse, stolen images on your layouts, or stolen images you are selling?
I have to ask, why do some of you say about someone 'she thinks she knows it all'. It just makes you look ignorant and childish. My five year old throws this at me when I'm asking her to do something.
Are you threatened by someone who has a brain or can't you come up with a really good insult?
I dared to look at Barb Specks new offerings. Little wonder she's known as Barf. Get me a spew bucket!
June 19, 2010 8:14 PM
------
Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.
Barb Speck is an overrated hack who thinks she knows it all.
June 19, 2010 2:07 PM
===================
You think you know it all. You know so much, you even know what she thinks about herself. I'm impressed!
LMAO Hi Barb - Nice to know you still read the blog :P
LMAO Hi Barb - Nice to know you still read the blog :P
June 19, 2010 8:41 PM
--------------------
Folks, this is simply amazing. Apparently, this blog is a haven for those with psychic abilities. They are able to divine exactly who is posting, despite the inconvenience of so-called "anonymity." Unless you are saying or agreeing that someone sucks, you yourself must be said person. This tried and true method has become a mainstay of DST HOF, and I say it's time to branch out into other areas, such as predicting winning lottery numbers and stock market fluctuations.
The 'know it all' part comes from the mental picture one gets after viewing her (barfSpeck's) 1000s of posts where she just happens to mention she practically invented digital scrapbooking...and if it weren't for her....and her abilities....I skip reading her posts so not sure what the ellipses should say.
My fave girls, Bohemian Arts, are from Eastern Europe and I'd truth them with my credit cards or bank statement any day.
Anonymous knew Kristen Rice was going to Catscrap because she got an email newsletter.
The Lauren Reid and her own store post was a comment based on a comment from the previous page - had nothing to do with Catscrap.
LMAO Hi Barb - Nice to know you still read the blog :P
June 19, 2010 8:41 PM
------
You look like such a dumb ass right now.
The 'know it all' part comes from the mental picture one gets after viewing her (barfSpeck's) 1000s of posts where she just happens to mention she practically invented digital scrapbooking...and if it weren't for her....and her abilities....I skip reading her posts so not sure what the ellipses should say.
-------
Agreed to that, although the name calling is not necessary. I'm asking why the 'know it all' is applied to many another people as well.
My fave girls, Bohemian Arts, are from Eastern Europe and I'd truth them with my credit cards or bank statement any day.
----------
Natali Designs is like that for me. She's also Eastern European. I love her stuff and it's original. I have some BA stuff too, I like it.
What is really pathetic are the "designers" who download from royalty free sites, not paying the full price for digital distribution rights for the images, and then profess their own copyright of the image in their CU kits. Just because you put something in your kit, doesn't make you the owner of it. And, I will bet my own rep that these nits didn't pay upwards of $200 for an image of a bottle to use in a cheap $5 kit. Its really makes me laugh when I see them scream that someone is stealing their products. The copyright drama is so overblown and I really hope that one day someone calls out the real thieves for all to see.
Including a CU item in a kit and naming the file from that kit with the designers initials IS NOT claiming copyright to that item. As long as the original artist has been credited in the TOU of that kit no wrong doing has taken place.
^^^^
Are you kidding? If they stole it, it doesn't matter if they credit the original artist or not, they still stole it.
No. That is not true. You can't use images from royalty free sites for commercial, digital distribution without paying for premium license. Its a big fee. I normally see them sit about $200 and the upwards per image. Please. What CU designer ( or PU Designer) is going to fork out that amount for one item for a kit?
So, regardless of how you word your TOU, if you didn't pay for the digital distribution rights as outlined, you are in violation of the photograph's TOU and therefore stealing the image. You have no right to say what anyone else can do with that image if you yourself have not paid for the legal right to use it.
I don't want to get into another he said she said copyright drama here - but I am really tired of people claiming copyright on stuff that they 1) did not originally design themselves, and 2) tools that they do not have the legal right to use. Then, if they see someone else using that image - the copyright infringement flag gets waved and threats are made. I say, show me your license on the image and then let's talk.
You can't use images from royalty free sites for commercial, digital distribution without paying for premium license. Its a big fee. I normally see them sit about $200 and the upwards per image. Please. What CU designer ( or PU Designer) is going to fork out that amount for one item for a kit?
-----
They can't get a high enough quality image to put in a kit directly from the site without paying the royalty fees. And many of them are watermarked until the fee is paid. So then how are they getting that image if they aren't paying the fees?
There are some place that require permission for commercial use. http://www.sxc.hu/ is an example. Then we won't have any way of knowing if they obtained permission without checking with the original stock owner. Are you willing to do that.
And I honestly believe that it isn't the same designers stealing who are crying out about copyright violations. You are lumping them all into one group. If they are stealing I would think they would want to be under scrutiny and call attention to themselves.
Not true. I just downloaded a bunch of photos for a school project for my daughter from a royalty free place. They were all high resolution photos and weren't watermarked or anything. Just because they are on a royalty free site and are high resolution, doesn't mean they are free for the taking. To say that because someone has a high resolution photo they must have permission or bought permission is a fallacy.
(btw, the site I used allows use of the photographs for personal use. So no copyright violation there!) Royalty free does not equal commercial use royalty free. I think that's the error in many designers' thinking.
Commercial use for a lot of places such as Deviant Art means you can manipulate the artwork and sell it as a PRINT ... not copy and paste it "as-is" into a kit and sell it as a PRODUCT.
I had to say something b/c I couldn't pass up the word verification: ballses
------
Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.
June 19, 2010 8:25 PM
-------------
yeah, but it's so much fun to make fun of it :).
Natali Designs is like that for me. She's also Eastern European. I love her stuff and it's original. I have some BA stuff too, I like it.
June 19, 2010 11:38 PM
-----------------
I like Natali as well, I also loved Peta Boardman and wish she were still designing.
I had to say something b/c I couldn't pass up the word verification: ballses
June 20, 2010 11:21 AM
------------------
Lol!
No. That is not true. You can't use images from royalty free sites for commercial, digital distribution without paying for premium license. Its a big fee. I normally see them sit about $200 and the upwards per image. Please. What CU designer ( or PU Designer) is going to fork out that amount for one item for a kit?
______________________________________
You who think you know all about the copyright laws of stock photo sites are pure idiots at best. Why don't you try and learn what you are talking about before you make yourself look stupid. There are high quality, royalty free and public domain sites that don't ask for fees and don't require licenses. They don't require you name the photographer and they don't even make you name the site. Why don't you do your homework before making stupid comments.
^^^^
Are you kidding? If they stole it, it doesn't matter if they credit the original artist or not, they still stole it.
June 20, 2010 5:19 AM
----------------------------------
I wasn't talking about stolen items.
ere are high quality, royalty free and public domain sites that don't ask for fees and don't require licenses. They don't require you name the photographer and they don't even make you name the site. Why don't you do your homework before making stupid comments.
