Thursday, November 4, 2010

Digital Scrapbook Day

New space to discuss DSD, or whatever else is happening in Digiland.

1,198 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   801 – 1000 of 1198   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Designers need to be prepared for the fact that digi has the potential to move out of the cottage industry and into mass marketing. Many are going to be left behind.

December 14, 2010 8:25 AM
----------

Two or three years ago, when I first heard this argument, it had merit. Considering that a few of the paper companies moved into digi and failed miserably, I'm not so convinced any more.

Anonymous said...

http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/scrap-talk-65/i-have-never-complained-store-before-today-263265/

Whose fault is it? Careless customer or sloppy designer?

--------------

We have had similar arguments here before.

Careless customer for not reading the content list (although this doesn't always work)

Sloppy designer for including WA on a QP for the kit when the WA is not in the kit. That could have been stated in the description.

Fault on both sides.

Anonymous said...

If a designer is going to use CT Layouts as *product previews* in the store, then it's absolutely on them to make sure that the CT is using 100% that product.

This has come up before. Holliewood's kit with the word art that another designer in the store had "RAKd" to her CT. Then that word art showed up in every damn CT layout on the store previews. The list of contents said something very generic like "2 wordarts" Pretty vague, especially when the wordart shown in all the previews was not in that kit. It had to be purchased separately from the other designer.

Funny how designers want every.single.thing credited in galleries by scrappers, but it's just "too much work" to check the CT layouts that are STORE PREVIEWS OF THE KIT or to ask their CT to do credits as jannylynn suggested. Or even to *specifically* describe the contents---at least specifically enough to avoid the confusion.

The simplest solution is that CT layouts for the store be 100% that kit.

Anonymous said...

Or here's a suggestion. Actual store previews of the products and papers that are in the kit. Detailed, close up looks of the ACTUAL CONTENTS OF THE KIT. Not CT layouts as store previews. Someone (more than one? I can't remember) on that thread said that they've never bought a kit with the intention of "copying" a preview layout. Well, if the CT layouts aren't the motivating factor in people buying the kit, why bother with them? When people want "inspiration" they can check the galleries. Isn't that what the galleries are for??
I'd much rather see detailed images of what I'm getting when I purchase. Saves lots of "work" for everyone.

Anonymous said...

Just because they aren't copying the layouts doesn't mean that customers don't want to see the kit in use before buying a kit. I use the CT layouts to determine my purchase all the time. If the CT can't produce something decent, then I don't want it. And I'm not going to hunt it down in the galleries either.

Personally I think it's just another thing to have a bitchfest over. And the designers will ignore it and do want they want anyway.

Anonymous said...

I think what Jannylynn suggested was a viable solution especially after she explained how it could be done easily and not take up more time for the CT. It actually might save them time when posting in the galleries. I could see that looking really nice in a store and clears up a lot of confusion.

Why are designers so afraid to ask their CT to do something that only takes a few minutes? That seemed to kill the idea.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to but in with this (I already posted my thoughts on the CT issue at DST) - but for some reason I find this funny. The new kid at SBG just put up what he is touting as his 2nd Commercial Use product. Its, um....color palettes. 20 of 'em for $4.80. and Yeah, his 1st Commercial product is the same thing.

Anonymous said...

^^^^^

More power to him if someone buys them.

Anonymous said...

And the designers will ignore it and do want they want anyway.

December 14, 2010 4:42 PM

True dat! :)

Anonymous said...

Is the CU stuff by That Girl any good?

Anonymous said...

^^^^^

quality wise, yeah. That Girl is also Ellie Lash.

Anonymous said...

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks.

Anonymous said...

<>

Yeah, me either, and if they need one single thing that's not in the kit, then they obviously don't think they can produce something decent.

Probably they need to go to the designer and tell her exactly what they need to finish off their LOs because her kit is incomplete.

Anonymous said...

Probably they need to go to the designer and tell her exactly what they need to finish off their LOs because her kit is incomplete.

^^^

I wish my CT felt more comfortable doing that. I have asked them to tell me, but they don't. I can usually tell if the layouts don't come in quickly that people are struggling, than I'll send out a couple of emails asking what is missing and get some replies.

Anonymous said...

That Girl is also Ellie Lash.

