In answer to the questions:
Why so snarky?
Why so Bitchy?
Why so judgmental?
Please feel free to save this and copy/paste every time the question comes up, it will save us all a lot of time and typing.
1. This is a smack blog, we are snarky, snotty, bitchy, judgmental, critical, grumpy, dopey and doc.a. If you want nice, sweet and up your behind....go to DST.
2. If you are a designer, store owner, CT, etc. expect to be criticized, told you sell "crap" or worse, and don't expect sugar-coated either.a. If you want nice, see 1a.
3. If you are here looking for the truth, honest opinions and real feelings, welcome and join in.a. If you want nice, see 1a.
Credit goes to: Anonymous: August 8, 2010 8:21 AM: Thanks!
2,219 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 2219 Newer› Newest»http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/scrap-talk-65/stolen-pages-253042/
Well, mumure's stockphoto issue aside, I think the responses by the magazine's editor is disgustingly unprofessional. She didn't apologise once, only said the magazine will correct the mistake.
Then when people pointed out the permission issue, she said "Good. The magazine is read." And later she added "Un peu de pub gratuite ne nuit pas à la santé ! Merci Maryse !" which means "A little free advertizing does not harm health! Thank you Maryse!"
??? WTF??? How come someone like this be an editor?
That is absolutely insane. I wonder who Véronique is who wants everyone to stop talking about it now?
^^^^
I agree. The editor's attitude is disgusting. Of course, mistakes can happen, but to treat it as a joke by saying 'thanks for the publicity' is quite unprofessional. I wouldn't spend my money on that magazine.
People have to learn to be professional and nice if they want customers to buy their stuff.
It is bizarre/wrong that a magazine would publish a layout without getting permission; but I have to say I find the whole thread with the the over-the-top "outrageously outraged" comments and the french language non sequiturs hilarious. Did you catch this post...."It is possible to consider it as mental cruelty!" I'm sure it is a translator issue but really...mental cruelty?!! LOL, It is a scrapbook page-Jeez, get a life people!!
This thread at DST makes me laugh.
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/scrap-talk-65/stolen-pages-253042/
The OP is outraged that her LO was used in a magazine with permission, and a quick look in her gallery has hundreds of extracted children with no credits to the original photographer. Karma!!!
September 7, 2010 11:43 AM
-------
What's even funnier is that the kit used is using stuff from off the web without permission (I know of a least one piece that is from DA and has very strict rules about usage)
Things that make you go hmmm. I just checked out the blog for the magazine, I notice that some of the followers are also people posting in the thread. Did one of them submit the page, realize they goofed and are now expressing outrage?
I find it hard to believe that they 'suddenly' published a page without permission.
Something is fishy.
(I know of a least one piece that is from DA and has very strict rules about usage)
_____________________
What piece is that?
The glasses, the ones with the jewels.
Oh, it looks like she removed those glasses. They are in Mumure's page though and I remember checking the original preview afterwards. They were there then, very hard to see as they were partially hidden. Now both previews on her blog (original Gotta Pixel one and the new SP one) have them removed. She's also not displaying any of the CT pages that have used them.
Proof that she didn't use them with permission as far as I'm concerned.
Oh look who's screaming about lack of credit:
http://tinyurl.com/37t9qpb
and now:
http://mizzd-stock.deviantart.com/
Look, she says 'always credit me'. I don't know about you, but I don't see any credit on that LO.
??? WTF??? How come someone like this be an editor?
September 7, 2010 4:14 PM
-----
Not met any editors, have you?
This is disturbing.
http://www.facebook.com/ArteBellaPorts
Look for the "Beautiful Baby Ava" album. Lovely album about beautiful baby who is suffering congenital heart defect and parents told to take baby home and enjoy the time they have left. Tragic and horrific for this young family.
This photographer couple seems to be falling all over themselves to get publicity through this, and are concerned that that all the photos keep their logo stamp visible if people use them for profile pictures. I mean, c'mon! This poor family is going through hell, and the photographer is concerned about their copyright and logo stamp, and turning this into a business and publicity opportunity on their blog and Facebook page?
To make matters worse, the way I found this album was from a post of Annie Manning, pointing out photos where her actions are being loudly credited (marketed) in the photos! Are you freakin KIDDING ME?
This poor family is going through hell, and the photographer is concerned about their copyright and logo stamp, and turning this into a business and publicity opportunity on their blog and Facebook page?
-----
And yet this poor family either sees fit to have the album published in a public place or allow for it be published. Not so poor methinks. If it were me, I'd be keeping it in the family and private. Just saying.
And yet this poor family either sees fit to have the album published in a public place or allow for it be published. Not so poor methinks. If it were me, I'd be keeping it in the family and private. Just saying.
September 8, 2010 1:43 AM
^^^^
I see nothing wrong with them for sharing. Perhaps they have friends and relatives out of town?
Allowing them to have the photographer make it public is different from sharing.
Like I said, I would make it private, that means friends and family, not the world.
Maybe they believe in prayer and hope that by bringing their daughter to peoples attention they might pray for her. Who knows!
It doesn't bother me that they said don't remove our logo, but the ass-kissing promotion of the actions did make me feel a bit uncomfortable (it didn't help that she tagged Annie Manning in the photos).
...
To make matters worse, the way I found this album was from a post of Annie Manning, pointing out photos where her actions are being loudly credited (marketed) in the photos! Are you freakin KIDDING ME?
September 8, 2010 12:29 AM
-------------------
It doesn't surprise me that Annie Manning would do that. She has been using her own kids to promote her business for so long. Moms should stop looking at their kids through a camera lens and just play with them for real. I'm not talking about taking a photo once in a while but some people really abuse the use of the camera.
Wow, Catherine Designs is retiring. I always thought she was one of those "top-tier" designers...maybe I thought wrong?
Yuck, designer apprentice sux. Look at this horrible blurry preview, that alone is reason to puke.
http://digiscrapaddicts.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=219499
It doesn't surprise me that Annie Manning would do that. She has been using her own kids to promote her business for so long. Moms should stop looking at their kids through a camera lens and just play with them for real. I
-------
Before you spout shit, get your facts straight. Annie has only just had a second baby, so she couldn't have been using her 'kids' for years. Also, if you bother to look at her blog, you would know she spends a lot of time with her family.
Maybe they believe in prayer and hope that by bringing their daughter to peoples attention they might pray for her. Who knows!
September 8, 2010 8:08 AM
-----
Oh please, that's what your church is for.
I dislike sympathy hounds. Plenty of families have had to deal with this kind of stuff or worse and they don't go around publishing it all over the place.
Wow, Catherine Designs is retiring. I always thought she was one of those "top-tier" designers...maybe I thought wrong?
September 8, 2010 6:13 PM
------
The whole top tier designer crap is all in the mind.
I like Catherine's stuff, but it's not always well executed. However, her originality makes me overlook that.
It doesn't surprise me that Annie Manning would do that. She has been using her own kids to promote her business for so long. Moms should stop looking at their kids through a camera lens and just play with them for real. I
-------
Before you spout shit, get your facts straight. Annie has only just had a second baby, so she couldn't have been using her 'kids' for years. Also, if you bother to look at her blog, you would know she spends a lot of time with her family.