June 20, 2010 4:35 PM
----------
True, but some of those sites also have stolen images that they are redistributing. They don't police every image that goes up. If you want to be sure, it's better to pay for it. At least that way, if it is stolen, you have some recourse.
True, but some of those sites also have stolen images that they are redistributing. They don't police every image that goes up. If you want to be sure, it's better to pay for it. At least that way, if it is stolen, you have some recourse.
June 20, 2010 7:33 PM
--------------------
And what recourse is that exactly? Will the internet police come riding to the rescue and refund your money?
She might not get her money back but at least she can show that she bought the item and didn't steal it. When a designer is challenged about an item used in a kit and she can show that she bought it in good faith, the original owner of that item won't vilify that designer - instead going to the person who sold it to them.
And what recourse is that exactly? Will the internet police come riding to the rescue and refund your money?
June 20, 2010 8:19 PM
-------
there is more to the world than this blog and the digi scrap universe you know.
"They don't require you name the photographer and they don't even make you name the site. Why don't you do your homework before making stupid comments."
Back at you.
My entire point is that if you didn't pay or invest in an image you downloaded from a royalty free space, or if you didn't create it yourself and you are using it in a CU kit, you have no right to tell anyone how they can use that image.
You can't claim copyright on something you did not create. And this entire POV is based on solo images - such as bottles, frames, ribbons, etc - not incorporated as part of a new piece, but just extracted and sold as an element for CU.
there is more to the world than this blog and the digi scrap universe you know.
June 20, 2010 10:05 PM
-------------------
Insightful. Any other trite little pearls of wisdom you'd care to share?
-------
there is more to the world than this blog and the digi scrap universe you know.
June 20, 2010 10:05 PM
=======
WTH does that statement have to do with the discussion?
^^^^
Read back a little and figure it out.
Insightful. Any other trite little pearls of wisdom you'd care to share?
June 21, 2010 12:14 AM
********
Only if you will continue to share your pointless observations. I don't want to be the only one.
My entire point is that if you didn't pay or invest in an image you downloaded from a royalty free space, or if you didn't create it yourself and you are using it in a CU kit, you have no right to tell anyone how they can use that image.
You can't claim copyright on something you did not create. And this entire POV is based on solo images - such as bottles, frames, ribbons, etc - not incorporated as part of a new piece, but just extracted and sold as an element for CU.
____________
If I take a photograph, extract what I want and make that into something else then I most certainly can call it mine I most certainly can tell someone else what I want done with it. It's no different then taking clip art making it into a brush or a shape and calling it mine and limiting it's use as well. I also didn't just pull this info out of my butt but have a resource published in the Photoshop world who knows all about copyright issues and what you can and can't call your own,
-------
there is more to the world than this blog and the digi scrap universe you know.
June 20, 2010 10:05 PM
=======
WTH does that statement have to do with the discussion?
--------------
Nothing. Some people just have to "contribute." Actual relevAnce to the conversation isn't...relevant to this type.
Geez Scrapable got sold again. Aren't they on like their 6th owners in a year?
taking clip art making it into a brush or a shape and calling it mine and limiting it's use
This isn't usually okay, either.
wv is intois... as in, using your intois, you could draw something original, instead of ripping off someone else's art.
If I take a photograph, extract what I want and make that into something else then I most certainly can call it mine I most certainly can tell someone else what I want done with it.
-------------
That depends entirely on what you took a photograph of. If it's Micky Mouse, then no, you can't extract it and turn it into something else. If it's the Eiffel Tower at night with the lights on, then no, you can't extract that either. Both of those are under strict usage rules.
Nothing. Some people just have to "contribute." Actual relevAnce to the conversation isn't...relevant to this type.
June 21, 2010 10:20 AM
---------
It was relevant. I'm so sorry that some of you can't see it.
Seriously...sites and blogs want you to play their challenges...well if you do send the prize to the winner...been 3+ weeks with no response even though I have tried multiple times to contact!
^^^^^
Don't leave us hanging, who is guilty?
I know I am still waiting to hear who won A5D lottery tickets for the last 2 months.
^^^^
Typical of A5D.
That depends entirely on what you took a photograph of. If it's Micky Mouse, then no, you can't extract it and turn it into something else. If it's the Eiffel Tower at night with the lights on, then no, you can't extract that either. Both of those are under strict usage rules.
Duhhhh I was talking about Public Domain or Royalty Free photos of things that are perfectly legal. I know that Disney and certain tourist attractions are not but funny that you can take and extract the Eiffel Tower from a daytime photo. I mean some of us do have a bit of common sense.
taking clip art making it into a brush or a shape and calling it mine and limiting it's use
This isn't usually okay, either.
wv is intois... as in, using your intois, you could draw something original, instead of ripping off someone else's art.
It most certainly is if you have permission to do just that. Why don't people get that if you have permission of the site, the original artist etc. anything is possible and when you alter something usually more then 50% you can say it's yours. That's the key making it different then what it was.
Folks, this is simply amazing. Apparently, this blog is a haven for those with psychic abilities. They are able to divine exactly who is posting, despite the inconvenience of so-called "anonymity." Unless you are saying or agreeing that someone sucks, you yourself must be said person. This tried and true method has become a mainstay of DST HOF, and I say it's time to branch out into other areas, such as predicting winning lottery numbers and stock market fluctuations.
Now that is priceless!! ROFLMAO Thanks for the laugh!!
If anyone knows what the lottery numbers are going to be this week I sure would love your opinion. Otherwise it's just that your opinion and it really makes you look like the jealous bitchrs that you are. Go try and impress someone who gives a damn. Barb, Tina, Royanna, Marcie, Susie Q and all the rest that get mentioned in this blog will outlast most of you underrated designers who have a bone to pick just because you think people listen to you. It's amazing that they are all still in business. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???
Interesting, Lauren Reid is leaving SSD, wonder where she is going to??
http://tinyurl.com/283wqxd
June 18, 2010 9:15 PM
------
Where hasn't she been?
June 19, 2010 3:43 AM
That. She's a total store whore.
And, yeah Barb Speck is opinionated and a hack. But she has never, ever been overrated.
I mean some of us do have a bit of common sense.
June 21, 2010 9:01 PM
----------
Keyword here is 'some'.
when you alter something usually more then 50% you can say it's yours. That's the key making it different then what it was.
June 21, 2010 9:04 PM
-------
Turning an object into a brush is not changing anything by 50%. I know what you are saying, but there are a ton of designers out there who just take a graphic as is and resell it. Reselling anything is a definite no-no. There are also a ton of designers who steal stuff from DA and sell it. It's strange that these days designing has become synonymous with fencing.
Barb, Tina, Royanna, Marcie, Susie Q and all the rest that get mentioned in this blog will outlast most of you underrated designers who have a bone to pick just because you think people listen to you. It's amazing that they are all still in business. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???
-------------
Well, golly gee, McDonalds is still in business too, doesn't mean it's good. But there will always be people out there who don't recognize crap when they meet it.