December 15, 2010 2:00 PM

________

Where does 'that girl' sells?
And why does Ellie Lash sells under another name? That's just weird to me because I know nothing about 'that girl' but I do know the name 'Ellie Lash'.

Anonymous said...

^^^^

One is for PU/S4H and the other is for CU. I guess she wanted two identities so customers knew exactly what was what in their files.

You can find both here

http://www.ellielash.com/shop/

(very easy, I just googled Ellie Lash)

Anonymous said...

^^

Thank you! I was lasy, I didn't try Google.
Still, it's really weird to create an alter ego to sell CU. I don't get it.

Anonymous said...

What if everyone starts selling under a few different names? Seriously...

Anonymous said...

Designers need to be prepared for the fact that digi has the potential to move out of the cottage industry and into mass marketing. Many are going to be left behind.

December 14, 2010 8:25 AM
----------

Two or three years ago, when I first heard this argument, it had merit. Considering that a few of the paper companies moved into digi and failed miserably, I'm not so convinced any more.

-------------
I think that it will take a few years for paper to catch up to digital, but I do think you will start seeing it. There are many paper manufacturers that have teamed up with some big name retailers for digital applications. But again, it is going to take some time. Wonder where all the manufacturers that were with scrapblog will go since the business seems to have gone belly up.

Anonymous said...

What if everyone starts selling under a few different names? Seriously...
December 16, 2010 2:57 AM


---

It would be such a scandal!
gasp!

Anonymous said...

What if everyone starts selling under a few different names? Seriously...

So then I guess you don't shop at Old Navy or Gap? Same corporation selling similar stuff under two different names.

I don't care if they are selling good stuff that I want to buy. I don't really know who they are anyway. And I really don't want to.

It's a good way to get out the exlusivity clause. But I seriously doubt any designer has the endurance to design enough to make it worth it.

Anonymous said...

What if everyone starts selling under a few different names? Seriously...

December 16, 2010 2:57 AM
----------

Sheesh, lots of designers do it IRL, what's the problem?

Anonymous said...

I don't think we have to worry about most designers starting to use "a few different names" It's hard enough to just promote ONE name, I can't imagine anyone wanting to spend their time promoting products (with different branding, possibly different styles, etc.) for several names.

I think that Ellie did this as a courtesy to her customers - it makes it easy for both PU and CU shoppers to find exactly what they want, without having to look through a lot of pages of products that they're not interested in. (Of course, this is just my guess - I'm not Ellie, just a fellow designer with my guesses as to why she did that.) It makes sense to me, especially when I see people here complaining about having to look through so many CU products.

Anonymous said...

I think that Ellie did this as a courtesy to her customers - it makes it easy for both PU and CU shoppers to find exactly what they want, without having to look through a lot of pages of products that they're not interested in. (Of course, this is just my guess - I'm not Ellie, just a fellow designer with my guesses as to why she did that.) It makes sense to me, especially when I see people here complaining about having to look through so many CU products.
^^^^^^^
I would tend to feel that using two different names for CU and PU does not make it more "courteous" to the customers.In fact, although i am a designer, i rarely buy CU stuff for my designing, yet, when i put on my scrapper hat, i love to look through some of the CU element packs. Why? Simply because i am not a "one kit scrapper" and i like to have specific elements in my pages, whether it is a string, a button, a ribbon, a flower, etc. In that case, having separate identity for both might actually cut off some sales.

Ellie can have any reason for choosing to sell under two names, and that is perfectly fine by me. However, i would not assume it has anything to do with courtesy to customer.

Anonymous said...

^Not everyone shops like you do. I don't buy CU and prefer to not have to wade through it when shopping. That's why I like certain stores that don't offer CU at all.

Anonymous said...

Quickly back to the CT issue of creating layouts for displays, something hit me today.
- a CT cannot use outside elements because the viewer might think it is part of the kit
- a CT cannot change the color of an element because the viewer might be lead to believe that is in the kit that way
- a CT cannot create a wordart in case the viewer thinks it is part of the kit
- a CT cannot modify an element (like create a torn edge on a paper) because the viewer will think it is available like that in the kit
- a CT cannot create a title made with papers of the kit or elements, or the viewer will think it is an alpha in the kit...