September 8, 2010 7:01 PM
--------------
Whatever. I should have said that she has been using her daughter for years and she is doing the same now with her new baby. That is not shit, it's just straight facts. She posts photos of them (with creepy over-sharpened eyes) just to promote her textures and actions.
Yuck, designer apprentice sux. Look at this horrible blurry preview, that alone is reason to puke.
http://digiscrapaddicts.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=219499
LOL how did I know this would be Circle Of Life Scraps?
How 'artful'
Whatever. I should have said that she has been using her daughter for years and she is doing the same now with her new baby. That is not shit, it's just straight facts. She posts photos of them (with creepy over-sharpened eyes) just to promote her textures and actions.
September 8, 2010 7:12 PM
-----
And if she was using other children, you'd be bitching about that too.
I find this post interesting by mumure, where she mentions elements that are no longer in the kit used in making her LO. I'm assuming those are the elements that were taken without permission.
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/2585180-post82.html
I find this post interesting by mumure, where she mentions elements that are no longer in the kit used in making her LO. I'm assuming those are the elements that were taken without permission.
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/2585180-post82.html
----------------
maybe you can translate for us?
This is what Google translate gave me.
"The interest is to avoid post Vero until next issue another girl is forced to do the same thing as me for the same raisons.Ou another review elsewhere.
Want to tell me that if tomorrow a journal publishes your page without permission under another name than yours, with elements that are no longer in the kit that claims to promote, you will not get excited 1-2 - warn other girls about what they hang in your face? You're right, it's me who derailed and raving.
Laura or you have no right on my pages.Je passe.C wanted the message is everything.
SHE took my page, I asked him nothing.
So leave me alone and do so rather YOUR pages for your next magazine!"
Actually, after I fixed some spacing errors I got something different. Not a lot, but makes it easier to understand.
She must have been typing while mad!
"The interest is to avoid post Vero until next issue another girl is forced to do the same thing as me for the same reasons. Or another review elsewhere. Want to tell me that if tomorrow a journal publishes your page without permission under another name than yours, with elements that are no longer in the kit that claims to promote, you're not a - get excited 2 - warn other girls about what they hang in your face? You're right, it's me who derailed and raving. Laura or you have no right on my pages. I wanted the message across. That's it. SHE took my page, I asked him nothing. So leave me alone and do so rather YOUR pages for your next magazine!"
It still mentions elements that are no longer in the kit. Elements that were not supposed to be there as they were used without permission. Oh the irony
surprised she has time to rant about this in between leaving meaningless "nice page" comments on every layout in the gallery
WTF is with people scrapping pictures of stock photos? Seriously people...
Oh looky looky - another "bargain" site. http://scrapwithfriends.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=63
After paypal, the sellers are only making like a couple cents on each sale. Craziness.
Oh looky looky - another "bargain" site. http://scrapwithfriends.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=63
After paypal, the sellers are only making like a couple cents on each sale. Craziness.
*****************************
That stuff is overpriced, even at .50 a pack. What a bunch of junk.
Anonymous said...
WTF is with people scrapping pictures of stock photos? Seriously people...
September 9, 2010 8:24 AM
----
a. When you don't want to share online a photo of your kid, but you have to make a page (CT, challenge etc).
b. When you don't have such a beautiful photo, but you still want to scrap.
Maybe you should start considering scrapbooking as an art and not a dull task you have to do in order to preserve your family's history.
Anonymous said...
WTF is with people scrapping pictures of stock photos? Seriously people...
September 9, 2010 8:24 AM
----
a. When you don't want to share online a photo of your kid, but you have to make a page (CT, challenge etc).
b. When you don't have such a beautiful photo, but you still want to scrap.
Maybe you should start considering scrapbooking as an art and not a dull task you have to do in order to preserve your family's history.
September 9, 2010 9:37 AM
------------------------------
Why do you consider it a dull task to scrap your own family photos and history? Are you a little bitter about your own family history and therefore find it such a "dull task"? Or maybe you just don't have anything worthy of scrapping in your life so you figure others have crappy lives as well?
Whatever. I should have said that she has been using her daughter for years and she is doing the same now with her new baby. That is not shit, it's just straight facts. She posts photos of them (with creepy over-sharpened eyes) just to promote her textures and actions.
September 8, 2010 7:12 PM
-------
um, what better pictures to showcase her actions? i don't even know who the person is that you're talking about- but what's wrong with them using their own photos to promote? how is it any different than scrapping with your own kits and posting that layout around?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
surprised she has time to rant about this in between leaving meaningless "nice page" comments on every layout in the gallery
September 9, 2010 6:35 AM
----
SERIOUSLY!!! *lol*
WTF is with people scrapping pictures of stock photos? Seriously people...
WTF bothers you so much that you just can't stand the thought....some of us don't want our children's or family photos all over the internet. We do believe in a bit of privacy but if I can do the LO and substitute a stock photo so be it. Quit sticking your nose in the air and acting like you're better then the rest of us that don't see a problem with using stock. Get over yourself already.
Oh looky looky - another "bargain" site. http://scrapwithfriends.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=63
After paypal, the sellers are only making like a couple cents on each sale. Craziness.
---------------------------------------
just a few copyright violations in there too, I'm pretty sure I spotted a Barbie horse
I have nothing wrong with people using stock photos for their layouts. And actually I wish some of those ladies whose kids are really ugly would use a stock photo instead!
WTF is with people scrapping pictures of stock photos? Seriously people...
----------
I don't care either way but WTF is it with people who do have a problem with this?
And actually I wish some of those ladies whose kids are really ugly would use a stock photo instead!
September 9, 2010 5:54 PM
-------
Wow. I guess that's why you use stock photos, huh?
I think that most, not all, but MOST, digi scrappers that have a problem with people using stock photos are or were paper scrappers.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nope, never paper scrapped in my life.
She did say MOST, so you are one of the few that didn't paper scrap that dislikes stock photos.
Not sure why are you saying nope.
"some of us don't want our children's or family photos all over the internet. We do believe in a bit of privacy"
-------------------------
Yes, excellent point. :)
Are you a little bitter about your own family history and therefore find it such a "dull task"? Or maybe you just don't have anything worthy of scrapping in your life so you figure others have crappy lives as well?
September 9, 2010 10:33 AM
-----------
Not the OP, but I'm not 'bitter' about my family or history, however, I do find just scrapping family events to be dull. I like to change it up sometimes. Does that mean my life is crappy? Hmm, I think not. It probably means I like a little diversity and that the whole of my life does not revolve around my family. I actually get to do things for me.
Sorry that your life if so dull that you can only scrap family events.
"... I like a little diversity and that the whole of my life does not revolve around my family. I actually get to do things for me."
*******************
I never thought about it this way. Refreshing to see an eloquent post on this subject matter.
Some people use their own children in their fantasy LO's and the talent blows me away. Such creative imagination.
Whatever happened to the designer call at SDS?