Well, golly gee, McDonalds is still in business too, doesn't mean it's good. But there will always be people out there who don't recognize crap when they meet it.
Well obviously you are the Queen of Crap Knowing so I guess that means we should all bow down and worship your highness!! What's one's crap is another one's treasure. Guess they have those who think their designs are just fine or why the hell do you think they would stay in business. I mean really this business hardly makes a dent in anyone's pocket book. At this point you have to love what you are doing because no one is getting rich. Plus they have to put up with people like yourself who really wouldn't know crap if you stepped in it. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion such as it is.
here a crap, there a crap, everywhere a crap crap ...
Oh yes, lol!
Old Royanna made up some crap...
Nothing. Some people just have to "contribute." Actual relevAnce to the conversation isn't...relevant to this type.
June 21, 2010 10:20 AM
---------
It was relevant. I'm so sorry that some of you can't see it.
June 21, 2010 6:00 PM
----------------
This type is also convinced that they are always right--it's the rest of the world that has a problem. To summarize:
Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by an abnormal love of self, and an exaggerated sense of superiority and importance.
^^^^^
So Barf is narcissistic then! LOL
Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by an abnormal love of self, and an exaggerated sense of superiority and importance.
Well guess that about describes nearly everyone who posts on this blog. Y'all love yourself beyond belief and definitely have an exaggerated sense of superiority and importance. Besides thinking you are always correct in what you might want to post whether it is crap or not. Here a crap there a crap about decides it. Most everything on here is pure and simple crap. And before you ask why bother with this blog... I need a few laughs in my otherwise boring life.
Well obviously you are the Queen of Crap Knowing so I guess that means we should all bow down and worship your highness!! What's one's crap is another one's treasure. Guess they have those who think their designs are just fine or why the hell do you think they would stay in business. I mean really this business hardly makes a dent in anyone's pocket book. At this point you have to love what you are doing because no one is getting rich. Plus they have to put up with people like yourself who really wouldn't know crap if you stepped in it. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion such as it is.
June 22, 2010 12:47 PM
-----------
Did I hit a nerve, honey?
This type is also convinced that they are always right--it's the rest of the world that has a problem. To summarize:
Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by an abnormal love of self, and an exaggerated sense of superiority and importance.
June 22, 2010 3:01 PM
----------
Oh the irony!
Well guess that about describes nearly everyone who posts on this blog. Y'all love yourself beyond belief and definitely have an exaggerated sense of superiority and importance. Besides thinking you are always correct in what you might want to post whether it is crap or not. Here a crap there a crap about decides it. Most everything on here is pure and simple crap. And before you ask why bother with this blog... I need a few laughs in my otherwise boring life.
June 22, 2010 5:54 PM
-----------
I just love it when people like you come here and say "i need a laugh". What does that say about you? I guess it says that you are a sad and pathetic individual, one that needs to be pitied. You come here for a laugh? I can think of much better places to go.
Well, golly gee, McDonalds is still in business too, doesn't mean it's good. But there will always be people out there who don't recognize crap when they meet it.
--------------
Well obviously you are the Queen of Crap Knowing so I guess that means we should all bow down and worship your highness!! What's one's crap is another one's treasure.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What? Do you have shares in McDonalds or do you honestly think it's a treasure? I pity you.
I just love it when people like you come here and say "i need a laugh". What does that say about you? I guess it says that you are a sad and pathetic individual, one that needs to be pitied. You come here for a laugh? I can think of much better places to go.
People like me enjoy being a bit scarstic sweetie. Don't get your knickers in a knot.
^^^^^
Don't leave us hanging, who is guilty?
---------
Digi Dares...
People like me enjoy being a bit scarstic sweetie. Don't get your knickers in a knot.
June 22, 2010 7:01 PM
--------
You need to work on the sarcasm, honey.
---------
Digi Dares...
June 22, 2010 9:31 PM
------------
digidares is not good at following up with the sponsoring designers either.
and yes, what happened with the lottery tix at A5D? wonder if that's why kristen rice left?
i don't think so...she said that after the move is completed she will announce the winner of the lottery
It most certainly is if you have permission to do just that. Why don't people get that if you have permission of the site, the original artist etc. anything is possible and when you alter something usually more then 50% you can say it's yours. That's the key making it different then what it was.
This almost has to be Barb. She pulls that 50% number out of her ass and states it as if it were factual (which, it most definitely is not)
She thinks she is an authority on the matter, and wants everyone else to think that as well, but is absolutely not.
Fact is, if an average person can tell that your "work" was created by even LOOKING at someone else's work, that is a copyright infringement. That doesn't mean any simple thing that obviously looks a certain way and happens to look like another artists rendition is infringing... common clip-art type pieces will often have similarities due to the fact that certain things just look a certain way.
But if someone has a detailed piece of work - whether it is a detailed drawing, or very intricate or unique design, and you can tell that a 2nd person couldn't have created "their" piece without looking at the original piece, then it is, in fact, a DERIVATIVE work, and copyright remains with the ORIGINAL creator of the 1st piece.
So no, turning something into a brush does not make it "yours" nor give you the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with it. If it was a public domain image, then it is still a public domain image, unless you have ~substantially~ changed it, to the point of being almost unrecognizable.
And even if you have someone's permission to use something, they are not going to give up their copyright; it remains with them.
I obviously do not absolutely know that it was Barb who made that comment, but it sounds exactly like the garbage that she spews out as if it were gospel truth, when it is not. Gawd, I hope she doesn't actually start 'mentoring' new designers :O
I obviously do not absolutely know that it was Barb who made that comment, but it sounds exactly like the garbage that she spews out as if it were gospel truth, when it is not. Gawd, I hope she doesn't actually start 'mentoring' new designers :O
----
I hope not as well, the one thing I purchased from her was blurry and jagged.
This almost has to be Barb. She pulls that 50% number out of her ass and states it as if it were factual (which, it most definitely is not)
She thinks she is an authority on the matter, and wants everyone else to think that as well, but is absolutely not.
--------
It isn't. She always post with her name, unlike the rest of us anons.
I hope not as well, the one thing I purchased from her was blurry and jagged
well gee did you let her know, let the store know, give her a chance to fix what was wrong. I went looking and it appears most of her kits have quality checks at CU.com and from personal experience I know Digitals QCs all their designer's kits. I think I'm going to have to go see if she has any freebies so I can check first hand but lets talk about previews did you happen to check out Redu's new stitches, thought about buying them until I saw the enlargement and talk about them looking bad and of course she is now only selling at SBG. Why you keep harping on the same old designers makes me wonder if they might have pissed in your cereal cause there are a lot more new ones I'd rather know about.
So no, turning something into a brush does not make it "yours" nor give you the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with it. If it was a public domain image, then it is still a public domain image, unless you have ~substantially~ changed it, to the point of being almost unrecognizable.