I am glad i am not a CT! I find it must be limiting the creativity of many CT members who surely CAN create more than just use copy/paste to create a layout. It is sad that the use of those layouts as simple kit display (to suit the request of customers who cannot distinguish between a "preview" from a "layout"). Maybe those CT members should be renamed CPT (copy-paste team).

Maybe designers need to find another way to use the real creativity of their CT while the customers should learn the difference between a preview and a "creative" layout.

Anonymous said...

Those rules aren't in place for any of the ct's I'm on. I wouldn't want to CT for the designers that posted in that thread.

I think they should include the credits with the layouts that are in the stores.

And customers should read the product descriptions or ask if there is something they really want.

Anonymous said...

I do CT pages for the designer, and then I have the kit to reuse for my personal pages.
The pages that I make for my personal to print in albums or books do not look like the pages I make for designers. I like to use a ton of pictures on my personal pages, and no clusters, just splashes of color, a few choice elements and lots of journaling.
CT pages have clusters and use the elements and papers to show how they all go together.
I know some folks swear up and down they make pages for them! Goody for them. I make pages for the designer to sell the kit. I use only the designers items on the CT page. If I feel I need something to complete a layout, I asked the designer to pop one in the kit! Usually, she has something I need right off. Isn't that one of the reasons the CT get the kit prior to release? I recolor my pics for CT layouts, instead of the elements of the kit. I CT for designers that I like their business sense (are not scatter brained), and enjoy their talent.
well that was a rant! I got a bit long winded!

Anonymous said...

Good for you.

You do realize your name isn't on here so you're not going to get any CT spots out of that, right?

Sheesh, people just because you do it, doesn't mean that it is the only way it should be done.

I come from old school digi scrapping where anything could go on CT layouts because people didn't bitch so much about stupid stuff like not reading the prodcut description. Seriously, don't use a CT layout as the product desciption!

Here's a good tip. If the product description isn't descriptive enough, don't buy it!

Anonymous said...

^^^
Good point. There is a product preview, a product description, and examples (which are just that... EXAMPLES of how the kit can be used). They are not all the same thing. They serve different purposes: the preview will catch your eye and give some info, the description should inform you, and the LO should inspire you.

Anonymous said...

I come from old school digi scrapping where anything could go on CT
_____________________
LOL That struck me as funny because I consider myself oldschool. I've been digiscrapping since before it was even a thing but for this topic, it would be before there ever was such a thing as a "CT" or "commercial use." Designs I would buy would be so bad by todays standards...and some of them came from some well-known names. Stray pixels, jaggies..you name it, it was there.

Would it be so difficult for the designers to put a little ditty in their product description like "layouts shown with this product description are for demonstration purposes only and items included in your purchase may vary" or something simple like that and maybe include a preview showing everything included? Seems business-smart to me but what do I know. I'm just an old lady who likes to make pretty pictures with my photos.

Anonymous said...

^^^
Such a simple idea! (and really no sarcasm in this phrase as i think it IS a brillant idea).

Anonymous said...

The whole point of the store previews is to show off the kit. Why is it so hard to keep layouts only to items within that kit? It's not stifling creativity. It's showing how a kit can be used - not other products by that designer. It's like an ad for the kit. I don't think it is too much to ask CT members to only use that kit. If they can't stick to only the kit - perhaps there is something lacking in the kit! If I see something in a store preview layout - it had better be in the kit.

Anonymous said...

I am both a designer and CT member, as lots of gals are. When I'm designing, I appreciate it if my CT requests anything. As a CT, tho - I have never asked for anything...just scrapped with whats in that kit ONLY. I'm not required to do that....I just feel that its the best way to use the kit for an 'example'. I have made word art using the papers for an alpha, if there is no alpha in the kit. If the kit description does not state there is an alpha to go with, its kind of a no brainer to figure that the word art was made using parts of the kit.

Anonymous said...

Don't preview layouts contain the credits of everything used on the layout? That way if someone liked the layout they could see what items from the kit were used and what additional items were used.

To not disclose that items not from the kit were used in preview layouts is in pretty poor taste and not very business savvy.

Anonymous said...