(too bored to look there!)
some of us don't want our children's or family photos all over the internet. We do believe in a bit of privacy
------------------------------
Curious if you make your family wear paper bags on their heads before leaving the house too so that nobody lays eyes on them. I fail to see how seeing a photo is any different than seeing someone walking down the street. In fact I'm allowed to take your picture if I want to, and then I'd have your photo anyways. As long as you don't say HI MY NAME IS BlAH BLAH BLAH BLAH and here is my picture and my address, what's the big deal.
Do people here try hard to make a fool of themselves or does it come out naturally?
Onto another topic....
look at these copyright infringements!
http://store.scrapbook-elements.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=&products_id=20615
http://natalieslittlecorneroftheworld.blogspot.com/2010/08/merit-badge.html
And I can't decide if she still has mouse ears in her other kits or not. I am seeing mouse ears buttons in some layouts so there must be. I just thought that these designers would have learned their lesson by now. With the huge ruckus that went on a couple months ago. Looks like some have not.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Whatever happened to the designer call at SDS?
(too bored to look there!)
September 10, 2010 7:45 AM
-----
what is SDS?
and too bored, or too lazy?
Curious if you make your family wear paper bags on their heads before leaving the house too so that nobody lays eyes on them. I fail to see how seeing a photo is any different than seeing someone walking down the street. In fact I'm allowed to take your picture if I want to, and then I'd have your photo anyways. As long as you don't say HI MY NAME IS BlAH BLAH BLAH BLAH and here is my picture and my address, what's the big deal.
The big deal is is that there are preditors and pediofiles who will take a naked baby/child etc and use it for their own sick purposes on a pornographic site. One scrapper had that happen and was horrified when she found out. Not quite sure how she found out but it's happened. Plus, It's really no ones business if my LO has my child or a stock photo.
As far as the bag over the head analogy there is a big difference when having something on the internet and my walking down the street and oh by the way you can not use that picture you might have taken of me WITHOUT my permission!!! Should it be published in a LO, on the internet or elsewhere I can sue the out of you.
oops its pedophile. Didn't think it looked right. LOL
This isn't really scrap related but I know how you all love copyright infringement..check out this Esty shop- http://www.etsy.com/shop/DigitalByDesign?page=1
Do you think she has permission from all of those companies? It's not just Disney.
Yeah, pretty sure the only permission she thinks she has is the one dreamed up in her loony imagination.
As far as the bag over the head analogy there is a big difference when having something on the internet and my walking down the street and oh by the way you can not use that picture you might have taken of me WITHOUT my permission!!! Should it be published in a LO, on the internet or elsewhere I can sue the out of you.
I believe if you are in a public location and your photo is taken by a stranger, intentionally or unintentionally, the stranger has every right to use those photos however they'd like whether it is on their website, facebook, or a scrapbook page. Good luck trying to sue someone over that!
The big deal is is that there are preditors and pediofiles who will take a naked baby/child etc
They are sick bastards and if a parent is idiotic enough to share naked baby/child photos online then they are asking for trouble.
Kinda disappointed Amanda Rockwell is going to SBG.
Kinda disappointed Amanda Rockwell is going to SBG.
----------------
Me too. I think she's better than that.
some of us don't want our children's or family photos all over the internet. We do believe in a bit of privacy
------------------------------
Curious if you make your family wear paper bags on their heads before leaving the house too so that nobody lays eyes on them. I fail to see how seeing a photo is any different than seeing someone walking down the street. In fact I'm allowed to take your picture if I want to, and then I'd have your photo anyways. As long as you don't say HI MY NAME IS BlAH BLAH BLAH BLAH and here is my picture and my address, what's the big deal.
September 10, 2010 9:01 AM
-------
Absolutely agree. I've always wondered about the lameness of the original argument, especially since almost always, those people have a blog, duh!
The big deal is is that there are preditors and pediofiles who will take a naked baby/child etc and use it for their own sick purposes on a pornographic site. One scrapper had that happen and was horrified when she found out. Not quite sure how she found out but it's happened. Plus, It's really no ones business if my LO has my child or a stock photo.
------------
Oh please, this is a lame and very stupid argument. The scrapper you are talking about did NOT have this happen. It was a not a porn site or anything like that. Someone just used her child's photo on a site promoting photography or scrapping.
You are aware that the pervs take photos of kids coming in and out of school? Out of your house? Any of the extra curricular activities that you do? Are you really that naive to think that they only 'stalk' on the internet?
As far as the bag over the head analogy there is a big difference when having something on the internet and my walking down the street and oh by the way you can not use that picture you might have taken of me WITHOUT my permission!!! Should it be published in a LO, on the internet or elsewhere I can sue the out of you.
September 10, 2010 2:17 PM
---------
Hmm, are you not aware of the thousands of instances of pervs taking photos at public places without anyone knowing or noticing? Seriously? What a sheltered life you lead.
Kinda disappointed Amanda Rockwell is going to SBG.
September 10, 2010 5:33 PM
--------
Seriously? Why? Where else would she go? It's a good move for her and a great move for Maya.
I stopped buying from Amanda when she stated almost exclusively selling CU.
I want to know where Christine and Laurie are going. Anyone know yet?
Oh please, this is a lame and very stupid argument. The scrapper you are talking about did NOT have this happen. It was a not a porn site or anything like that. Someone just used her child's photo on a site promoting photography or scrapping.
You are aware that the pervs take photos of kids coming in and out of school? Out of your house? Any of the extra curricular activities that you do? Are you really that naive to think that they only 'stalk' on the internet?
_______
Well obviously you and I are talking about different Scrapbookers because this one was NOT the one you are referencing.
and yes there are preverts all over the place. There are probably 15 that are pegged to live around my neighborhood but we weren't talking about anything other then on the internet and why people scrap with stock photos. There is no reason not to take precautions whether on the internet or in your neighborhood. It's sad that parents today have to watch their children constantly and train them not to talk to strangers or get in cars and I hardly live a sheltered life.
Amanda's going to go wherever she can expand her market. There's lots of criticism about store hopping. She's not a store hopper - she's looking for a good place that's got a reputation.
Where would you (general) suggest she go?
As has been pointed out before, for designers, this is a business. If you're given your choice of where to go, SBG sounds pretty sweet.
It's sad that parents today have to watch their children constantly and train them not to talk to strangers or get in cars and I hardly live a sheltered life.
September 10, 2010 8:17 PM
----
Today? Are you kidding me, I was told all that and I grew up in the 70s! It's not a new thing, despite what people think.
Think it's great Amanda is going to SBG. I will definitely follow her there. I'm hoping too that someone knows where Laurie Ann of HGD is going too? Her blog hasn't been updated since it was announced that scrapartist is closing. Hopefully someone has the inside scoop?
Amanda's going to go wherever she can expand her market. There's lots of criticism about store hopping. She's not a store hopper - she's looking for a good place that's got a reputation.
------
No one accused Amanda of store hopping, so I'm not sure what you are bringing it up sat all. If SA wasn't closing, I doubt Amanda would be moving at all.
Amanda (and the Inside the SA Studio workshop)
AmandaRockwell.com and Scrapbook-Graphics
Christine (Fiddlette)
Catscraps
Aja
Oscraps and SBB
Paula K
MScraps and SBB
Gabi
The Lily Pad
Angie
MScraps
Newsletter sign up
Mishou
Pixelworks by Michelle Godin
@ The-Lilypad
Michelle's newsletter signup is here
Laurie Ann (Heaven's Gate Designs)
After 5 Designs
Danielle (WishBliss)
After 5 Designs
^^^^^^
Thanks.