Talk about narcssistic. LOL You just have to be right huh?? Hate to tell you you don't know what you are talking about. Do some research and figure it out.
But if someone has a detailed piece of work - whether it is a detailed drawing, or very intricate or unique design, and you can tell that a 2nd person couldn't have created "their" piece without looking at the original piece, then it is, in fact, a DERIVATIVE work, and copyright remains with the ORIGINAL creator of the 1st piece.
-------------------------------
Well actually if the first person created it without looking at something else, than it's *possible* that the 2nd person could have as well, it would not be the first time that two independant designers both came up with a similar concept without having any clue about the existence of the other. Now, it is not *probable*, but we can't make a blanket statement like "they couldn't have made this without looking at the other".
Some people have no idea what commercial use means.
Sometimes commercial use means that you can use the item in advertisements or newsletters pertaining to your business. It does not mean that you can sell the item in any way.
Sometimes commercial use means that you can use the item in advertisements or newsletters pertaining to your business. It does not mean that you can sell the item in any way.
I guess people never thought to ask the person or site of the stuff they might want to use or even read the Terms or FAQs most sites have.
well gee did you let her know, let the store know, give her a chance to fix what was wrong.
_______________________
When I buy a faulty product, I ask for a refund, whether it be a pair of jeans, a cell phone or a digital image. Why on earth would I contact the designer or give her critique? Not my job, only my money and I don't play games with my money. It should never EVER be up to the customer to critique a designer's work.
Why designers think they're so damn above the rest of the world is just plain ignorant. You're selling digital images, for crying out loud! Anyone with a computer, digital manipulation software and a bit of time can do it. Zero talent needed. Y'all need to get your heads slapped out of your asses and back down to reality.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your explanation doesn't really make sense. If you purchase faulty product do you only ask for a refund? Don't you explain why you want the refund and give the company a chance to rectify the situation?
If I bought a pair of defective Levi jeans, I wouldn't demand a refund and never buy a pair of Levi's again. I would return them and ask for a different pair. Sometimes a faulty pair slips through the cracks. Why shouldn't a designer be given the same courtesy?
And, yeah Barb Speck is opinionated and a hack. But she has never, ever been overrated.
-----------------------
You're right. Most people think her stuff is crap. My mistake.
I hope not as well, the one thing I purchased from her was blurry and jagged
well gee did you let her know, let the store know, give her a chance to fix what was wrong. I went looking and it appears most of her kits have quality checks at CU.com and from personal experience I know Digitals QCs all their designer's kits. I think I'm going to have to go see if she has any freebies so I can check first hand but lets talk about previews did you happen to check out Redu's new stitches, thought about buying them until I saw the enlargement and talk about them looking bad and of course she is now only selling at SBG. Why you keep harping on the same old designers makes me wonder if they might have pissed in your cereal cause there are a lot more new ones I'd rather know about.
June 23, 2010 8:48 AM
-----------
You obviously have a personal grudge with her and SBG. I don't know what you are talking about. I own that pack and most of her stitches and they are fabulous.
Why wouldn't you leave Barb alone? I like her.
And guess who's doing the "Quality Control"?? Yep, Barf herself.. Having her QC'ing for stores is a joke. It is HER stuff that needs QC'ing by someone else.
I don't understand the beef with "Barf." I gather this is Barbara Speck you are talking about. But I don't understand where the anomosity is coming from. Have you worked with her or something? Honestly curious.
I have liked everything I've gotten from Redju.
lets talk about previews did you happen to check out Redu's new stitches, thought about buying them until I saw the enlargement and talk about them looking bad
----------
I would have to agree, they don't look great on the preview. However, they will look great printed out, you will never see the stitches at that magnification on your final product
Sometimes commercial use means that you can use the item in advertisements or newsletters pertaining to your business. It does not mean that you can sell the item in any way.
I guess people never thought to ask the person or site of the stuff they might want to use or even read the Terms or FAQs most sites have.
June 23, 2010 3:10 PM
--------
I think a lot of them do read, but either choose to ignore it, thinking they can get away with it, or choose not to understand and still think they can get away with it.
"...If I bought a pair of defective Levi jeans, I wouldn't demand a refund and never buy a pair of Levi's again. I would return them and ask for a different pair. Sometimes a faulty pair slips through the cracks. Why shouldn't a designer be given the same courtesy?"
__________________
Well, if digital designs were mass-produced, you might have a valid point. They're not so you don't.
I bought a bad Wii from Best Buy, returned it to Best Buy 3 days later and got a new one. I did not call Nintendo and say, "Hey, this Wii doesn't work right. Here, take it and see if you can fix it and then send it back when you get around to it." Hell no. If I had it for a year and it breaks, I might but only if it was still under warranty and/or it wouldn't cost me more to fix it than it would to purchase a new one.
If I buy a pack of digital flower images and they're really bad extractions with stray pixels and jagged edges, what is the designer going to do, exactly? Am I supposed to sit around and wait until they might fix it to my expectations? LOL NOT. I'll get a refund and then either try and fix them myself or find another similar pack somewhere else. Why would I ever contact the designer? I only ever contact the store itself and I wouldn't want the designer to rectify any situation other than giving me my money back, in the case where the designer in question actually owned the store. There is no replacement for a crappy digital image other than my cash back in my pocket. Have fun playing with your "designers," though. In the time it takes you to play nice with your money and do emails back and forth for however many days until you're satisfied, you could have either purchased new ones elsewhere, fixed the ones you bought or even made your own, for that matter.
I was just browsing through the GSO, when I came across this little word art gem: Delight this moment
It's from:
http://digital-crea.fr/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=5442
Anyone else want to share the shining stars of poorly translated word art?
If english is not someone's first language, then she shouldn't write english word arts.
What are you talking about? The link goes to a kit.
If english is not someone's first language, then she shouldn't write english word arts.
June 24, 2010 3:59 PM
.....
She just needs to get someone with English as thier first language to proof them for her. I don't think you can rely on a translator for that kind of thing. They give some pretty funky translations sometimes.
I was just browsing through the GSO, when I came across this little word art gem: Delight this moment
It's from:
http://digital-crea.fr/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=5442
Anyone else want to share the shining stars of poorly translated word art?
June 24, 2010 3:01 PM
-----------
What really pisses me off when this happens is that some of the CTMs know it's wrong, but don't have the decency to let their designer know. You know they know it's wrong because they've made it right on their preview LOs.
Anyone else want to share the shining stars of poorly translated word art?
-------------
No, I don't because not all funky word art is due to translation issues. A few native English speakers have made mistakes.
Those foreign designers you are laughing at can at least speak a second language, while you don't even spell correctly your mother tongue.
^^^^
Where did she misspell anything?
Yes, show us please. That link only went to a kit and the spelling was fine.
I didn't say it was mispelled (perhaps a remedial course in reading would be helpful?). I pointed out exactly what was off ("Delight this moment"), and linked to the kit that contains the word art. The time you spent wondering about where the imaginary mispelling was could have been used to look at the CT layouts (same page as linked) that utilize the awkward phrase.
