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 1401 – 1600 of 2219 Newer› Newest»http://www.finfond.net/blog/?p=252
So... does anyone have any ideas who the designer is that got caught?
Speaking of that - whats up with Wetfish Designs anymore? I know she is still around, selling at DD and DSW, but wasn't she partners with Royanna? or was that just co-founder...
I think she was partners with Royanna. As was Laura White (Princess Lala). No idea what either of them (Cyndi/Wetfish or Laura/Lala) are up to these days. Haven't seem much out of them in quite some time.
Really?? I think Wetfish was even worse-- lots of jaggies and her overlays were really blurry. I didn't complain because it was free.
I see Princess Lala adding stuff to her shop at DSW once in a while, but Wetfish - her latest overlays at DSW are yucky, but thats my opinion. and Honestly - the things I got from Wetfish's part of the store back then weren't bad. I got mostly overlays - I didn't take much from either of them, but did get my money's worth. The only thing I've seen Wetfish do was be in that contest at the Studio. She got voted out in the 2nd round.
Anonymous said...
http://www.finfond.net/blog/?p=252
So... does anyone have any ideas who the designer is that got caught?
October 10, 2010 1:12 PM
http://busyscrappin.blogspot.com/2009/07/all-about-me-freebie-layout-template.html
Oh Wow - yes that has to be her. And she still has the pictures of the feathers on her blog.
Yuck! Mostly all that poser shit. No chance I'll be buying any of that LOL
Did you read that email? That makes me sick!
That post is from July 2009. Wonder why it's just coming out now...
Probably because the original designer just found out.
I like FLS's stuff. It's original and quirky.
October 10, 2010 10:36 AM
-----
No offense, but compared to what? I don't see anything original about he work.
http://busyscrappin.blogspot.com/2009/07/all-about-me-freebie-layout-template.html
October 10, 2010 4:15 PM
--------
Don't know her but checked her blog and it's full of stolen goodies she's selling for CU.
Another tagger giving other taggers a bad name.
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
http://www.finfond.net/blog/?p=252
So... does anyone have any ideas who the designer is that got caught?
October 10, 2010 1:12 PM
http://busyscrappin.blogspot.com/2009/07/all-about-me-freebie-layout-template.html
October 10, 2010 4:15 PM
I guess she should rename her blog: she is not "busy scrapping", she is "busy stealing"!
I agree with her suggestions as to designers having to verify that they have created all items or give proof of purchase/credit to items used in their kits before uploading. THis will definately weed out some of the shonky designers. AS I dont design I just want to know that Im paying the correct person for their hard work..
^^^^^
That would be so easy to fake.
^^^^^^
but it would remove the "i didn't know" or "i dont remember" argument. If they get caught, they get caught!
^^^
I don't see how.
Anybody else read this??? Geezus. What a piece of work.
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/digital-scrapbooking-industry-networking-forum-19/designer-magazine-published-d-256350/
and no, I'm not talking about what kind of stuff these people involved design - altho I wouldn't buy from any of them (I'm talking about the "editors" here). I suppose someone completely new to design could get something out of this thing. and its free, so no biggie there. But....for one thing...there is NO WAY that "Artful Amanda" aka Circle of Life Scraps should be telling people how to do anything. Even her damn previews are always blurry!!! and the tut's on PS and PSP - holy crap. oh wait - it IS crap. what a friggin joke..and people are paying (well, the first were sight unseen) for space?
no kidding here WV=comic. no shit.
wetfish uses tons of Granny Art, and is bad about leaving partial pixels. Sad because I just discovered her this year and after hearing how "great" her designs were I bough some. the last 2 things I bought from her had shadows she like started to erase and then forgot what she was doing. DELETE DELETE...
Did nobody notice the typo in the bottom corner of page 9 and the fact that ScrapArtist is closed. They should probably have taken them out of the last page list of CU Designers. Hahaha.
wetfish uses tons of Granny Art, and is bad about leaving partial pixels. Sad because I just discovered her this year and after hearing how "great" her designs were I bough some. the last 2 things I bought from her had shadows she like started to erase and then forgot what she was doing. DELETE DELETE...
October 10, 2010 8:42 PM
------
I've only ever heard negative things about Wetfish's quality.
Anybody else read this??? Geezus. What a piece of work.
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/digital-scrapbooking-industry-networking-forum-19/designer-magazine-published-d-256350/
------
It's designer forum only. So no, I haven't read it.
http://binaerpilot.no/
Cyndi Wetmiller is the biggest victim of Royanna. She started out giving away a lot of free things, then got a couple of designer gigs at smaller shops, then somehow became a partner at Divine. I think most of us would guess she bought in to become a partner, giving money to Royanna for the privilege, but I don't know it as fact.
She worked her butt off at Divine, hosting chats, challenges, freebies, whatever it took. She totally bought in to Royanna's plights s s s s (multiple) and put her shop up for sale (multiple times) and giving the proceeds to Royanna. For rent, for food for her starving children, for medical care -- I forget what all the plights actually were, but Cyndi sold her store away many, many times in order to help Royanna before figuring out what was going on.
Whether you like her dubious style or not, Cyndi is a good person who got the stuffing knocked out of her time and time again. And for those who think Royanna's antics are disgusting, but fairly harmless, just ask Cyndi Wetmiller about it.
^^^^^^
Feel me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
stupid "guess where I'm going" games
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/happy-place-31/*woot-woot*-guess-my-new-store-win-256389/#post2623257
http://shop.scrapbookgraphics.com/softly-spooky.html
Anonymous said...
stupid "guess where I'm going" games
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/happy-place-31/*woot-woot*-guess-my-new-store-win-256389/#post2623257
http://shop.scrapbookgraphics.com/softly-spooky.html
October 11, 2010 5:26 AM
----------------------------------
bwahahahahaha
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
She just moved to Matrioshki. Anyone know why she's moving so soon?
because she applied for the SBG designer call. AFTER she just moved to Matrioshiki.
Anonymous said...
stupid "guess where I'm going" games
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/happy-place-31/*woot-woot*-guess-my-new-store-win-256389/#post2623257
http://shop.scrapbookgraphics.com/softly-spooky.html
October 11, 2010 5:26 AM
Why did you post a link to a specific post instead of the thread?
I know Disney has been smacked to death, but what do you think of these?
http://www.the-lilypad.com/store/product.php?productid=4057&cat=0&page=1
I think those are darn cute and original. That format is darn original!
Why did you post a link to a specific post instead of the thread?
=======================
No reason. It's how it was sent to me.
I know Disney has been smacked to death, but what do you think of these?
http://www.the-lilypad.com/store/product.php?productid=4057&cat=0&page=1
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Stupid people! Do designers just not get it? How stupid can they be?
Anonymous said...
I know Disney has been smacked to death, but what do you think of these?
http://www.the-lilypad.com/store/product.php?productid=4057&cat=0&page=1
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Stupid people! Do designers just not get it? How stupid can they be?
October 11, 2010 10:07 AM
I like them, but I wouldn't buy them nor sell them. Too risky! But they original, we must admit that. The set with the witch is ok I suppose...