I don't shop at any of those stores, sigh.
great, thanks for the list. Nice to know where all of these fabulous ladies are headed. I don't shop at some of these stores, but I like their products enough to sign up there.
I don't get why some of you say 'I don't shop at those stores'. Why not? If you liked the designer before why won't you follow them to their new store? You don't have to even look at the other designers goods. I think that's just plain silly.
http://www.brittishdesigns.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=5&products_id=69
Is doing a light saber infringing on copyrights? She also has a fighter jet in there. I am honestly wondering if this is copyright infringement because I am not sure. The other stuff is obvious. Thanks!
Is doing a light saber infringing on copyrights? She also has a fighter jet in there. I am honestly wondering if this is copyright infringement because I am not sure. The other stuff is obvious. Thanks!
September 11, 2010 11:09 AM
-------------------------------------
Yes, lightsabers are copyrighted. And she used the word Jedi and Jedi mind trick in her description which I'm thinking is probably trademarked.
Are any of this week's DSA Designer Apprentice kits worth downloading?
So I guess she took down her toy story kit but didn't do the other ones. Nice! She is probably making GREAT money too! I guess the money is too much for them to stop! UGH! So disgusted with the lack of integrity that some people have. She obviously knows it is wrong because she took the toy story kit down.
I also bet you that many of these designers are still including these items in the kits but just not in the previews. Another way they lack integrity.
I don't get why some of you say 'I don't shop at those stores'. Why not? If you liked the designer before why won't you follow them to their new store? You don't have to even look at the other designers goods. I think that's just plain silly.
September 11, 2010 9:54 AM
-------
It's plain silly to assume that I won't sign up. I just said I don't shop there.
I won't one particular store no matter how much I like the designer. it isn't worth the headache of dealing with the store.
I'm signed up at lots of stores, haven't had a headache over it yet :)
I also bet you that many of these designers are still including these items in the kits but just not in the previews. Another way they lack integrity.
_____________________________
It's called greed. It's all about the money, honey! There's no such thing as integrity when it comes to the Almighty Dollar, the one true God.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which is soo STUPID! It is not fair to he rest of us that decide to not involve ourselves with doing things like that and keep our integrity. While others are getting away with it. I just think it is soooo unfair to the rest of the digiscrapping community for a few designers to cash in on something knowing full well they are breaking the law. i could use that money, but I choose to be honest. It is just so unfair.
Yes, I know I am going to sound like I am whining, and I kinda am. I am fully aware of that. But this blog is a place where we can say what we want to. I did that, and I am sure you will all do the same in response to me.
especially after the fiasco a few months ago, I am just surprised there are not more people outraged about this, and not more who are doing something about it.
It's called greed. It's all about the money, honey! There's no such thing as integrity when it comes to the Almighty Dollar, the one true God.
------------------------------
I don't get why you think it's all about the money, if it's not in the preview you don't think you're going to get it, and so it's not generating sales, so how can that be about the money?
Are any of this week's DSA Designer Apprentice kits worth downloading?
----------------------------
Out of the new designers:
http://digiscrapaddicts.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=220896
http://digiscrapaddicts.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=221166
http://digiscrapaddicts.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=219462
established designers:
http://digiscrapaddicts.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=221115
http://digiscrapaddicts.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=220793
http://digiscrapaddicts.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=220642
http://digiscrapaddicts.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=219990
And I am shocked that Sweet Shoppe Designs would allow this too!
http://sweetshoppedesigns.com/sweetshoppe/product.php?productid=19999&cat=0&page=4
The CT layouts include some items that HAVE to be in the kit and not included in the preview because it matches the kit and I don;t think the CT would design it. That is why I think there are some that are not included in the preview but are included in the kits.
The CT layouts include some items that HAVE to be in the kit and not included in the preview because it matches the kit and I don;t think the CT would design it. That is why I think there are some that are not included in the preview but are included in the kits.
September 12, 2010 12:15 PM
____
there is an add on to that kit.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Even if the add on is free, you still can not distribute copyrighted images. Even if you have designed them yourself. (Talking to the designers, not you specifically). That is what the whole issue was about a couple months ago.
Another reason why people can't just up and decide they want to sell commercial use items
http://www.digidesignresort.com/shop/designers-frenchgirl-designs-c-1_197/time-to-play-vol-3-p-7816
i'm sure there are other items in this store that should be looked at.
Why do store owners allow this?
^^ ^
hey, I have all those pokemon toys (well, the kids do)! lol!!
the one at the top with the flower on its back is a pencil sharpener and the turtley one on the right is off the end of a toothbrush. Neither of which, would I put on scrapbook page.
Anonymous said...
Another reason why people can't just up and decide they want to sell commercial use items
http://www.digidesignresort.com/shop/designers-frenchgirl-designs-c-1_197/time-to-play-vol-3-p-7816
i'm sure there are other items in this store that should be looked at.
Why do store owners allow this?
September 12, 2010 3:41 PM
------------------------------------
Those are awful! I bet the quality of the photos is very low... I can't think any use for them...
The store owner allows it, because I am sure she isn't any better...
Didn't you hear? If you take a picture of it, it's yours to extract, sell, etc.
Rolls eyes.
It's called greed. It's all about the money, honey! There's no such thing as integrity when it comes to the Almighty Dollar, the one true God.
September 12, 2010 8:48 AM
------------
I'm glad i don't live in your world. What a ridiculous generalization.
Another reason why people can't just up and decide they want to sell commercial use items
http://www.digidesignresort.com/shop/designers-frenchgirl-designs-c-1_197/time-to-play-vol-3-p-7816
i'm sure there are other items in this store that should be looked at.
Why do store owners allow this?
September 12, 2010 3:41 PM
--------
Because it may sell. Just because you don't like it or want it. The world does not revolve around your shopping habits. I'll admit, I don't like it either, but each to their own.
The CT layouts include some items that HAVE to be in the kit and not included in the preview because it matches the kit and I don;t think the CT would design it.
-----
Yeah, because no one on a CT has ever designed anything.
I'm not sure what you are shocked about.
Another reason why people can't just up and decide they want to sell commercial use items
http://www.digidesignresort.com/shop/designers-frenchgirl-designs-c-1_197/time-to-play-vol-3-p-7816
i'm sure there are other items in this store that should be looked at.
Why do store owners allow this?
September 12, 2010 3:41 PM
--------
Because it may sell. Just because you don't like it or want it. The world does not revolve around your shopping habits. I'll admit, I don't like it either, but each to their own.
She wasn't talking about whether she liked it or not, she was talking about the fact that it is illegal. Those are every single one of them copyrighted images.
As to why store owners allow it - honestly I think because most don't understand copyright at all.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I only meant that the items in question match the kit, and other elements in the kit that are included in the preview. So I find it hard to believe that a CT member would have the exact action, or whatever was used originally to recreate the same look and feel. So with that reasoning, I gathered that they must have been included in the kits.