Doh! Drink a little coffee before you post, and maybe you can avoid sounding like a simpleton.
Little bit of a change of topic, what is the best smallish forum/gallery? I want to hear the good, the bad and the fugly..we ARE on a anon blog here!
I'm looking for a digi home WITHOUT a bunch of drive by postings in the gallery, WITHOUT a plethora of rabid CT members, and where I can get some nice, honest comments. Preferably not attached to a store.
I'm not on any CT's nor do I use a lot of kits or elements. I just like the feedback, like the fellowship, like to check out gorgeous pages. Most importantly I don't like to feel ignored because I don't use kits/elements.
There's a topic about this at DST but I haven't really seen anywhere that looks that promising on the list.
Deviant Scraps looks ok but it's got a store with it and looks like most of the gallery posts are using store product, as I guess they should being a extension of a store of course. Ripal's forum/gallery? I'm not sure.
Does such a place exist in digi land or am I gonna have to start a place that like myself? LOL!
There's this one -
http://www.justmommies.com/forums/f390-digital-scrapbooking/
It's small but the ladies seem nice. I'm lurking there (never join though.) I actually like the "Hot or Not" daily threads they have. I think it's a kind of honest feedbacks from scrapbookers and potential customers that designers should hear about.
I didn't say it was mispelled (perhaps a remedial course in reading would be helpful?). I pointed out exactly what was off ("Delight this moment"), and linked to the kit that contains the word art. The time you spent wondering about where the imaginary mispelling was could have been used to look at the CT layouts (same page as linked) that utilize the awkward phrase.
Doh! Drink a little coffee before you post, and maybe you can avoid sounding like a simpleton.
June 25, 2010 1:57 PM
-----------------
English is not my first language (and no, I don't write word arts, lol).
So, what is wrong with "delight this moment"? Is it wrong to say that? It's not a proper english expression?
English is not my first language (and no, I don't write word arts, lol).
So, what is wrong with "delight this moment"? Is it wrong to say that? It's not a proper english expression?
June 25, 2010 3:53 PM
=============================
It should be, Delight IN this moment,
English is not my first language (and no, I don't write word arts, lol).
So, what is wrong with "delight this moment"? Is it wrong to say that? It's not a proper english expression?
June 25, 2010 3:53 PM
--------------------
Okay, blushing a bit here--I thought your English was fine, and didn't guess you weren't a native speaker. Yes, the other poster is correct that it should be "Delight in this moment."
I do appreciate that many designers are speaking English as a second (or even third, fourth, etc.) language, which certainly gives them an edge on me, lol. I just find it amusing when the translations come out wrong, and somehow either no one catches it or no one wants to say anything, so it just keeps getting used over and over again. Not saying the writer is stupid, just that it makes me laugh, so not personal at all. I can only imagine what kind of word art I'd create with my nonexistant Russian language skills and google translator.
And before the "Did you bother letting the designer know?" crowd comes calling, no I didn't and no I won't. If she doesn't care enough to have her translations checked before using them in a kit, why should I care enough to show her the mistake?
What really pisses me off when this happens is that some of the CTMs know it's wrong, but don't have the decency to let their designer know. You know they know it's wrong because they've made it right on their preview LOs.
June 24, 2010 7:26 PM
__________
I agree that sometimes the CTMs are a little bit rude. I mean, if you CT for a designer, it should be because you like her and her work so you should be nice enough to let her know when you notice a mistake. It's rude to just make a word art right on your own LO but without telling your designer about it.
I didn't say it was mispelled (perhaps a remedial course in reading would be helpful?). I pointed out exactly what was off ("Delight this moment"), and linked to the kit that contains the word art. The time you spent wondering about where the imaginary mispelling was could have been used to look at the CT layouts (same page as linked) that utilize the awkward phrase.
Doh! Drink a little coffee before you post, and maybe you can avoid sounding like a simpleton.
June 25, 2010 1:57 PM
--------------------------------
I'll drink some coffee if you get rid of the bitch attitude.
I'll drink some coffee if you get rid of the bitch attitude.
June 25, 2010 6:46 PM
------------------
Yeah, cuz this blog is all about being nice and sweet.
Doh! Drink a little coffee before you post, and maybe you can avoid sounding like a simpleton.
June 25, 2010 1:57 PM
-------
Follow your own advice simpleton. I was referring to the post above mine that said you had misspelled something in your native English. Doh!!! That's what this ^^^^ means, post above me.
Deviant Scraps looks ok but it's got a store with it and looks like most of the gallery posts are using store product, as I guess they should being a extension of a store of course. Ripal's forum/gallery? I'm not sure.
--------
I like DS but it has it's moments. It's very up and down with forum activity. I don't use any of the store products in my gallery posts.
Yeah, cuz this blog is all about being nice and sweet.
June 25, 2010 7:57 PM
----------
Just because others do it, doesn't mean you need to.
Ewwww. Lorie Davison went all Deviant Art with her latest kit. Not my taste, so I'll look at it like I just saved $12.00.
^^^^
The fact that most of the CTM pages do not look that great says a lot. Most of those CTMs can pretty much do anything with anything, but those pages are not the best. I don't like Lorie's stuff anyway, but she should stick to what she knows. Anyhow, it doesn't look that different from her Castle kit in the Creative Fusion and her Prairie Kit. Not sure where the DA reference comes into it.
Maybe my DA reference was off. Shrug. I just thought she was trying to do urban/edgy/altered, which seems more their thing than hers.
Do you mean DA or DS? DA does all kinds of things.
Ewwww. Lorie Davison went all Deviant Art with her latest kit. Not my taste, so I'll look at it like I just saved $12.00.'
-----------
I think Lorie did an amazing job on her latest kit and it is not that different then the honeybees before. It's more of a guys, boys kit. I havent looked at all CTM pages but some are pretty amazing.
^^^^
Why is it more of a boys kit? I don't see it. Is it because there's no pink? I could easily make a lot of girl pages from that kit.
What do you all think? Are these the same template?
http://www.groovyscraps.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=483:0d4e5f94bde9f3ea0bcf3efa0e202a27
http://digizinesdzines.com/TheStudio/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=479
What does someone do when they run across something like this?
^^^^^
Look the same to me. Why don't you contact the designer that released it first..two years ago! It doesn't do any good to just tell us here. You could report it to the stop digital piracy blog, that looks like it could use some action.
^^^
Nevermind, I do see some slight differences. There are more holes in the spout, the handle at the top is different(a bit), and the bottom on one has an addition.
^^^^^
Look the same to me. Why don't you contact the designer that released it first..two years ago! It doesn't do any good to just tell us here. You could report it to the stop digital piracy blog, that looks like it could use some action.
__________________________
Uh...these are CU products. Its not digital piracy if someone purchased a CU product to use as CU. Geez. Bored any and looking to stir up pots??