Where did that link to Dawn Inskips SBG stuff come from? I get page not found.
Anonymous said...
I know Disney has been smacked to death, but what do you think of these?
http://www.the-lilypad.com/store/product.php?productid=4057&cat=0&page=1
So do you think she actually purchased the product and scanned/photographed them or just stole the image and extracted them?
http://www.etsy.com/listing/55548156/sheriff-cowboy-clippie
...unless of course that's her Etsy store and she not only designs digital scrapbooking elements but also runs an etsy store and an online store (prettypixies.com)
oops...pixiepretties.com not prettypixies.com
Either way they are both infringing on copyrights. I reported them both. this is just blatant infringing. I hope they get in BIG trouble.
Where did that link to Dawn Inskips SBG stuff come from? I get page not found.
----
Probably WAS active and desactivated after the link was copied and pasted.
she has a deal with the etsy girl making them. it's in her tou for them.
I know Disney has been smacked to death, but what do you think of these?
http://www.the-lilypad.com/store/product.php?productid=4057&cat=0&page=1
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Stupid people! Do designers just not get it? How stupid can they be?
October 11, 2010 10:07 AM
_____________
Agreed!
And yet, because Rachel Young is a known designer selling at the Lilypad, she will get away with it.
I know Disney has been smacked to death, but what do you think of these?
http://www.the-lilypad.com/store/product.php?productid=4057&cat=0&page=1
October 11, 2010 8:17 AM
------
What the heck would you use them for? Not my style
Oh! I just saw the link to the etsy store. So, I thought Rachel Young was actually making these ribbon people by herself. She isn't? I lost total respect for her. I'd rather buy them form the original artist on etsy and photograph-extract them myself.
Agreed!
And yet, because Rachel Young is a known designer selling at the Lilypad, she will get away with it.
October 11, 2010 4:54 PM
-------
Known to who? Her stuff is not the best quality either. I'm amazed that customers continue to buy from.
Oh! I just saw the link to the etsy store. So, I thought Rachel Young was actually making these ribbon people by herself. She isn't? I lost total respect for her. I'd rather buy them form the original artist on etsy and photograph-extract them myself.
October 11, 2010 4:59 PM
-----------
That's the funniest thing I've read here in a long time. Rachel uses so much CU it's not funny.
I think the whole thing is ridiculous. I can see a little look a like, but this is so obviously toy story. You would think that Lily Pad would have more integrity than that. To be honest, I have lost respect for Lily Pad now.
^^^^
Nope, I'm not going to visit any site just because you posted it a bunch of times. Go home troll.
Yikes, if you are going to write a magazine, you need a better grasp of English grammar to write it.
ah, Spammers everywhere!
She stole them before. Remember the princesses? They were featured in Scrapbooks Etc and then she got busted by the person who made the actual ribbon people. She got them off Etsy, scanned them and extracted them. She was told NOT to do that again, but I guess since she's at a different store now it's OK. Stupid people.
Who says she didn`t get permission THIS TIME? Why assume she made the same mistake? Maybe she did learn and went through the proper channels this time?
October 11, 2010 2:16 PM
Anonymous said...
she has a deal with the etsy girl making them. it's in her tou for them.
^^^^^^^
If you would bother to follow along...you would have seen this. Apparently she HAS permission.
Have you ever been on a jury in the United States. If a witness lies about anything, you are instructed to discount everything they said. Why? Because they have proven themselves a liar. There are no games. There are no second chances. You lie you're out.
I don't understand why in the digi scrapping world, pirates and thieves are given, second, third or fourth chances.
I stole last time, but this time I did it right??? Give me a break. There are too many artists out there doing it right the first time to waste energy wondering if someone is doing it right the second time or not.
If you would bother to follow along...you would have seen this. Apparently she HAS permission.
---------------------------------
Well I for one am not going to buy the darn things to verify if this is true. Maybe since she has done this before, she should have indicated that permission on her preview.
I agree. Once a liar, always a liar. But I do believe that people can learn from mistakes. I know I have learned some big lessons that way. But you still can never fully trust anyone when you know they have so blatantly lied in the past.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I agree that people can learn from mistakes. Unfortunately, once a big mistake is made you have to work extra hard to clear your name. It can be done. But it can't be done if you continue to make the same "mistakes" over and over again. Pretty soon it becomes a "purpose" and not a "mistake".
I'm not saying Rachel has done that. I have never bought from her. I'm talking generalizations here.
So let me see if I get this straight. I know that Rachel's done this before and i know it ended badly. So I'm supposed to buy this round and check the TOU to make sure she didn't violate the Etsy lady's wishes THIS TIME? Really? As soon as I saw those, I thought "Here we go again". No thank you.
Take a look at nearly any kit, though, and you're bound to find something familiar. It may have come off a cute kids shirt, whatever. Copyright violation or not, it's still not very ethical. You're still taking someone else's work and saying it's yours.
Change of subject here.
I am sick to death of this "Copyright story" in the designers area at DST. Three people discussing (beating it to death) the subject. Lucie, good old jaguarwoman and Diane. ENOUGH already. NOW - jaguarwoman dug out a thread from LAST year that good old Cassel started to try to re-enforce the copyright thread.
Does anyone buy jaguarwomans stuff? man. hurts my eyes to even look at it. and this Lucie is no better - and she is complaining that it was 'taggers' that bought it. well - look at it. IMHO its where it damn well belongs. Will someone ever shut them and their "we are out to change the world" attitude????? damn.
LOL - no kidding! I've noticed the same 3 talking as if the industry will change simply because they wish it!
On another note. I also looked at the previews for the November blogtrain. OMG - can you say hideous?
I agree-- maybe they should go start a taggers forum and discuss copyright there.
People here are repeating and reporting suspected copyright infringement. Others are tired of it. Now, someone at DST is tired of copyright infringement issues, just like here, they discuss (dream) about ways to reduce it, and now, people here are complaining about that. Where are you standing? So you are not happy if designer A is stealing product from designer B, but you are not happy if designer B is suggesting something to avoid it.
Really, what do you want?
I want people to recognize that the majority of designers and scrappers are ethical and do things the right way.
I have no problem with calling out those who break the rules, but making everyone write out who they buy from and what product they used will not solve the problem.
The ethical designers and scrappers will continue to do the right thing and the cheats will continue to lie about it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
BRAVO.
after reading those....good grief, WINDY self-minded threads....all I noticed, beyond what they seem to think they want everyone else to do - is that about 1/3 of the designers who originally responded to Cassel's old thread are no longer in the business! What happened to GET designs?
I want people to recognize that the majority of designers and scrappers are ethical and do things the right way.
I have no problem with calling out those who break the rules, but making everyone write out who they buy from and what product they used will not solve the problem.
The ethical designers and scrappers will continue to do the right thing and the cheats will continue to lie about it.
October 12, 2010 1:59 PM
______________
I don't agree totally with you. While it's true that someone unethical (a cheat, a thief) would keep doing it anyway, I think writing out a little more details in the store description would help avoid situation like the one we talked about (ribbon people).