And the only from Sweet Shoppe? I am surprised she has gotten away with it. That is obviously copyright infringement with the pig and the monkeys and the army guys. What the crap! After that whole drama a couple months ago, I know she must have heard about it and decided not to change a thing. Nice how some can get away with murder while all the other designers either have to stop selling stuff or change it all.
^^^^
Have you reported the violation to Pixar? If not, you'll understand why she 'got away with it'. No point in complaining about it here.
The reason the others were removed is because someone reported it.
It really is that simple.
Those are every single one of them copyrighted images.
------
Not every single image is copyrighted. Out of the 11, four are generic.
The problem here is that it may not be a copyright violation. She's selling 'photographs' of the toys.
However, if you are concerned, here's a page with an address and email link for you to report the abuse
http://www.pokemon.com/us/copyright/
It's true that all of those toys are covered by copyright. But you aren't alone in your misunderstanding of the law which is why packs like this are in store.
You can't sell photographs of things you didn't actually create yourself. You don't own it the copyright of an item when you photograph it.
Anyone noticed that Dutchie's name is NOT in the designer list at SBG anymore???
It's true that all of those toys are covered by copyright. But you aren't alone in your misunderstanding of the law which is why packs like this are in store.
-----
I understand the law. Not all those toys are copyrighted.
You can't sell photographs of things you didn't actually create yourself. You don't own it the copyright of an item when you photograph it.
-----
Really? That's why people can sell photographs of nature, butterflies, bridges, architecture, etc. etc. Because they 'created' it themselves.
Anyone noticed that Dutchie's name is NOT in the designer list at SBG anymore???
September 12, 2010 8:28 PM
---------
Strange, she was there a couple of days ago.
The list of designers at SBG is getting smaller and smaller.
Really? That's why people can sell photographs of nature, butterflies, bridges, architecture, etc. etc. Because they 'created' it themselves.
No one created the nature (well, maybe God ... but that's a whole other topic.)
It is actually illegal to sell photos of buildings and bridges. Not a lot of people enforce it, but it is illegal.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html
I'm curious why you say not all those toys are protected by copyright?
I know text sucks for intonation so I want to add that I'm not challenging you, I think it's probably one of the most important conversations going on in the world of digi these days so I am just trying to get to understanding.
Another reason why people can't just up and decide they want to sell commercial use items
http://www.digidesignresort.com/shop/designers-frenchgirl-designs-c-1_197/time-to-play-vol-3-p-7816
i'm sure there are other items in this store that should be looked at.
Someone should also inform French Girl that you can not just scan fabrics and sell them as papers!http://www.digidesignresort.com/shop/designers-frenchgirl-designs-c-1_197/textiles-papers-vol-6-p-7018 Patterned fabrics are copyrighted.
^^^^^
BTW, that's just one example. Almost all of her 'papers' seemed to be scanned fabrics.
*sigh* I sure wish so called designers would get a clue!
I know that even though some designers were reported, some were never even contacted by Disney. I know one of the designers said that she even contacted Disney herself and they never gave her any help at all.
So I am sure some designers stopped because they just wanted to do the right thing and not because of threats from people or from Disney.
So I am not sure reporting them will do any good either.
I'm curious why you say not all those toys are protected by copyright?
-----------
Because contrary to popular belief, not everything is copyrighted.
The chicken, sheep, turkey and car are so very generic, that by their very nature, they cannot be copyrighted. There is nothing distinguishing about those pieces. They are just a chicken, turkey, sheep and car. They are, in fact, in the public domain because of this.
Certainly the character pieces are copyrighted, but the others are not.
It is actually illegal to sell photos of buildings and bridges. Not a lot of people enforce it, but it is illegal.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html
-----
No, please read it again. It's only illegal in certain circumstances (which includes the Eiffel Tower with the lights on at night, but not the Eiffel Tower during the day)
Does copyright protect architecture?
Yes. Architectural works became subject to copyright protection on December 1, 1990. The copyright law defines “architectural work” as “the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.”
Copyright protection extends to any architectural work created on or after December 1, 1990. Also, any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date and were constructed by December 31, 2002, are eligible for protection. Architectural designs embodied in buildings constructed prior to December 1, 1990, are not eligible for copyright protection.
I know one of the designers said that she even contacted Disney herself and they never gave her any help at all.
------
They may not have contacted her back, but I'm sure Disney did something.
Everyone I know who has had a run in with Disney, has been well and truly told off.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From the comment on this designers blog, she says she has never been told anything by Disney.
So I don't think they cared enough.
After getting reported and then contacting them herself, she still was not contacted or warned by Disney.
So reporting does no good.
What other recourse does anyone have to stop people taking advantage of others? I feel copyright infringers are just taking advantage of someone else's ideas and hard work.
So it is not fair for them to continue doing it. IDK, just MHO.
Because contrary to popular belief, not everything is copyrighted.
The chicken, sheep, turkey and car are so very generic, that by their very nature, they cannot be copyrighted. There is nothing distinguishing about those pieces. They are just a chicken, turkey, sheep and car. They are, in fact, in the public domain because of this.
Certainly the character pieces are copyrighted, but the others are not.
Again, not challenging you ... but where are you getting this information? I know that the generic idea of a chicken is not copyrightable, but any actual physical form of a chicken has a style to it and once its actually created is covered by copyright.
The recognizable characters are trademarked as well as copyrighted ... but anything actually created is copyrighted (unless its been placed in public domain by the person who created it).
I'm not basing any of this on popular belief, but on the actual copyright act. I've been reading it again trying to suss out where that distinction is that you are seeing.
The depressing bit I read tonight is that there really is no international copyright laws ... which means that there are loads and loads of people who are stealing ideas who can't be stopped.
No, please read it again. It's only illegal in certain circumstances (which includes the Eiffel Tower with the lights on at night, but not the Eiffel Tower during the day)
Yah I caught that tonight too when reading again ... so any buildings and bridges built after 1990 are protected, but not before that ... which is most of the beautiful old architecture. So that's actually kind of fun, we can get textures from bricks on them and stuff.
Oh that last post was me I forgot to sign in.
Have you guys heard how Disney apparently sued a clown company for wearing Disney costumes? It seems like they really do protect their copyright vigorously .. so maybe the person who contacted them just hasn't had her turn yet? What blog was it do you remember?
Little green army dudes might just be generic enough to not be enforcable as copyright. Barrel of monkeys, i dunno? You can find rip offs at dollar stores, that doesn't mean that what the chinese companies are doing isn't illegal, but I don't know if that's a generic design now too.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that dollar stores are probably a bigger copyright issue to companies than small time digi scrapping. And companies never manage to squash the generic rip off designs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is not just the actual images. It is also the idea. She is obviously trying to be "Toy Story". That idea is copyrighted. But I guess she can just say it is a kit with toys in it.
But then again, there is a piggy in it and all so I dunno. i just get frustrated when I see other designers have pulled their kits and not even gotten close to infringement in an effort to have integrity, while others are still doing what they want.
I'm not basing any of this on popular belief, but on the actual copyright act. I've been reading it again trying to suss out where that distinction is that you are seeing.