^^^^
Uh, no, nothing wrong with that but you can't buy CU and sell it as CU. Think before you speak.
I don't know any designer who allows her CU templates to be sold as CU templates. 99% of the time the template must be filled with papers and sold flattened and only for PU. The only difference in those templates are that the more recent one has a slightly larger gap between the handle and the lid and the handle comes down over the side. Looks to me like it was not just "copied" but more likely the second person bought the originals and slightly altered them. That's even worse than copying from scratch.
Uh...these are CU products. Its not digital piracy if someone purchased a CU product to use as CU. Geez. Bored any and looking to stir up pots??
_______________________________
Uh...
You're an idiot. I agree this particular example is grasping at straws but if you think that's what the term "commercial use" means, you're in for a world of hurt.
__________________________
Uh...these are CU products. Its not digital piracy if someone purchased a CU product to use as CU. Geez. Bored any and looking to stir up pots??
June 27, 2010 8:55 PM
^^^
No, I was honestly asking for opinions before I contacted the original designer. But if ya wanna be a bitch I can sure as tooting be one right back.
^^^^
Out of curiosity, which one was the original designer?
Uh...these are CU products. Its not digital piracy if someone purchased a CU product to use as CU. Geez. Bored any and looking to stir up pots??
---------
Yes it is if it against the TOU. You're just a stupid jerk.
^^^^
Out of curiosity, which one was the original designer?
June 28, 2010 9:54 AM
^^^^
According to the dates the products were uploaded Kim Cameron was the original designer. She was pleased to be contacted.
who cares, buy the 1 for $1
Does anyone know why the hell DST now has links that are 5 miles long? Even when you click a link to go to someone's shop, or any other links, the link starts out as DST with a "redirect" in it, making the links long and clumsy.
I think that that part is because then they can artificially inflate the number of clicks happening on the website (to look good to a potential future buyer of the site.) So now it even counts the clicks that are LEAVING the site as on-site clicks. Looks pretty damn sneaky, manipulative, and downright shady if you ask me.
^^^
No clue. I haven't visited DST in ages. Nothing happening there of any interest.
I had noticed the same thing a while ago, while trying to visit the blogs of a blog train (nothing to do with the dst itself). It caused my system to run so slow I had to quit the whole thing. It seemed strange though!
I wonder if Hugh Hefner gave permission for this....... I think not! http://scrapswithattitude.blogspot.com/
http://www.fizzypopdesigns.com/
http://hollydesigns.blogspot.com/2010/06/huge-announcement.html
What's going on over there? They both just suprise announced their departure AND that they'll be in NO store for the entire month of July?
Another new store opening? Oh joy.
^^^
Based on the rumor mill, Holly and Lizzy probably won't be the only designers leaving SPD in the next few weeks. I've been hearing a lot of REALLY bad things about how the team is getting treated at SPD these days.
I wonder if Hugh Hefner gave permission for this....... I think not! http://scrapswithattitude.blogspot.com/
June 29, 2010 9:57 AM
-------
why for?
ok, so who's got the goods on Shabby Pickle - what's that latest about the designers leaving? anyone know and care to share?
could have something to do with their guest designer?
that wouldn't explain them staying the entire month of June while the guest is there, only to be without a store altogether for the month of July.
Well Kasia did set up her own store only a few months back. Things that make you go hmmm. I know she's still at SP but she has the opportunity to get out if she wants.
I wonder if Hugh Hefner gave permission for this....... I think not! http://scrapswithattitude.blogspot.com/
June 29, 2010 9:57 AM
-------
why for?
She changed it. The original one had the "Playboy" (trademarked) logo as a title, and the trademarked bunny-ears included in the preview and kit. This one looks like the ears still might be tucked behind the other stuff, but she changed the title to "PlayToy".
I left a comment on her blog earlier today that they were both trademarked images.
She did more than "change it". The freebie that was there to start with was a diff mini kit. The preview on the blog now is the kit that was originally for sale in her store. I left a comment yesterday about it being copyrighted but of course it was moderated and wasn't approved.
Oh, she removed that playBOY freebie completely. The image on her blog is now just a preview for the kit. She must have had a few comments about copyright (that she didn't publish on her blog) and quickly removed the freebie.
I found the original freebie and the download link using google cache.
Yes, Miss Scrap with attitude, you can fool us, but not Google! LOL!
Anyone here know if this ebay seller is legit? (expressionsoutlet) I see a lot of stuff like alphas that I recognize from different designers. One being scrappin-cop. I already sent her an email but there are other recognizable alphas that I don't think she made.
http://stores.ebay.com/expressionsoutlet__W0QQ_sacatZexpressionsoutletQQ_sidZ2997611QQ_trksidZp4634Q2ec0Q2em14?_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1581&_pgn=2
The sets have more pictures of individual items when you look inside.
Anyone here know if this ebay seller is legit? (expressionsoutlet) I see a lot of stuff like alphas that I recognize from different designers. One being scrappin-cop. I already sent her an email but there are other recognizable alphas that I don't think she made.
http://stores.ebay.com/expressionsoutlet__W0QQ_sacatZexpressionsoutletQQ_sidZ2997611QQ_trksidZp4634Q2ec0Q2em14?_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1581&_pgn=2
The sets have more pictures of individual items when you look inside.
--------------------
Well, since Scrappin' Crap's stuff is CU, then the seller can sell it even if she didn't make it herself. Only Scrappin' Crap would know if the seller purchased a CU license in order to do so.
Why even bother posting this crap here? Better yet, why am I responding?
What I really want to know is what's the deal at SPD? I've never had anything but poor CS there. I don't even shop there anymore because of it. Maybe I'm not alone? Or maybe they got together with Elemental Scraps and plan on marketing the exclusive with a "twist" crap method of doing business.
What I really want to know is what's the deal at SPD?
******************
Back at ya with the whole crap post. Who the fuck cares? Oh, you do. My bad. Say, how about you let others post what they want and and we'll all let you ramble about useless things that you care about? Fair?
What I really want to know is what's the deal at SPD? I've never had anything but poor CS there. I don't even shop there anymore because of it. Maybe I'm not alone? Or maybe they got together with Elemental Scraps and plan on marketing the exclusive with a "twist" crap method of doing business.
----------------------------
Holly is opening her own store - from what I hear she's been "running things" at SPD for a while. FizzyPop (who's been helping Holly with administrative things at SPD) will go with her. I imagine several of the SPD designers will, too.
I suppose the rationale is why not open up your own? Because it's just that easy - you know. Everyone else is doing it.
Oh wait, that's right, that's how Shabby Pickle came to be!
Then Holly and Lizzy can find out what a pain in the ass it is to run your own X-cart store and be responsible for all the bills and site problems, and they can go MIA and let a couple of their team members run it for them, then THOSE team members can get fed up and open THEIR own store.
It's the ciiiiiiiircle of liiiiiiiiiife ....