Why on earth would Rachel not mention her 'permisssion' in the store description especially if she got busted the first time and a lot of people know about it. Why would she 'hide' her permission in her TOU? That makes no sense. Unless she never got any permission and/or she is ashamed to admit she took someone else's work and resell it and/or she wants people to believe she made the ribbon people herself (so we all say awwwww that's so original and she is so talented! Yeah right!) and/or she really has the permission but doesn't want to reveal her source so everyone would buy from the original artist instead of her.
If she has just posted her permission in her product description, no one here would have made a big deal out of it (and I wouldn't have wasted the last few minutes writing this post!).
OMG-- why should she have to tell everyone where she got them?
You all complain about nothing being unique. No wonder when any Tom, Dick, or Harriet designer can read a TOU and go get it for themselves to stick in their kit. What's wrong with keeping your source a secret?
I have no problem with calling out those who break the rules, but making everyone write out who they buy from and what product they used will not solve the problem.
------
Agreed. This does not happen, nor is expected and required in the real world. I'm not saying that that is right or wrong, but why make digi designers jump through hoops you don't expect others to jump through?
You all complain about nothing being unique. No wonder when any Tom, Dick, or Harriet designer can read a TOU and go get it for themselves to stick in their kit. What's wrong with keeping your source a secret?
October 12, 2010 4:32 PM
------
What's wrong with actually being original and being your own source? There's a thought.
You all complain about nothing being unique. No wonder when any Tom, Dick, or Harriet designer can read a TOU and go get it for themselves to stick in their kit. What's wrong with keeping your source a secret?
----------------
It's not unique and original if you've taken it from somewhere else. CU is still CU, not matter where it comes from. It's what the designer does with that counts. Extracting something, even with permission from the owner, is not unique and not original. Heck, even my 10 year old can take a flower from source A, a button from source B and a ribbon from source C, put it together and shove it into a kit. It's not exactly difficult.
To me it has little to do with the fact that she may or may not have permission from the original creator to use the ribbon people. (Besides the fact that they are not even in a kit, she is just selling them solely by themselves). She i snot only taking a Disney idea, but the original creator took a Disney idea. There is copyright infringement all across the board on this one.
And the store where they are being sold is obviously supporting it because they like the money too much. Despicable.
And my verification word is "latou" hahaha.
"And here's the kit in it's entirely"
English is not my first language, but I don't commit such childish mistakes!
I don't understand why in the digi scrapping world, pirates and thieves are given, second, third or fourth chances.
-----
I'm not really understanding why you think this only happens in the digi industry. It happens everywhere, all the time.
"And here's the kit in it's entirely"
English is not my first language, but I don't commit such childish mistakes!
October 12, 2010 5:14 PM
-------
What are you talking about?
Anonymous said...
OMG-- why should she have to tell everyone where she got them?
(...)
October 12, 2010 4:32 PM
_________________
Why shouldn't she? She got busted once for using them without permission. Telling everyone (and showing the proof) that this time she HAS permission would avoid people thinking she is a thief. Reputation is all we have in the digi world.
I can respect Jaguarwoman and the other two, clearly they have been through a lot. IN an older thread Jaguarwoman said she has been 'honing her rhetoric' on the subject, and I think she really needs to realize that she loses her audience in all that rhetoric.
I would be opposed to requiring designers to list all the resources used in their kits. It's not something required in any other manufacturing or crafting field, and it would add a great deal of time to the creation process. I also think that other designers could look at that statement and figure out how to copy something they want to copy but might not have otherwise known how to do (I know, rare, but it happens).
I don't use much CU that you would recognize as CU, but they are things that are made for graphic designers that are allowed for commercial use. I don't really feel like telling other designers where I get it, because I do feel its something I can use to set myself apart from other designers using the same tired CU. It takes me many hours of looking to find such things and I don't think it's right to expect me to just offer up the info so that I can prove I am not a pirate, when I've never given anyone a reason to think I am one.
I think the fact the no one is getting further involved in that discussion at DSTnshows how we feel about it.
^^^^^
so that I can prove I am not a pirate, when I've never given anyone a reason to think I am one.
_______________
Good for you if you never given anyone a reason to think you are a pirate. But you're missing the point here. Rachel HAS been busted for using someone's work without permission so she has something to proove.
I don't use much CU that you would recognize as CU, but they are things that are made for graphic designers that are allowed for commercial use. I don't really feel like telling other designers where I get it, because I do feel its something I can use to set myself apart from other designers using the same tired CU. It takes me many hours of looking to find such things and I don't think it's right to expect me to just offer up the info so that I can prove I am not a pirate, when I've never given anyone a reason to think I am one.
----------
Amen sister.
Let's be honest here, Rachel's stuff is nothing out of the ordinary, I can think of at lest 20 or more designers that offer the same kind of 'designs'. What boggles me is the fact that she is still around!!!
I am not a designer, but I would not like to list all my resources. Whatever happened to the trade secrets?
I think the fact the no one is getting further involved in that discussion at DSTnshows how we feel about it.
000000000ooooo00000000oooooooo000000
Nah, it's because nobody gives a crap about it. Why would anyone care what a bunch of people are doing that haven't even been in this business that long and only a handful of people know who they are? 95% of the designer population does not care what goes on in the DCR and is not interested in caring now.
I know that I don't have to read the damn threads..but everytime I see a new reply - I find myself reading it. Boring as hell, same shit, different day - would somebody PLEASE make them go away???
Is it just me or have a lot of designers left PDP lately?
http://www.polkadotplum.com/blog/?p=2177
I noticed that too. Think they are closing?
Ooops, just followed the link. Guess they aren't closing if they are having a call. I'm glad. It's one of the few places I shop.
I wonder why they are leaving? Is something up with the owners or management?
I'm seriously confused about Lucie's (finfond's) complaint. She is selling graphic resources as commercial use products. Here's a line from her home page:
"Quality, innovation, creativity, friendly terms and affordable prices are the main traits of this store! There are only few original graphic resources of superior quality with terms that give you as much freedom wether it is for personal or commercial purposes."
Her CU products are obviously not meant for the digital scrapbook industry because her TOUs are so different from everyone elses. I've read MANY CU TOUs and some allow products to be used 'as is' and some require that they be modified (ie? a derivative work). In most cases, applying a filter and/or clustering with other products is considered perfectly okay. Lucie's TOUs are so strict, I can see how a digital designer could be caught off-guard. She actually says in her re-written TOUs that her products may not be used in collections and digital kits are collections.
Also - the accusation that because the designer couldn't find a proof of purchase doesn't mean that she downloaded them illegally. It's very possible that someone else was distributing these files as their own...this kind of thing happens all the time. That's why designers must be very careful where they obtain graphic resources.
I'm not sure I understand what Lucie's products could ever be used for under her clarified TOUs.