______
The only ones who can know in depth copyright laws and trade mark laws are the copyright attorneys and trade mark attorneys whose business it is to know these things. Anyone reading the Copyright Act on the internet can get an IDEA of what is and isn't copyright and what is and isn't trade mark but unless you are an attorney who went to law school to understand these issues, there are too darn many trying to tell others what is and isn't legal.
We go through this quite often and personally I'm really tired of wantabe attorneys discussing what is and isn't copyright. If I personally have a copyright question I go to the source where I know I'll receive accurate information.
Someone should also inform French Girl that you can not just scan fabrics and sell them as papers!http://www.digidesignresort.com/shop/designers-frenchgirl-designs-c-1_197/textiles-papers-vol-6-p-7018 Patterned fabrics are copyrighted.
_________
well maybe since she is French Girl leading me to believe she lives outside of the USA does what a lot of designers do and that's ignore copyright. Yet there are International Copyright Laws but sometimes it costs more to go after the little guy I guess then file an international copyright suit.
You can't sell photographs of things you didn't actually create yourself. You don't own it the copyright of an item when you photograph it.
duh unless they are in the public domain which many found on the internet happen to be. Please get your facts straight.
^^^^
Duh duh
Unless most of the photos uploaded to 'public domain' websites (by clueless people like you)are stolen and unreliable.
Duh duh
Unless most of the photos uploaded to 'public domain' websites (by clueless people like you)are stolen and unreliable.
duhduhduh-not clueless and you need to know the right sites or some great photographers who allow you use of their photographs.
I swear the folks on this site are starting to lose brain cells by the minute lately.
The last few posts sounded like kindergartners arguing at recess.
That idea is copyrighted.
-------
You cannot copyright an idea. Copyright protects the original expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
Dutchie closed her store at SBG. Maya confirmed it in the scrap talk
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/scrap-talk-65/studio-dutchie-253625/
She is too busy in real life to design.
You keep telling us you aren't clueless but don't tell us where you are getting your information.
Since I am just a wannabe attorney, let's let copyright lawyers explain it for us:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter6/6-a.html
It is not just the actual images. It is also the idea. She is obviously trying to be "Toy Story". That idea is copyrighted. But I guess she can just say it is a kit with toys in it.
The Toy Story concept is not covered by copyright, it is covered bu trademark. Trademark is in many ways even more fussy than copyright, because all you have to prove is that someone could reasonably confuse your concept with another trademarked concept in order for it to be a problem.
Words can also be trademarked, where they cannot be copyrighted.
It is also trademark, not copyright, that becomes weak if something becomes common or generic.
Check our this article on the Godzilla trademark and how aggressive and successful they have been at fending off anything that would potentially dilute their trademark:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/11/godzilla-terror/
Interesting about Godzilla...I wonder if the owners of Polkadot Plum have seen that.
And I don't believe for an instant that Studio Dutchie quit for personal reasons. No one just shuts their store off without drama. I'd love to know what's happening there.
Hey...quit gripping about the french girl at least some of her papers are well done....
^^^^
A lot of designers just shut off shop with no drama. What on earth are you going on about?
Mendy, aka Studio Dutchie, has recently had a baby. Maybe she thought she could handle designing and the baby and realized that she couldn't.
Hey...quit gripping about the french girl at least some of her papers are well done....
------
I didn't see any.
Interesting about Godzilla...I wonder if the owners of Polkadot Plum have seen that.
------
Huh?
I think the polkadot plum reference has to do with their contest, scrapzilla.
Thank you.
From what I read about the Godzilla TM, I don't think they would bother pursuing that one.
A lot of designers just shut off shop with no drama. What on earth are you going on about?
Mendy, aka Studio Dutchie, has recently had a baby. Maybe she thought she could handle designing and the baby and realized that she couldn't.
-----------
A bit odd that it had to be the store owner who announced that instead of herself. I guess she might be REALLY too busy!
Mendy, aka Studio Dutchie, has recently had a baby. Maybe she thought she could handle designing and the baby and realized that she couldn't.
--------
Too bad she didn`t make at least some announcement as she could have had a retirement sale or have some customers buy their last products on their wishlist before she retired. Seems like she might have had some last minute sales (good for the store too at the same time)
It takes about 5 minutes to set up a retirement sale and post a blog about it. I can't see a store or a designer passing up a few last sales. That's why I would say there is drama.
It takes about 5 minutes to set up a retirement sale and post a blog about it. I can't see a store or a designer passing up a few last sales. That's why I would say there is drama.
----------
especially since she apparently had several sets of popup templates all packaged and ready to roll (last July). I have never seen any of those new templates.
Mendy, aka Studio Dutchie, has recently had a baby. Maybe she thought she could handle designing and the baby and realized that she couldn't.
Or Maya waited until she figured people had somewhat forgot about her announcing this designer who supposedly had a brand new product only to find out it wasn't new at all and left Maya with egg all over her face. I expected that Dutchie would be gone then and there considering that Maya hires and fires designers at will. I've known designer asked to design there and have smartly said not only no but hell no.
I have a question about new kits coming out-Where do you guys go to find a comprehensive list of new kits on the market? I check at DST, but am wondering if there is another thread somewhere that includes different shops. Thanks.
FYI - Frenchgirl is Canadian. From Quebec. Not that it matters. Alot of her stuff is copyrighted elsewhere. Problem is catching it. At DDR, you can upload products at will. The owner doesn't always catch it right away.
Question: a while back when it was mentioned about DD not being able to reopen....there was something about Miss Tiina and the new shop she was opening...and they couldn't believe it.....what's the scoop on the lovely Miss Tiina??? I musta missed it.
Was Dutchie the designer who made the pop-ups that Maya defended as being brand new to digi-land?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
She must not of met her sales quota, hehe.
yeah, that was Dutchie. Maya claimed that it was soooooo original, and it was Gunhilde's....
I reported one of these designers myself with out telling anyone, and she is still doing it!
So either Disney did not care, or did not give her a steep enough warning.
One of her CT members even has a disclaimer on her blog about the images being for entertainment and educational purposes only.
She still gives out freebies with this stuff.
I thought freebies were still a big no no, let alone the fact that there are still mouse ears and all that in her kits.
If I was a designer, that would be a great way around freebies. Just make your CT give them out and people will by your kit to go with them! GEEZ!
I reported one of these designers myself with out telling anyone, and she is still doing it!
So either Disney did not care, or did not give her a steep enough warning.
One of her CT members even has a disclaimer on her blog about the images being for entertainment and educational purposes only.
She still gives out freebies with this stuff.
I thought freebies were still a big no no, let alone the fact that there are still mouse ears and all that in her kits.
If I was a designer, that would be a great way around freebies. Just make your CT give them out and people will by your kit to go with them! GEEZ!
ok, I got an error when I posted the last comment so that is why it got on there twice. Sorry everyone. Must have been a glitch.
I have a question about new kits coming out-Where do you guys go to find a comprehensive list of new kits on the market?
I think the CTM Enabling daily threads at DST are probably the most extensive collection of new kits.
Too bad she didn`t make at least some announcement as she could have had a retirement sale or have some customers buy their last products on their wishlist before she retired. Seems like she might have had some last minute sales (good for the store too at the same time)
September 14, 2010 7:12 AM
---------
She's not the first and won't be the list designer at SBG that just suddenly left.