^^^^
Some stores will not allow credits to anything outside their own, or some designers will not allow credits to anyone else. Where i sell, those credits ARE allowed, and in fact, required if a "displayed layout" uses something else than my own stuff only.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that the kits I buy have previews of what's in the kit. Preview of the papers and a separate preview of the elements.

Are some of you buying kits that don't have a preview of everything in the kit? I just don't think I would be willing to give someone my money without knowing exactly what I was getting.

Anonymous said...

Some previews tend to be pretty cluttered, unfortunately.

Anonymous said...

Some stores will not allow credits to anything outside their own, or some designers will not allow credits to anyone else. Where i sell, those credits ARE allowed, and in fact, required if a "displayed layout" uses something else than my own stuff only.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well that is interesting. And yet I bet the designer not allowing credits to anyone else would be the first to complain if someone didn't credit her for something.

I had no idea some stores had that policy. I think some people just shoot themselves in the foot with bad business decisions.

The first rule to running a successful business is the Golden Rule. Just treat people how you would like to be treated. It is so simple but many people are so afraid of it.

Anonymous said...

Don't preview layouts contain the credits of everything used on the layout? That way if someone liked the layout they could see what items from the kit were used and what additional items were used.

To not disclose that items not from the kit were used in preview layouts is in pretty poor taste and not very business savvy.
December 17, 2010 1:43 PM


------------

Did you read the thread at DST? You may want to so you get what we are talking about.

A designer said this wasn't possible with the shopping program the stores use. And they don't want to ask their CT to put anymore time into adding credits directly to the layout image.

And I'm glad so many of you are so proud of your skilz to just use one kit. I think it's totally lame and not very creative. I like to work from my stash too. But the designers I create for have no restrictions. Their customers are smart enough to read the product description and look at the actual kit preview.

Anonymous said...

Some stores will not allow credits to anything outside their own, or some designers will not allow credits to anyone else.

***

Which stores? I know a few that don't want links or store names. But the ones that don't want credits to other stores are usually closed galleries. Or are you talking about the store front? None of them credit now even if it is their own stuff that I'm aware of...

Anonymous said...

Which stores? I know a few that don't want links or store names. But the ones that don't want credits to other stores are usually closed galleries. Or are you talking about the store front? None of them credit now even if it is their own stuff that I'm aware of...
^^^^^^
Not talking about galleries, but about Layouts used with the product description. I can see that Store A might not like having Designer X mentioned in THOSE credits, if that designer is in a "competing" store (even if the OTHER store is not mentioned), but it is getting like splitting hair now.

Anonymous said...

So you're making assumptions that stores won't allow it? There aren't any stores or designers who actually do that?

Not sure what your point was...

Anonymous said...

Designer X mentioned in THOSE credits, if that designer is in a "competing" store (even if the OTHER store is not mentioned), but it is getting like splitting hair now.

----

But it isn't even just that they need to credit the other designers. They need to credit the products created by that designer (or other products from the same store) that are a not included in the kit.

A few designers in that thread said that they require their CT to use only their product. In the end it still doesn't help the customer that buys based off of CT layouts. (which is a stupid idea, but there are really stupid people out there. As usual we have to cater to the stupidest person in the group to make sure they keep up.)

Anonymous said...

(which is a stupid idea, but there are really stupid people out there. As usual we have to cater to the stupidest person in the group to make sure they keep up.)

^^^^^^^^^^^
LOL! So true!

Anonymous said...

(which is a stupid idea, but there are really stupid people out there. As usual we have to cater to the stupidest person in the group to make sure they keep up.)

December 17, 2010 2:45 PM
------------

Sad, but true. If we stopped catering to them, maybe they would make an effort to learn something.

Anonymous said...

-------Here's a good tip. If the product description isn't descriptive enough, don't buy it! ----

Best idea I've heard today.

Designers, if your CT uses outside materials, perhaps in addition to saying what's in your kit, you can list what's not in your kit that shows in the preview LOs. NO CUTE WA, No darling messy stitches.

Or perhaps you need to look more closely at your CT LOs and learn something yourself. They are obviously catering to the stupidest person in the group, and they think you're it!

Anonymous said...