I'm seriously confused about Lucie's (finfond's) complaint. She is selling graphic resources as commercial use products. Here's a line from her home page:
"Quality, innovation, creativity, friendly terms and affordable prices are the main traits of this store! There are only few original graphic resources of superior quality with terms that give you as much freedom wether it is for personal or commercial purposes."
Her CU products are obviously not meant for the digital scrapbook industry because her TOUs are so different from everyone elses. I've read MANY CU TOUs and some allow products to be used 'as is' and some require that they be modified (ie? a derivative work). In most cases, applying a filter and/or clustering with other products is considered perfectly okay. Lucie's TOUs are so strict, I can see how a digital designer could be caught off-guard. She actually says in her re-written TOUs that her products may not be used in collections and digital kits are collections.
Also - the accusation that because the designer couldn't find a proof of purchase doesn't mean that she downloaded them illegally. It's very possible that someone else was distributing these files as their own...this kind of thing happens all the time. That's why designers must be very careful where they obtain graphic resources.
I'm not sure I understand what Lucie's products could ever be used for under her clarified TOUs.
I wonder why they are leaving? Is something up with the owners or management?
October 13, 2010 2:27 PM
---------------------------------
They are leaving because the owners are nasty bitches. Not hard to figure out.
And you know this how?
Anyone else think that Laura from DSA takes herself a bit too seriously? The sheer volume of rules and do's and don'ts has approached a level of control freak like I have never seen before. I think she needs to get a hold of herself and remember people are attempting to have fun. Especially considering she had such issues with the way things were run for the last thing at NDISB (Amazing Race, I think?) and caused nothing but drama the entire time. Feel bad for all the teams trying to navigate through the dictatorship.
And you know this how?
October 13, 2010 3:05 PM
-----------------------------
Personal experience. But I'm sure you could ask any of the people who left why they did and they'd tell you the same thing.
Oh! I just saw the link to the etsy store. So, I thought Rachel Young was actually making these ribbon people by herself. She isn't? I lost total respect for her. I'd rather buy them form the original artist on etsy and photograph-extract them myself.
-------------
The product is gone so I didn't see it, but this is a ridiculous comment...how many digiscrappers do you think would want to buy products off etsy, photograph them and extract them, just to include them on a scrapbook page? I don't know ANYONE that would want to go through that trouble! Not to mention the cost including shipping!
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anyone else think that Laura from DSA takes herself a bit too seriously?
________________________
anyone else think people ask a lot of stupid questions? i haven't even gone back to that thread in days because of the amount of nitpicky questions.
^^^^^^
If you agree that its nitpicking, then why was it a dumb question? Contradict yourself much?
I think the poster meant that the questions in Laura's thread are dumb, not the post here.
so that I can prove I am not a pirate, when I've never given anyone a reason to think I am one.
_______________
Good for you if you never given anyone a reason to think you are a pirate. But you're missing the point here. Rachel HAS been busted for using someone's work without permission so she has something to proove.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
To clarify, my comment wasn't about Rachel, it was in response to the Jaguarwoman thread where there are 3 people demanding that EVERYONE have a 'ownership statement' for every product uploaded.
I agree on Rachel - having been caught once she probably should have just not bothered to uplaoded images of things from Etsy .. but if she really wanted to, there should have been clear communication in the product description 'used with the artist's permission' or such. Of course, that would only make it OK if the items weren't ALSO blatant trademark infringement.
The hell with Lucie and the hell with J-Woman, You can't bully an industry into a requirement they, quite frankly are not going to support at all.
Whatever people think of Lucie and Jaguarwoman, remember that only a handful of stores bothered to do QC on all the kits put in the store. Maybe the store owners didn't think it was worth all their time and effort, and they trusted that the designers knew how to create quality products. Strangely, it HAS become much more widespread over time. Why? Probably because it gave customers a sense of "security". Who knows if this will or will not catch? Things change. Opinion change. The market change. The customers will want more. So, let them start it, and see who follows suit. Why complain if it wont affect YOU, or YOUR store? If some store owners want to go that route, their designers will have the choice of following, or leaving. And how will it affect YOU as a customer? If you care, fine. If you dont care... why complain?
I think I'm going to ask my grocery store to provide me an ownership statement including proof of purchase for all my groceries tomorrow, before I buy. Theft of produce is driving costs through the roof, and it's time to take steps to stop it.
^^^^^^^
LOL!!! Love that! Good one :)
^^^^
Exactly! I said it before, why make digi designers jump through hoops you don't expect other vendors to jump through?
Maybe because nobody ever saw (or was bothered) by pirated bananas while digidesigners HAVE seen pirated goods of theirs?
If you dont care... why complain?
October 13, 2010 9:37 PM
************************
Why? Because I can, of course.
Maybe because nobody ever saw (or was bothered) by pirated bananas while digidesigners HAVE seen pirated goods of theirs?
October 14, 2010 5:01 AM
************************
K. So you DO make sure that Netflix, or Blockbuster or Redbox or your cable/dish company are giving you legitimate digital copies right? You DO get proofs of purchases and licenses each time you rent right? Because we KNOW digital piracy is rampant in the movie industry.
Listen, we all know about digi-pirating. Its exists. I agree with what Amanda Rockwell said in that thread. Proof of ownership AINT GONNA HAPPEN. In her own way, I do believe she was saying "shut the fuck up already!point taken!" but no....anytime you see Jaguarwoman speaking up in the forum its always on the same subject, and she never shuts up. Writes posts a mile long in fancy words, cuz lord knows she is SO far above the rest of the design world. For the most part, designers ARE honest. There are a few bad apples in any industry. I'm so sick of hearing about an over-saturated industry - we all know that...pirates - yeah, we know they are out there - bad quality - yeah, yeah, yeah. It will all run its course, the bad apples will finally realize that they aren't making a dime ...it will all work itself out. always does.
^^^^^
ITA.
I agree that Laura at DSA is out of hand. She was one of the biggest whiners during DSAR, (over something so simple as making an ATC!) so it is insane that she is uber nitpicky and dictatorial about the first challenge. I think she is forgetting, this is supposed to be fun.
well, well, well. we know Dawn Inskip is now with SBG. Just got a newsletter from Charlize Creations. now SHE is closing her shop at PBP. I got a buck that says she is staying at SBG after her guest spot is done. Any takers??
Dawn might be closing her other shops too as she is listed at SBG, and NOT as a guest, and since they have a total exclusivity clause, she could not keep it (she opened a new shop just last month didn`t she?)
Now who else will be uber original to join SBG. Did you see those?
http://shop.scrapbookgraphics.com/CU-Roll-Me-Up.html
Now... did i see that somewhere before?
Yup, here too!
http://shop.scrapbookgraphics.com/Garden-Whimsy-THE-EXTRAS.html
Well heck, I thought SBG didn't do CU products. Not sure where I got that idea though??
^^^^^
They have over 300 CU products there.
I think I'm going to ask my grocery store to provide me an ownership statement including proof of purchase for all my groceries tomorrow, before I buy. Theft of produce is driving costs through the roof, and it's time to take steps to stop it.