I don't get why designers can't just move to a different store when they're upset like they used to in the old days. Now they all decide to open up their own stores like they've suddenly sprouted business acumen overnight. It's obviously a pain in the ass to run your own store, otherwise so many designers-turned-store-owners wouldn't go MIA after the novelty has worn off. It's like adopting a puppy without acknowledging the fact that it's going to grow up to be a dog.
Just pay your commission and save yourself the headaches.
OMG! Not another new store?!!
As much as I like Holly, there is way too many new stores these days. I can't keep up with all of them. I will stay with the ones I know. I think it's a bad business decision from Holly's part.
So, SPD is going down. Is it the same with A5D? is it why Kristen has left? And is Cinnamon going to join her permanently at Catscrap?
could have something to do with their guest designer?
June 29, 2010 10:24 PM
-----------
oh yeah! I just looked to see who it is and I agree, if the store I sell at hires Miss Tiina even just for a guest spot, I would leave too.
if Holly and Lizzy were running things at SPD, why would you assume they'd end up bailing on their own store? Seems like its a GOOD business decision to open their own store. As long as they're working for SPD, Laura gets all the cash and they do all the work.
if Holly and Lizzy were running things at SPD, why would you assume they'd end up bailing on their own store?
------------
Because I like to assume things. It's fun for me.
Here's how I figure the plot will play out. They start out with just a couple of designers, they want to be elite and different - because no one has ever tried THAT before. Then they realize that the customers don't necessarily just follow you because they're sort of set in their habits, but the server bills and cost of software maintenance need to be covered somehow. So the next thing we know, there's a Designer Call out there. Just going to add a few more designers, you guys! Because these bills aren't going to pay themselves and I guess this is more expensive than I originally thought! And after the initial shiny and new feeling wore off, the sales sort of dwindled.
Somewhere around this point about 25% of the designers who followed them over to their new store (yes, I pulled that percentage out of my ass) will realize that this was a mistake and they'll move again to a store that's been around a while. They're not going to ride out the growing pains, nothing personal.
So "New Store" will announce their 20 new designers! No longer a unique little boutique store - now they're just a mega-store of designers, most of them you've never heard of, most of them not worth a crap. But there will be one or two new people who stand a chance, but you really have to sift through all the crap every week to find their stuff.
Now the "How hard can it be?" owners are faced with three times more designers than they thought, three times more customer service issues, a bunch of bad press over the bad designers they added, CT members who go missing, marketing plans, holiday sales, etc etc etc. So they bury their head in the sand, start to avoid their email, fall behind on sending out the newsletters, fall behind on planning new challenges, new customer interactions and on keeping their site fresh and relevant.
Then they find an unsuspecting designer or team member who's eager for a power trip and ask them to "take care of a few things" for them. Then the "few things" become "everything that sucks".
That's how I see it all playing out.
But if I'm wrong, what do I care? If I'm right I'm going to look like a freaking prophet, though!
^^^^^LOL Kinda seems like what is going on at MScraps right now...
...
June 30, 2010 4:08 PM
--------------------
Well, let's hope Holly and Fizzy (whatever is her name) read this and avoid this scenario. It really sucks that everyone (or a lot of people) think they are going straight for a disaster and they are not even opened yet!!!!!!
But if I'm wrong, what do I care? If I'm right I'm going to look like a freaking prophet, though!
June 30, 2010 4:08 PM
^^^^
No, you will not look like a prophet because you are anonymous and we have no clue who you are. Kind of like a golfer playing solo that gets an ace.
"^^^^^LOL Kinda seems like what is going on at MScraps right now... "
Oh my.. Only 6 months and MScraps is like that already?
More dirt please? :D
Then Holly and Lizzy can find out what a pain in the ass it is to run your own X-cart store and be responsible for all the bills and site problems, and they can go MIA and let a couple of their team members run it for them, then THOSE team members can get fed up and open THEIR own store.
It's the ciiiiiiiircle of liiiiiiiiiife ....
I don't get why designers can't just move to a different store when they're upset like they used to in the old days. Now they all decide to open up their own stores like they've suddenly sprouted business acumen overnight. It's obviously a pain in the ass to run your own store, otherwise so many designers-turned-store-owners wouldn't go MIA after the novelty has worn off. It's like adopting a puppy without acknowledging the fact that it's going to grow up to be a dog.
Just pay your commission and save yourself the headaches.
June 30, 2010 10:48 AM
This is without doubt one of the funniest and probably the most truthful thing I have ever read on this blog.
It's like adopting a puppy without acknowledging the fact that it's going to grow up to be a dog.
____________________________
LOL No. Maybe it would be like adopting a puppy simply because it's cute without acknowledging the fact that it is going to pee on the rug a lot and chew the heck out of your stuff.
^^^^^
And that's just the designers.
LOL No. Maybe it would be like adopting a puppy simply because it's cute without acknowledging the fact that it is going to pee on the rug a lot and chew the heck out of your stuff.
Not to mention the cute little puppy will run away from home and go to the first person that offers him a bone.
"^^^^^LOL Kinda seems like what is going on at MScraps right now... "
Oh my.. Only 6 months and MScraps is like that already?
More dirt please? :D
June 30, 2010 7:51 PM
*****************************
Oh yes, more dirt please...this should be good...
BTW, Kasia left SP as well...like we all didn't see that one coming!
"^^^^^LOL Kinda seems like what is going on at MScraps right now... "
Oh my.. Only 6 months and MScraps is like that already?
More dirt please? :D
June 30, 2010 7:51 PM
******
yes more dirt please!!!!!
oh and kasia left SP but no big surprise there...
Does anyone think that this crosses the line?
http://www.designhousedigital.com/audrey-neal/mod-flowers-mini-kit
It's way too much like the licensed work by Orla Kiely that was in the Target stores a few years back. They are not identical, but it just doesn't feel right to me. I mean there is inspiration and then there is copying. I've always like the designer, so I'm not trying to pick on her, I'm more just getting a sense of what other people think crosses the line.
The stuff's been pulled from Target, but here's a blog post with some photos of them...
http://sfgirlbybay.blogspot.com/2009/01/oh-its-orla-kiely-for-target.html
^^^^^
I agree. Even the colors are the same. To me it crosses the line.
Definetely crosses the line. I was prepared to think you were being nitpicky, but nope--so similar as to be easily mistaken for the exact same pattern.
I don't get why designers can't just move to a different store when they're upset like they used to in the old days....
...Just pay your commission and save yourself the headaches.
I so agree. I don't really see many artistic designers being as much the "business type". Why not let a more business-minded person handle those hassles, if you can?
I would much rather design than get saddled with all those headaches. I love my store (not "my" store, the one I sell at) and would never want all the headaches that come with owning and running a site. I'm thankful for a wonderful owner/site-manager, and realistic expectations. Even though we're not the busiest or "most popular" site on the web, we do well enough and I'm very happy there, for 2 years now.