It takes about 5 minutes to set up a retirement sale and post a blog about it. I can't see a store or a designer passing up a few last sales. That's why I would say there is drama.
September 14, 2010 7:34 AM
------------
Again, a lot of designers at SBG just suddenly left. Why pick on this particular one?
I thought freebies were still a big no no, let alone the fact that there are still mouse ears and all that in her kits.
--------
Yep, giving away copyrighted images is still a big no no, unless you are the copyright holder or a licensee.
Anonymous said...
Question: a while back when it was mentioned about DD not being able to reopen....there was something about Miss Tiina and the new shop she was opening...and they couldn't believe it.....what's the scoop on the lovely Miss Tiina??? I musta missed it.
September 14, 2010 2:19 PM
-----------------------------------
Miss Tiina was caught (by Ikea) copying the images on fabric created by Ikea. Said images were being sold for Commercial Use.
A lot of designers wasted a lot of money on stuff they can no longer use. She had a trusted name in the industry, so people felt it was ok to spend up big on her shit.
She is worse than a pirate!
yeah, that was Dutchie. Maya claimed that it was soooooo original, and it was Gunhilde's....
September 14, 2010 3:38 PM
---------
And Gunhilde stole the idea from someone else who wrote a tutorial a few years ago...
A lot of designers wasted a lot of money on stuff they can no longer use. She had a trusted name in the industry, so people felt it was ok to spend up big on her shit.
She is worse than a pirate!
September 14, 2010 6:21 PM
------
Why? Did you get caught out?
And Gunhilde stole the idea from someone else who wrote a tutorial a few years ago...
--------------------
Who probably got the idea from some old vintage greeting card with pop up text.
And Dutchie didn't just leave the store overnight to end up somewhere else, she completely retired, which it what makes it weird to not have a big goodbye sale.
And Gunhilde stole the idea from someone else who wrote a tutorial a few years ago...
September 14, 2010 6:23 PM
------
How do you know? It is possible for two people to come up with the same idea you know.
I did those pop up letters a few years back too and never saw a tutorial on it. I just didn't really like the result, which is why I never did anything with them.
And Dutchie didn't just leave the store overnight to end up somewhere else, she completely retired, which it what makes it weird to not have a big goodbye sale.
September 14, 2010 6:35 PM
-----------
Yea, just as weird as some of the other designers that left SBG over night, with no other store, no retirement sale, no nothing. Just gone.
I've been saying this for months. Nice to see some of you catching up at last.
At least Gunhilde explains on her blog WHERE she got the idea from...it was a request from a scrapper, who had seen it someplace else...
as for Dutchie....yep, the silent exit reeks of more going on,
^^^
Why her and not any of the other designers that left suddenly? I'm curious.
This is not the first designer that just suddenly left SBG.
So why is there drama with her and not any of the others?
so because no one mentioned the other ones who left, we aren't allowed to mention this one either????
I don't shop at SBG. I wouldn't know if the whole store up and left. I know about Dutchie from here. So I couldn't comment on drama about previous designers who left because I don't know the store at all.
Have the designers who left before opened shop elsewhere or did they just vanish too?
"Yep, giving away copyrighted images is still a big no no, unless you are the copyright holder or a licensee."
__________________________
Then why are all these CT people and even designers doing this. What about giving away freebies of things they designed themselves but still infringe on copyrights or trademarks? Or selling them.
i am just surprised that a few months ago everyone was all upset about these designers doing this, but now, no one gives a rats?
I hope this comment doesn't get deleted like all of mine have so far.
so because no one mentioned the other ones who left, we aren't allowed to mention this one either????
September 14, 2010 7:39 PM
----
Did I say that? No, I didn't. I was just wondering why all the focus on her and not any of the others.
Then why are all these CT people and even designers doing this. What about giving away freebies of things they designed themselves but still infringe on copyrights or trademarks? Or selling them.
i am just surprised that a few months ago everyone was all upset about these designers doing this, but now, no one gives a rats?
I hope this comment doesn't get deleted like all of mine have so far.
September 14, 2010 8:01 PM
---------
No one is deleting comments.
The reason no one gives a rats is probably because this topic has been pounded to death.
Why do they do it? Because they can. Doesn't it make right. Why do people commit crimes? because they can.
Have the designers who left before opened shop elsewhere or did they just vanish too?
September 14, 2010 7:47 PM
--------
Some retired, some went elsewhere and some just vanished. But even those who retired or went elsewhere seemed to have just shut shop overnight.
For instance, I had a bunch of stuff on my wish list from ON Designs. A few days later I went back to buy the products and they were gone, along with ON Designs, who turned up at After5. No mention on the SBG blog of them going or anywhere else that I could see.
Maybe Maya doesn't let them announce it because she doesn't want the bad publicity of someone leaving.
I think the reason for the focus on Dutchie is because of what happened at DST, and the idea stealing thread. She ended up looking like a fool along with Maya - Maya especially, after fiercely defending her designer, only to find out that Dutchie had taken the idea from a tut from Gunhild (after claiming it was her own ORIGINAL groundbreaking new thang....)
^^^^
Did Dutchie claim that or was it Maya who claimed it?
I don't remember seeing Dutchie claiming it was her own original thing, but I don't remember seeing her denying it either.
I have posted 3 comments today that are no longer here.
I posted one several days ago, that is no longer here. Just wondering why they would no longer be displaying.
I just find it interesting that you all attacked these designers like they had killed your first born, now they are still doing it you don't seem to care anymore?
Maybe the ones that threw such a huge fit in the first place about the "other" designers doing it and not the ones that are being complained about now, is because those people are the ones doing it.
Such a huge change in attitude and opinion now. Interesting.
I don't see any change in opinion. I think that you are being a bit of a drama queen.
ok, whatever.....
I just love how everyone was so mean and attacking about the one designer and now you couldn't care less. I guess you were willing to be so mean over something you didn't really care about. That says a lot about your character and how some people just like to be B&*$HES. Nice to know that some people stick to their convictions.
Double standard.
Hey, I wasn't being mean about anyone, so stop your generalizing. And now you are really are being a drama queen.
What the heck do you want us to do? We already beat the Disney stealing designer horse to death, what the hell more do you want?
I wasn't talking about you specifically. I was talking about people on this blog in general. Not pointed at one specific person.
There wasn't anything specific I wanted someone to do. I just thought that there would have been more upsetness (if that is even a word) about it especially after all the drama with the other designers a couple months ago. I guess I was just hoping that if I had more than just me upset about it, we could change the way things are done in this industry and start setting a precedence and a rule about this stuff. If more than just I got upset, then we could actually make a difference in this industry so that this industry is not know for people just doing whatever the hell they want.
There needs to be guidelines that designers follow because it is unfair for one to do it and make out like a bandit while others are yelled at and bullied while they are trying there best. Not just designers but scrappers too, like CT members who give out blatant infringed freebies.
You are assuming that the designer is making out like a bandit.