October 13, 2010 10:01 PM
______________
Your example is so stupid. *eyeroll*
Dawn Inskip closed her other shops, and is exclusive with SBG as of today, officially. The email I got from Charlize Creations was announcing her closing her shop at PBP, with no explanation. I'm just betting that since she is already guesting at SBG - that she stays on. Probably applied to the designer call - and has already done collabs with 'em. THAT is what I'm betting on.
Gawd, now Leah is involved in the Jaguar/Lucie thing! Where does she get off? In her TOU, she makes you credit her store but 90% of the stuff there is from other artists. LOL!
When are people going to realize that if you don't respond to Dana she goes away?
If those controversial threads were to go away, you would loose your entertainment! You are reading them afterall!
Guess I'd have to go do something productive instead of rubbernecking at the train wreck.
Gawd, now Leah is involved in the Jaguar/Lucie thing! Where does she get off? In her TOU, she makes you credit her store but 90% of the stuff there is from other artists. LOL!
And your point is? It's standard in the reseller clipart industry for store owners to require credit along with the original artist. Full credit is also required in the reseller's product descriptions to the original artist so there are no trade secrets in that type of business. lol
Your example is so stupid. *eyeroll*
October 14, 2010 2:03 PM
******************************
Answer mine then:
K. So you DO make sure that Netflix, or Blockbuster or Redbox or your cable/dish company are giving you legitimate digital copies right? You DO get proofs of purchases and licenses each time you rent right? Because we KNOW digital piracy is rampant in the movie industry.
Yup, here too!
http://shop.scrapbookgraphics.com/Garden-Whimsy-THE-EXTRAS.html
October 14, 2010 1:15 PM
----------------
Do you see that it almost says crap for hire under the product name?
Those hand rolled flowers are so ugly! What do people see in them?
I just love the way that both designers and customers jump on anything trendy like ants on sugar.
It's so sad that even as adults some still feel the need to do what the popular people do.
I like the rolled paper flowers! And because so many people are making them now, I can choose the ones I really like. Sometimes the later additions of a trend are better than the initial ones.
About the paper flowers...at least they aren't "Owls"!
I like them too! It has absolutely nothing to do with being trendy.
Each to their own. It just looks like rolled up paper to me. My kid was making them in kindergarten.
K. So you DO make sure that Netflix, or Blockbuster or Redbox or your cable/dish company are giving you legitimate digital copies right? You DO get proofs of purchases and licenses each time you rent right? Because we KNOW digital piracy is rampant in the movie industry.
Your comparison is apples and oranges as you would not be selling them. You can bet your ass that if any of these companies became a vendor in my online store, I would demand proof of a license and have a record of it on file. That's basically what some are suggesting in the DST thread.
I have a question ... how much do designers at SBG/SDD/etc make?
^^^^^
Good question. Considering the TOTAL exclusivity clause, some designers have had to leave multiple stores to settle there. You cannot even have a personal store. I really wonder if it is worth it, or if that is why some designers START there (leaving their other stores) but then, not staying that long. It might be a big store, but does it beat selling in 3 or 4 others?
About the paper flowers...at least they aren't "Owls"!
October 14, 2010 7:03 PM
___________
Shit! I so wanted to make rolled paper owls!
Dang, you just gave away your "trade secret!" Now we'll be seeing 100 kits with rolled paper owls. ..rolling eyes... (in case you couldn't catch the sarcasm)
Your comparison is apples and oranges as you would not be selling them. You can bet your ass that if any of these companies became a vendor in my online store, I would demand proof of a license and have a record of it on file. That's basically what some are suggesting in the DST thread.
October 14, 2010 8:08 PM
*********************
That would be fine as a STORE OWNER. But furnish that list to customers via TOU or product description, not on your life. And as a store owner holding my list, you'd better not release it to anyone without a subpoena. And yes, that would be inserted into the contract before I signed it.
I agree it doesn't need to be made public. Just for the store owner to have on hand.
OMG. Laughing here, big time! Jaguarwoman just got caught at her own game - go catch up on the copyright thread. oh, I'm loving this. Can't wait to see HOW she will reply to that one! LMAO!
For those of us who are not designers, which seems to be very few, please share what J got caught at or with?
Yeah and I don't know who Dana or Leah are, either.
I think I'm going to apply at PDP. No one from Kentucky can be all that bad! Do they get much traffic?
On the grocery store example, you missed it a bit. Think nutrition panels on groceries instead.
People had wanted ingredient lists since the days of patent medicine, but no manufacturer wanted to give away their ingredient list because it was the same as giving away their recipes (trade secrets).
This truly went on for 80- years. I think it was the peanut allergies that finally got it pushed through despite the lobbyists.
Not that I want to list out my items, because I don't. I just hope no one asks about anything I made a year ago because they record-keeping has always been a challenge for me.
People had wanted ingredient lists since the days of patent medicine, but no manufacturer wanted to give away their ingredient list because it was the same as giving away their recipes (trade secrets).
------------
Or Americans being anal. Other countries had then for years and years before the US finally did it, which is probably why the US finally did it. Now all you need to do is keep up with having less chemicals in your food.
From the thread at DST on copyright infringement. Part ONE
I have a question for Dana. I noticed that you replied in the Happy Place on a post from Cassel, for a new set of tubes she will be giving away. You have a link on that reply, going to your shop - showing the new product you have, a portion of it created using Cassels silver and/or gold chain tubes.
I went to your store, to see what you had created with the tubes. I am a PSP user, and always enjoy seeing what other PSP users can do. Its a very nice set that you have created! However, out of curiousity, I had a look at your READ ME for that product. No where in it is credit given to Cassel for her tubes.
This is from Cassel's TOU:
You MAY use these products for personal or commercial use. You may not, however, create a serie of similar elements for re-distribution (free or not). Use them in a kit, or modified enough to make them your own.
You MAY use these products for S4H, or S4O, as long as the final product is in a flattened format.
You MAY use these products for blog/site design.
These products may not be transferred or redistributed in their original format or slightly changed and then redistributed. This work may not be copied or recompiled into digital art files collection of any sort.
If you are creating a downloadable product for scrapbooking please include a credit in your README or TOU file. (if you use tool-scripts, credits are not required)
This product is copyright protected by Cassel. You may not take credit for the creation of it. You may not share, loan, sell, rent, or transfer this product to any other party by any other means. You may not disassemble a script and recreate it under your own name.
Please respect my work. If you have questions, do not hesitate to contact me.