A decent designer can do well at almost any site, if they work at it. No need to hop all over the web. That's just stupid. Sure, I can see maybe moving if you are invited to join a "top-tier" store, but not from site to site to site... *shakes head*
http://www.designhousedigital.com/audrey-neal/mod-flowers-mini-kit
It's way too much like the licensed work by Orla Kiely that was in the Target stores a few years back. They are not identical, but it just doesn't feel right to me. I mean there is inspiration and then there is copying. I've always like the designer, so I'm not trying to pick on her, I'm more just getting a sense of what other people think crosses the line.
*******
Definitely crosses the line. Way too similar (almost exact) to be a coincidence.
You are full of shit. While back I posted a CU pack with felt elements from an etsy shop. That was definitely an artistic work being stolen, and all you smart asses said "just because I looks like an item from etsy, doesn't mean it's an abuse". You fuckhead! And now you see a copyright infrigment because of a color scheme and some generic shapes? Or are you just the same person, posting multiple times and saying the same thing in different words?
It's way too much like the licensed work by Orla Kiely that was in the Target stores a few years back.
-------
Which is way too much like the work made by other designers in the 60s and 70s. Orla's flowers are not original.
It's way too much like the licensed work by Orla Kiely that was in the Target stores a few years back.
-------
Which is way too much like the work made by other designers in the 60s and 70s. Orla's flowers are not original.
I don't remember anything this ugly but it sure looks the same to me.
July Blog Train: I'll save you a lot of time. Here are the ones (20 out of 101) that are worth picking up (IMO). There are a few more that have one or 2 cute things, but I didn't want to waste my time downloading to get just one item and trash the rest.
http://mikkidesigns.blogspot.com
http://theespressoscrapshoppe.blogspot.com
http://aprilisadesigns.blogspot.com
http://justpassinthrudesigns.blogspot.com
http://girlboygirldesigns.blogspot.com
http://bubblescrapdesigns.com
http://wyldwebdesigns.com/wordpress
http://digilicious.typepad.com
http://angeltown.typepad.com
http://ginnytallent.blogspot.com
http://jen-at-chaos-lounge.blogspot.com
http://steadfast-and-immovable.blogspot.com
http://inspireddesignsbycrystal1.blogspot.com
http://digilovers-addiction.blogspot.com
http://bothmadandgenius.blogspot.com
http://designsbyjmdt.blogspot.com - nice solids
http://albina-s-secrets.blogspot.com
http://polkadotpixels.blogspot.com
(this one from polkadotpixels is very over-saturated, but if you tone it down it's okay)
http://jilldzines.blogspot.com
http://trishhdesigns.blogspot.com (glitters)
I don't remember anything this ugly but it sure looks the same to me.
July 1, 2010 9:05 PM
--------
Are you saying Audrey's looks like Orla's? No denying it. However, I'm saying that Orla's looks like a ton of other stuff I've seen. Neither are original.
July 1, 2010 9:12 PM
^^^^
Bitch
^^^^
Bitch
July 2, 2010 1:46 AM
----------------
LMFAO!
I haven't looked at all of the previews yet but several of the ones the OP listed as good suck like these 2:
http://bothmadandgenius.blogspot.com/
http://wyldwebdesigns.com/wordpress/
I don't really see anything worth losing HD space over, ugly color palette and crappy designs.
@ July 2, 2010 2:01 AM
Snob bitch! Go throw your money at Scrapbook Place!
Anonymous Anonymous said...
July 1, 2010 9:12 PM
^^^^
Bitch
July 2, 2010 1:46 AM
-----
Why am I bitch? because I pointed out the obvious? Orla's stuff does look like a lot of other stuff out there. Deal with it.
Snob bitch! Go throw your money at Scrapbook Place!
July 2, 2010 2:55 AM
-------
I have no idea who you are but I'm not even going to look at any of the kits. I'm just going to flat out say they are crap. If you are designer, lose the attitude. If you are a CT, you've done a lot of damage.
The OP who posted the original blog train links was not being bitchy, but you sure are. Grow the fuck up and deal with some CC.
^^^^
Totally wrong!
^^^^^
Hmm, no, I don't think so. You are being bitchy, so, not totally wrong.
I have no idea who you are but I'm not even going to look at any of the kits. I'm just going to flat out say they are crap. If you are designer, lose the attitude. If you are a CT, you've done a lot of damage.
The OP who posted the original blog train links was not being bitchy, but you sure are. Grow the fuck up and deal with some CC.
and it's like you don't have attitude. Give me a break. You wouldn't know a good kit if it smacked you upside the head.
http://bothmadandgenius.blogspot.com/
http://wyldwebdesigns.com/wordpress/
I don't really see anything worth losing HD space over, ugly color palette and crappy designs.
I guess fairly new designer=crap. Wonder which new designers will eventually be the in designers down the road. LOL Ya just never know and everyone is so fickle it makes me want to go in a corner and suck my thumb.
I totally agree about the mega blog train. Those trains used to be pretty good--lots of great stuff, including a great color palette. Now it's a bunch of look-alike crap. Hugely disappointing.
I found at least 30 downloads I liked in the mega train. Some were on the list posted above, some were not. everyone has different tastes. One person saying they're the only good ones is only saying their own opinion. But saying they're all crap without even looking is wrong. (its just your opinion)
July 2, 2010 2:55 AM
Snob bitch! Go throw your money at Scrapbook Place!
_______________________
LOL I think you forgot where you are. This is a S-M-A-C-K blog, hun, not a sugary-sweet fuzzy-hugs blog. You want ass kissing, DST is just a mouse-click away.
I think the whole damn mess is mundane, anyway. The colors hurt my eyes, so none of any of it looks appealing to me. To each their own. If you don't like what people have to say and can't take the criticism, you're in the wrong damn business and you better go find a job where opinions don't matter. Designing (anything) isn't for you.
I think the whole damn mess is mundane, anyway. The colors hurt my eyes, so none of any of it looks appealing to me. To each their own. If you don't like what people have to say and can't take the criticism, you're in the wrong damn business and you better go find a job where opinions don't matter. Designing (anything) isn't for you.
LOL and one would really worry about being critisized on a SMACK BLOG. I think not.
Can I say I'm SO f***ing tired of extracted babies everywhere!!!!!!!!!
Babies hugging fishes are creepy!!!!!!!!!
Kristen Rice just opened her own shop.
^^^^ link please =)
Can I say I'm SO f***ing tired of extracted babies everywhere!!!!!!!!!
Babies hugging fishes are creepy!!!!!!!!!
_______________________________
Bwahahahahaha!!!!!
I had to post. Word Verification: heatedi
http://www.kstudiofix.com/shoppe/
http://www.digishoptalk.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=1068370&title=break-free&cat=500
Is it just me or does the top photo on this very cute layout look like the poor child has some kind of growths on her head? Other than that the LO is adorable.
Its just you
Just you. Looks to me that there's some beads on the layout.
Post a Comment