I pointed out a collab kit earlier on where there was definite pirated items, but no one seemed particularly interested in that either.
as far as I know, about the Dutchie thing....Dutchie flat out told Cassel NO about making a script because it was her original idea. Maya continued that in the forum, only heavier on the original part.
as to copyright issues...what I'm wondering is how in the hell Deviant Scrap gets away with kits/element sets with pictures of Liz Taylor...Marilyn Monroe (the horny women elements), or the new one that was released Monday I think it was....featuring billboards with Coke advertisizing and Nestle??? Talk about in your face copyright issues...and NOTHING is said about them!
Marilyn Monroe is public domain:
http://rarepattern.com/node/140
As for Elizabeth Taylor, I'd assume it has more to do with the copyright of the photographer than the fact that it's HER image. I mean, check out paparazzis that can legally snap pictures of celebrities and sell them to gossip magazines, and it's not illegal. You wouldn't be able to use her image to sell something, but you could sell her image if you had the right to the photo.
Why are some of you fixated with the idea that a retiring designer HAS to have a "retiring sale"? Who says they HAVE to have a sale? It is up to the designer, not you. It's nobody's business but theirs. Plenty of designers retire or move stores quietly without any announcement simply because they want to go quietly without any fuss. No retiring sale doesn't mean there was any "drama" but some of you like to make it so. Talk about paranoia and conspiracy theories! LOL
Designers are out to make money. They have a sale if the weather changes, for their birthday, their kids birthday, their dogs birthday. Most designers, when they are retiring, do announce it. I can't see any real reason not too. Especially ones in a big name store with lots of fans who might want to shop. I have only known people to leave a store or designing without a sale or mention when there is drama behind the scenes, like they got caught pirating or the one store I left with no sale, because I was mad at the owner and didn't want to sell anymore stuff there and make her money.
With the Disney stuff, it was turned into Disney. Disney is aware of it, the attorneys told that one designer they couldn't advise her if it was legal or not. On Ebay, there are huge stores that sell nothing but digital Disney crap. I think at the end of the day it's a moral decision. I'm not buying unauthorized Disney stuff. I'm not designing unauthorized Disney stuff. We all saw last time, we could rant all day, but if Disney isn't interested, what should we do? Don't buy it, don't download the freebies, and then when Disney finally decides to go after them, you won't be involved. Unless you want to spend all your time running around leaving hateful comments on copyright infringers blogs, there's not much else you can do.
Seriously?
Mandatory Contribution to Monthly Site Collaboration
Mandatory Contribution to Team Promotional Collaboration Kits
Mandatory 10 forum posts per week
Mandatory Co-host one chat per month
Mandatory Attend at least one more chat per month?
And you get either 20%-exclusive or 25%-non exclusive commission?
Um, no, I don't think so.
Or is this the New Normal?
what on earth does that have to do with? Designer's leaving??? LOL...they know it when they sign on...and most store owners will let you slide for a while on the "mandantories" when your "real" life gets busy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It has nothing to do with SBG/designers leaving.
It was s subject change.
Shop puts out a call with all of those requirements. Seems a bit excessive to me.
what store?
Digital Scrap Ink I believe
Those kind of standards are increasingly become the norm
looks like it is Digital Scrap Ink.
OK... I know we have talked about this before, but I would like to actually get a list of stores that you think a designers should stay away from selling at.
OK... I know we have talked about this before, but I would like to actually get a list of stores that you think a designers should stay away from selling at.
September 15, 2010 12:18 PM
------------
Here is my list:
Sugar hill co
Miss Tiina.com
Sugar hill co
Miss Tiina.com
and any other stores runed by Miss Tiina!
Mandatory Contribution to Monthly Site Collaboration
Mandatory Contribution to Team Promotional Collaboration Kits
Mandatory 10 forum posts per week
Mandatory Co-host one chat per month
Mandatory Attend at least one more chat per month?
And you get either 20%-exclusive or 25%-non exclusive commission?
----------------------
Maybe that is so designers don't dump there products in the store and run. The should participate in building their customer base at that store.
And I'm pretty sure the store takes a 20% commission and the designers take 80%. That seems pretty normal to me.
Drama at Designer Apprentice it looks like, some designers dropping out.
@ 1:03 - "runed"? seriously? There's a lot of hate out their for her - but if you don't like her, just ignore her.
Re: drama at DSA - of course there will be. People getting their panties in a twist because despite the full knowledge of cumulative scoring from the beginning of the challenges, people still don't like it.
Christina Renee is at SBG as a regular designer now. Now that is a match made in heaven!
It takes about 5 minutes to set up a retirement sale and post a blog about it. I can't see a store or a designer passing up a few last sales. That's why I would say there is drama.
September 14, 2010 7:34 AM
Obviously you have never done either one because it takes a lot longer than 5 minutes to set up a sale and blog about it. Not to mention if you also have any images or advertisements to create, those take time too. Why is it so hard to believe someone is in the middle of a crisis and does not have time it takes to tie loose ends. Some things are worth more than money.
as to copyright issues...what I'm wondering is how in the hell Deviant Scrap gets away with kits/element sets with pictures of Liz Taylor...Marilyn Monroe (the horny women elements), or the new one that was released Monday I think it was....featuring billboards with Coke advertisizing and Nestle??? Talk about in your face copyright issues...and NOTHING is said about them!
September 15, 2010 7:12 AM
I have never heard of horny women elements. Now there's something every woman needs in her scrapbook for future generations to enjoy.
Have not seen coke elements in kits. If they are old enough, doesn't that make them fine to use though?
Old Coke photos and advertisements can be in the public domain, but as it's still an active trademark it can't be used for commercial purposes. You could use a coke image on your personal blog for instance, but you can't sell it in a kit. Not sure if you could give it away in a freebie, probably not, I would think that would still be commercial.
Obviously you have never done either one because it takes a lot longer than 5 minutes to set up a sale and blog about it. Not to mention if you also have any images or advertisements to create, those take time too. Why is it so hard to believe someone is in the middle of a crisis and does not have time it takes to tie loose ends. Some things are worth more than money.
************************
Actually, I have had a retirement sale, and it's just a few clicks to put your store on sale, and if you're really in a hurry, a few seconds to make a quick ad and post a blog. Or even a forum post for your loyal customers. I suppose if you really are retiring forever, you don't care about your customers. No one has said she was in crisis...they said she was too busy with her baby. That's not really a crisis. And either way, she obviously had enough time to email Maya and say she quit. You can't tell me she didn't have enough time to post somewhere and say good bye. I don't even care, I never bought anything from her. I'm just saying there is more to the story, it's fishy to me that there was all that drama last month and now she's just gone.
Maybe that is so designers don't dump there products in the store and run. The should participate in building their customer base at that store.
***************************
I've been designing a couple of years and hosting a chat/challenge, the store collab requirements, and the commission is completely normal. The mandatory promotion kit is a little much, but I guess it depends how much you have to contribute to it. I agree with the person I quoted though, it's probably to cut down on hit and run designers. I hate that people think they can just dump stuff in a store and run. You have to have a busy forum and if even your staff won't hang out there, that's a problem. If it's really Digital Scrap Ink, I'd stay away. I hear the owner is a b$tch!
It finally happened. There hasn't been on a nsbr post on DST in over 24 hours. I'm not counting blog trains.
I miss the sharing of recipes, reviews on appliances & stuff like that.
Post a Comment