PART TWO
and this is from your READ ME for your "Frippery" product:
(4) Ownership Statement: All of the content in this package was created by Dana Sitarzewski aka Jaguarwoman, and may include derivatives of the following Vendor/Merchant resources:
"Shoes, Hats and Fashion Accessories: A Pictorial Archive, 1850-1940", Dover Publications
"Regency Dining Room", DAZ3d
"Sit With Me", Folkvangar
"Regency Furniture Pack II", Serrge, DAZ3d
"Cheltenham", Moyra, DAZ3d
"Curiosities: Paneled Mirror", LittleFox, RDNA
"Curiosities: Cloth Dress Form, LittleFox, RDNA
and this is your statement from the first page of THIS thread:
What I have repeatedly suggested to many storeowners is what we both have practiced with out own products, in our own stores, for years now: an ownership rstatement, listing any resource the designer did not create themselves, to be included in the readme or filed with the QC/management of the store. This is common in my world, we do it for our own protection, the protection of the buyer, and the protection of the interests of the store itself. I am very familiar with image resources and can usually tell at a glance where most elements come from if they were not originally painted or rendered by the product designer. But I require this Ownership Statement of all my Vendors and actually check for it. Of course, even as a store owner, for the sake of the copyright provenance, I write an Ownership STatement into my readmes for every product. It's not that hard. Naturally, I could forget something, but it's not so bad to go and add it back in.
Jaguarwoman is Dana. Now she is backtracking, stating about how she DID say its easy to forget,blah, blah, blah. and that she fixed it already. AND that giving "credit" and providing Ownership Statements with every product are NOT the same. scuse me? They most certainly are, with the exception that giving credit can be voluntary, except when required. Yeah, she's backtracking. Got caught in her own little mess.
I finally clicked through to her site. Granted, I realize everyone has their own preferences, but ewww - I do not like her stuff. Who would pirate that stuff? And $8 for like 12 items? Seriously?
^^^^^
Not everyone visiting her site and purchasing her product is a digital scrapbooker (or designer). She does market a lot to other graphic "worlds", where the price of products match the work done. Digiscrappers have become pretty spoiled with so many freebies, megakits for pennies, and still expecting more for less.
Just check some pay font sites where you might easily pay $25 for ONE font. And i am sure many do (probably not scrappers expecting everything free).
Whether you like a style or not, it is fine. The price does not have to match your preferences. It is not my style either, yet, i can see it is nice work. Just not something *I* would use.
OMG and Dana so wanted everyone to believe that she hand paints all her own stuff and that she never would go so low as to use resources. Nice list of resources there and she used Cassels tubes.
OMG and Dana so wanted everyone to believe that she hand paints all her own stuff and that she never would go so low as to use resources. Nice list of resources there and she used Cassels tubes.
-------
*cough* if she so loudly lobbies for including Statement of Ownership with a list of ressources used, where did she claim to have done EVERYTHING from scratch? She claims to have done everything, while using ressouces. So at least, she is USING ressources, not plopping them or disguising them to pretend she did everything from scratch nor does she let the customer/viewer assume she did... like the designer in the initial context seemed to have done. TOTALLY different issue here.
OMG and Dana so wanted everyone to believe that she hand paints all her own stuff and that she never would go so low as to use resources. Nice list of resources there and she used Cassels tubes.
-------
*cough* if she so loudly lobbies for including Statement of Ownership with a list of ressources used, where did she claim to have done EVERYTHING from scratch? She claims to have done everything, while using ressouces. So at least, she is USING ressources, not plopping them or disguising them to pretend she did everything from scratch nor does she let the customer/viewer assume she did... like the designer in the initial context seemed to have done. TOTALLY different issue here.
read some of her store descriptions.
well, at least Jaguarwoman is finally keeping her mouth shut on it. They pushed people a bit too far that time with their tactics. I don't care what they make, whether anyone likes it or not, or what they used to make it. They have no right to dictate policy, and then brush off any other suggestions on the subject. FINALLY - that thread seems to be coming to much needed end.
Shit! I so wanted to make rolled paper owls!
lmfao!
Here:
http://www.quilledcreations.com/quillinggallery/showphoto.php?photo=4116&size=big
Enjoy!
That is perfect!
What a HOOT!
OMG and Dana so wanted everyone to believe that she hand paints all her own stuff and that she never would go so low as to use resources. Nice list of resources there and she used Cassels tubes.
October 15, 2010 7:36 AM
-------------
She'd easily have any digi scrapper believe that. However, anyone who does create other kinds of art would recognize most of her stuff is from Renderosity or the Daz shop.
She'd easily have any digi scrapper believe that. However, anyone who does create other kinds of art would recognize most of her stuff is from Renderosity or the Daz shop.
_______________________________
A few designers are the same way. Joelle for one. Almost all of her backgrounds and elements are from either renderosity or daz.
http://www.scrappity-doo-dah.com/store/manufacturers.php?manufacturerid=16
I don't understand how you can scrap with that? Maybe I'm too old fashioned. Like most, I started as a paper scrapper, and I just don't enjoy that fantasy style. I scrap memories, not nightmares-- umm, I mean "dreams."
Way to go, Jewel! She put Jaguarwoman in her place with a professional and well-thought out response on the piracy issue.
Thanks. I wasn't going to say anything in that thread because I wasn't sure it was even going to be heard, but it hit a point where I couldn't keep reading it and not say anything. I guess I'll wait and see what replies I wake up to in the am.
I don't understand how you can scrap with that? Maybe I'm too old fashioned. Like most, I started as a paper scrapper, and I just don't enjoy that fantasy style. I scrap memories, not nightmares-- umm, I mean "dreams."
October 15, 2010 9:27 PM
------------
Actually, a lot of digi scrappers never paper scrapped at all. Maybe you just have a limited imagination? Ever hear of Halloween? That's a memory, isn't it? Just because it looks like 'fantasy' doesn't mean you have to scrap it like a fantasy. Besides, there's a lot of that kind of stuff in the paper world too.
Sigh, maybe there should be a designer smack blog. I'm so sick of you designers bringing your crap here and expecting everyone to know what is going on. If you aren't going to share, don't come.
http://mjajdesigns.blogspot.com/2010/10/flashback-friday-to-kellybells-colorful.html
Take a look at the freebie. The "mouse" is not in the preview (although there are ears everywhere), so should we suppose that the CT made it herself?
Does Ana Nogueira have a split personality disorder ? First she's Ana Nogueira then she's Sugary Fancy and now she's created another name - Art In Draw. WTF is with that.
She even welcomed herself to STS in the thread at DST LOL
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/digital-site-designer-announcements-25/new-designer-all-products-$1-99-freebie-you-*-art-draw-*-%40scrapteamshop-256901/
^^^^
WTF? I though the new designer was a man!
Well the avatar is of a man, but some of the products are products that Ana was selling under her other names.
^^^^
Maybe it's her husband or brother and she was selling his stuff under her name and then decided that he could sell it under his own name?
First I thought Kimeric shut Dana and Lucie up. Then, I thought Jewel did. They just can't leave it be...altho I love what Beth Rimmer just added to the convo...LOL
Jaguarwoman is DANA?? LOL! All I can think of is that Catlady who had all the plastic surgery when I see Jaguarwoman and her weird store:
http://media.hollyscoop.com/Images/PGImages/63472040---cat_lady.jpg
Well the avatar is of a man, but some of the products are products that Ana was selling under her other names.
^^^^^^^^
I was pretty sure that she was selling "Art in Draw" stuff in her store, but that Art in Draw was a different person ...
When did Nancie Rowe Janitz open up at CatScrap?
OK, so Laura at DSA doesn't want any drama in her event, no pardon me, she 'will not tolerate any drama' but it's ok for her and her crew to cause what they did in someone else's? Wonder if she's realizing how she and her teammates looked over that whole ADSR thing.
^^^^^^^^^^^
She seriously said that? That girl has got a brass set. Power tripping much?
Sigh, maybe there should be a designer smack blog. I'm so sick of you designers bringing your crap here and expecting everyone to know what is going on. If you aren't going to share, don't come.
October 16, 2010 12:23 AM
Exactly! What is the point of bringing private info from an exclusive forum to an anonymous smack blog meant for everyone, and then not give any details. Obviously readers come here to hear and discuss the dirt so why hint at it then keep it to yourselves. Gossip about it in private or spit it out so at least the rest of us are in on what you are rehashing.
Nancy joined Catscrap just last week. and its pretty non-officially official that Charlize is going to SBG. Why else would she close her shops at SBE and PBP?
OK, so Laura at DSA doesn't want any drama in her event, no pardon me, she 'will not tolerate any drama' but it's ok for her and her crew to cause what they did in someone else's? Wonder if she's realizing how she and her teammates looked over that whole ADSR thing
So it's OK if *she* creates the drama? (shaking head, vowing never to shop at DSA)
Sigh, maybe there should be a designer smack blog. I'm so sick of you designers bringing your crap here and expecting everyone to know what is going on. If you aren't going to share, don't come.
October 16, 2010 12:23 AM
Exactly! What is the point of bringing private info from an exclusive forum to an anonymous smack blog meant for everyone, and then not give any details. Obviously readers come here to hear and discuss the dirt so why hint at it then keep it to yourselves. Gossip about it in private or spit it out so at least the rest of us are in on what you are rehashing.
------------
There are 2 girls that are tired of having people use their stuff the wrong way and then saying, 'Well I didn't know any better." So, they want everyone to make a list of every resource they use for each element in their kit and make it available for anyone who asks.
Not gonna happen.
Did i dream it or was MissBehaving a guest at SBG too? If so, she is not there anymore. They used to have 4 guests.... i cannot remember who else was there.
I guess Dutchie still has time to design as there are still more products of hers in "the Lab". I really wonder why she didn't keep her store as right now, she seems to be the ONLY one in the lab anyways.
Yah, MissBehaving was a guest there for their birthday thing...she stayed on longer cuz she was doing some instructing, and had to finish the series.
There are 2 girls that are tired of having people use their stuff the wrong way and then saying, 'Well I didn't know any better." So, they want everyone to make a list of every resource they use for each element in their kit and make it available for anyone who asks.
Not gonna happen.
October 16, 2010 3:37 PM
-----
I worked that much out by myself. It's the other stuff I want to know about, you know, the someone said this and someone said that.
It's really annoying to have some of you come in and say did you see what so-and-so said, and then you don't provide the details.
Exactly, why can't you copy/paste for the rest of us! lol
we want to see Jewel's & Beth Rimmer's comments, and then Dana's rehash. Please.
I worked that much out by myself. It's the other stuff I want to know about, you know, the someone said this and someone said that.
It's really annoying to have some of you come in and say did you see what so-and-so said, and then you don't provide the details.
October 16, 2010 6:16 PM
Definitely. How arrogant it is to drop titillating tidbits, hinting at drama/scandal and then not give the details. This smack blog isn't just for designers with access to a private forum. If you want to bash other designers or come to tattle about their postings you can do it with the cloak of anonyminity so you could at least be a little more open.
Does Ana Nogueira have a split personality disorder ? First she's Ana Nogueira then she's Sugary Fancy and now she's created another name - Art In Draw. WTF is with that.
------------------------------
I was looking at Ana'a doodles and I know I've seen them somewhere else. Art In Draw's, too. And not by either of those designer names.
That thread is now about 90 comments long...and there is no way to post jaguarwomans replies...they take up almost an entire page EACH time she responds. Repeats the same crap over and over. I'll go grab some of the shorter ones...
From Tiffikat:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jencdesigns
I hope you realize that even if you come from a place of hurt in this situation, attitude matters a lot. Unquote
Quote:
Originally Posted by messina33
you are not selling this very well, as a discussion.
Leaving aside the benefits of your ideas, for one second, and how they can work for us all, to patronise and belittle others for add their view points does nothing to endear me into considering your solution.
I really dont think bullying tactics as the way to get you point across.
It appears to me, that you are not asking for help and support to reduce the risk of copyright infringement but are emotionally blackmailing others into complying with your solution. Unquote
Ditto to this.
While some very valid ideas have been posted I completely agree that the overwhelming rudeness really negates any real chance of change coming from this thread.
Also, before it gets insinuated that I have something to hide I credit everyone whose resources I use in a project in that project's TOU even if they do not require it. It is possible I may have missed a credit somewhere if someone wants to search, but not too likely since I create my credits while I work.
Response from LucieG (OP)
We keep repeating the same thing because you keep saying it won't work when you're not even willing to give it a shot. When stores give it a serious try and then in a few years look at their statitics and tell me that no, instances of copyright infringements haven't diminished at all, maybe I'll believe it won't work, but untill someone does that, sorry, but this argument doesn't hold water. I can't believe you really believe deep down that it wouldn't help even if it's just a little bit. It has been tried in other stores outside the scrapbook industry and I can tell you we hear a lot less complaints about copyright infringements then we used to in those places, there's still some from very cunning peeps, but it has been reduced a lot. To take back you image of the bandaid, the blood will still seep through the bandaid, add a gauze under that bandaid and maybe the blood won't seep through so much, add some antibiotic (education) and it's going to heal a lot faster.
We're not claiming it would fix it all, we're just saying it would help, that it would be an extra precaution and this extra-precaution shouldn't be so hard to implement since most honest and serious designers seem to already keep good track of the resources they use anyway, so where's the harm in trying?
I'm not going to repeat once more what's been said about the responsibility of the store owner except for this. If infringing products are purchased in those stores, the buyer finds out and asks for a refund, this store can refuse to give the refund probably but if you treat your costumers this way, they may well decide to stop shopping in your store. If you don't care about that, it's'ok, then don't feel responsible.
Response to that from Beth Rimmer:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a relief to know there are "serious designers" around to enlighten the rest of us hapless scmucks! thanks!
from Jill D-Zines:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolyn Kite
Thats just it - a lot of us don't keep track because we buy from NCR CU designers only. I personally buy from NCR CU designers so that I DONT HAVE to keep track, as do many others. unquote
Exactly. And I believe the great majority of us are careful to follow TOU, and honestly am insulted to have it insinuated that I'm not an "honest and serious designer" because I don't keep a running list of any CU product I use (when I specifically purchase products that don't require it!)
Adding "regulations" is silly when even the 'regulations' (copyright) already in place are not being followed. What you'll find is that the same people who are dishonest now, will continue to be dishonest, by putting false information in any documentation they are asked for.
From Jewel the Queen:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill D-Zines
Exactly. And I believe the great majority of us are careful to follow TOU, and honestly am insulted to have it insinuated that I'm not an "honest and serious designer" because I don't keep a running list of any CU product I use (when I specifically purchase products that don't require it!)
Adding "regulations" is silly when even the 'regulations' (copyright) already in place are not being followed. What you'll find is that the same people who are dishonest now, will continue to be dishonest, by putting false information in any documentation they are asked for. Unquote
I agree with both of these points. I am also offended that you consider I am not 'honest and serious' because I don't work the same way you do. I buy credit not required items, and if I get credit required things in grab bags, I delete them. I have a very small amount of things I do use that require credits and I list them. I also list some of the designers I use a courtesy but I don't track piece by piece. Perhaps I may change this one day, but as of now I am following everyone's TOU and I am very careful and conscientious about piracy, copyright, and trademark.
I also don't think that adding more regulations is going to effect people who are already not following the very broad reaching regulations already in place.
As to why there is resistance to try it for a few years and then re-evaluate ... it's because we, as intelligent people with the power to reflect on things and make our own minds up, don't believe it will be effective (for the reason stated above).
As to what I really believe, deep down, I assure you that I know what that I am a lot more likely to know what my true opinion is than you are. SO you can choose to believe it or not, but it doesn't change the fact that what I am saying is the truth - I do not think this will help the industry. I think that the people already thumbing their nose in the face of copyright and trademakr are going to keep doing so no matter how many levels of rules and regulations you put into place.
If there was a copyright issue with something I created (that I had somehow missed, which I doubt would happen but is possible), I would absoLUTELY be offering customers a refund or an updated product they can use. I wouldn't just say 'too bad for you, you have to delete that but I'm keeping your money.'
From Jewel the Queen:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill D-Zines
Exactly. And I believe the great majority of us are careful to follow TOU, and honestly am insulted to have it insinuated that I'm not an "honest and serious designer" because I don't keep a running list of any CU product I use (when I specifically purchase products that don't require it!)
Adding "regulations" is silly when even the 'regulations' (copyright) already in place are not being followed. What you'll find is that the same people who are dishonest now, will continue to be dishonest, by putting false information in any documentation they are asked for. Unquote
I agree with both of these points. I am also offended that you consider I am not 'honest and serious' because I don't work the same way you do. I buy credit not required items, and if I get credit required things in grab bags, I delete them. I have a very small amount of things I do use that require credits and I list them. I also list some of the designers I use a courtesy but I don't track piece by piece. Perhaps I may change this one day, but as of now I am following everyone's TOU and I am very careful and conscientious about piracy, copyright, and trademark.
I also don't think that adding more regulations is going to effect people who are already not following the very broad reaching regulations already in place.
As to why there is resistance to try it for a few years and then re-evaluate ... it's because we, as intelligent people with the power to reflect on things and make our own minds up, don't believe it will be effective (for the reason stated above).
As to what I really believe, deep down, I assure you that I know what that I am a lot more likely to know what my true opinion is than you are. SO you can choose to believe it or not, but it doesn't change the fact that what I am saying is the truth - I do not think this will help the industry. I think that the people already thumbing their nose in the face of copyright and trademakr are going to keep doing so no matter how many levels of rules and regulations you put into place.
If there was a copyright issue with something I created (that I had somehow missed, which I doubt would happen but is possible), I would absoLUTELY be offering customers a refund or an updated product they can use. I wouldn't just say 'too bad for you, you have to delete that but I'm keeping your money.'
^^^^^
Thank you so much!! It's very much appreciated.
I can't believe this is still going on. This was an issue way back when I was still designing some two years ago.
Good to get more details. Thanks. Seems like maybe that thread has entered the 'dead horse zone' ;)
Sooooooooo much drama! I'm glad I don't read the DCR anymore. Way more fun here!
I can't believe this is still going on. This was an issue way back when I was still designing some two years ago.
^^^
What was an issue then? Dana? Or this demand for an Ownership Statement? I haven't been around long.
^^^
Pretty much the same crap. Different words, same drama.
Thanks for posting.
Does anybody know who 4 Shades of Blue is and where she's selling now? Or a blog or something?
Never mind on the 4 Shades of Blue - Google is your friend if you don't misspell your search words! Funky Playground
You're welcome for the posts. I forgot that not everyone can read the DCR. 107 Posts, and its been quiet since yesterday afternoon, thank heavens...yeah, its like beating a dead horse....but jaguarwoman and LucieG were both demanding (not suggesting as they try to say after the fact) that everyone should comply with their grandiose idea. I'm hoping they let the thread die a natural death. Its ends with that post from Jewel.
I am not a designer but I feel sorry for the issues you have to face. I'm just imaging someone asking Picasso:
Where did you get that idea for your painting, I think I've seen something like it before?
Excuse me, I'd like to see the receipts for the brushes and paints you used because I think you stole them from a fellow painter down the street.
Oh my gosh, you blended blue and red to make purple. Someone else has already done that. You are just a copycat!
Do you know how ridiculous this all is? It is enough to drive you crazy and certainly explains why designers retire, and have moved on to photography or other creative avenues.
Unfortunately there is evil all over the place. You are not going to eliminate it in digi land any more than I can eliminate gangs, drugs, or theft in my home town.
Just because some teens steal, am I going to make my teenager show me a receipt for everything they bring home that I didn't purchase for them so they can prove they didn't steal it? That would be insulting to say the least. And I'm sure would cause a rift in my relationship with my child.
I think the proposed rules would be ineffective and an unnecessary burden on designers.
^^^^^^
great examples and an "amen, sister!" to all you said!
I will never provide my customers with a list of the items I use to create my products. These are tools that I legally purchase, that do not require credit. If a seller requires credit, I don't buy them. Afterall, they are CU tools. I am buying them to use to make my own products. Why should I have to reveal to anyone how, what or where I find them or who sold them to me. I keep a folder with the TOUs and I have my receipts. Enough already with the self righteous Digi-Feds with their bent out of shape pride.
If someone steals from you, you should take them court, get an attorney and sue them. Simple. They all need to stop wasting time posting in forums and take action. But here is my theory on this - they haven't actually purchased the copyright. Its expensive and its per item/collection. Not for all the designers work - but for each particular kit, element, mega kit , etc. When you are selling them for $6, spending over $75 a kit to actually purchase a legally binding copyright is a bit over the top for most digi designers. Otherwise, they would just sick the attorney on the culprits and do away with the witch hunts.
But don't even think for a second that I will have anyone order me to should credit for CU tools. That is between me and my sources.
A lot of CU designers who require credit will soon find themselves out of business if this keeps up.
" Enough already with the self righteous Digi-Feds with their bent out of shape pride."
oh man....LMAO!!!!! EXACTLY!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Amen
seriously, are designers really that dumb that they haven't learned from the mistakes of others regarding disney copyright?
http://ow.ly/2V7RW
OMG Don't get me started on Nicole. I taught her to get rid of her messies without even a thank you. And yes she was already selling then and did not know she had messies everywhere. I can't believe people still buy from her.
Post a Comment