The stupidest kit description I've seen, and it's a big pet peeve of mine, is when it's written: 15 papers, 50 elements.
That's it! When I read that, I'm like, what?????????!!!!!!
Is the designer lasy?
Or maybe they are so bad in english, they don't even what to try (because I've seen that especially in foreign stores).

Anonymous said...

You talk about "bad in English". You might want to check the spelling of "lazy" yourself LOL

Anonymous said...

Get a life, grammar police.

Anonymous said...

Not the grammar police at all. But when one person criticises another for their spelling I think they should make sure they are correct themselves.

Anonymous said...

Get a life, grammar police.

December 18, 2010 7:05 PM
---------

Sorry, were you offended? You know you don't have to remain ignorant, don't you?

Anonymous said...

Not the grammar police at all. But when one person criticises another for their spelling I think they should make sure they are correct themselves.

^^^^^^^^

Then maybe you should learn how to spell criticizes if that's how you feel, huh?

Anonymous said...

^^^^

It's Brit spelling. Not everyone lives in the US, despite what you think. Look it up next time to avoid making a fool of yourself.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Not the grammar police at all. But when one person criticises another for their spelling I think they should make sure they are correct themselves.

^^^^^^^^

Then maybe you should learn how to spell criticizes if that's how you feel, huh?

------------------------------

Ignoramus!

Anonymous said...

This blog is dumb!

Anonymous said...

Everything must be so nice and well in digiland that we don't have anything better to do but bashing each other here. Kinda bittersweet, don't you think? :D

Anonymous said...

http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/2715859-post2.html

Is this how you (designers in general) sell a Disney-related kit these days?
By putting "Not all shown" on the preview and letting it all hang out in CT layouts for all customers to see?

Anonymous said...

Most of us "designers in general" do NOT touch Disney with a 10 foot pole, due to copyrights. This Kellybelle continues to get away with it, even tho she has been reported time and time again. She rips off more than Disney, too. She sells in her 'own' shop - - no reputable shop would have her in it.

Anonymous said...

Not the grammar police at all. But when one person criticises another for their spelling I think they should make sure they are correct themselves.
_____________________________

BAHAHAHAHA! That's good for a morning laugh, thanks.

Anonymous said...

Is this how you (designers in general) sell a Disney-related kit these days?
By putting "Not all shown" on the preview and letting it all hang out in CT layouts for all customers to see?
^^^^^^
This would certainly go totally against what was discussed a few days ago about making it clear to the viewer what they are buying. I would imagine that if i had to put "not all shown" it would be because of some "boring" duplicates, but they would be listed. Otherwise, it is like a grab bag: take a chance.

Anonymous said...

Is this how you (designers in general) sell a Disney-related kit these days?
By putting "Not all shown" on the preview and letting it all hang out in CT layouts for all customers to see?
^^^^^^
Maybe the CT swiped the image for their layout? It's hard to know for sure.

I doubt she has too many sales...

Anonymous said...

I just checked Kellybelle's store and O-M-G! Can you be more blatant than that using Disney's stuff? More than half her stuff is Disney based, and although some are INSPIRED by Disney's characters, that dear Mickey shape is almost everywhere! Maybe she could rename her store "The Disney Store"... oh wait, there is already a store chain like that!

Anonymous said...

http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/scrap-talk-65/12-20-ctm-enabling-264132
The same CTM enabled the same "Disney" kit with the same layout. Talk about pushy!

Anonymous said...

She has a mickey head chef in her preview so I am pretty sure that even though the CT might have grabbed an image some where else, she is still breaking copyrights by having a mickey head in her kit. I have personally reported her many times. I think if people make a stink in that thread over there, she might get the hint. Not sure if anyone has actually contacted her about it. Some people are just oblivious.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/scrap-talk-65/12-20-ctm-enabling-264132
The same CTM enabled the same "Disney" kit with the same layout. Talk about pushy!

December 20, 2010 8:48 AM


Aren't any of those MODs at DST reading this blog? Is this acceptable? I find it tasteless of both CT and designer.

Anonymous said...

^^^^
It might be tasteless, but is it against the rules? Some people are expert at finding ways to "not break the rules". Then, maybe someone can actually contact the mods. Or report the post (with the little yellow triangle icon on top of every post).

Anonymous said...

, she is still breaking copyrights by having a mickey head in her kit. I have personally reported her many times.

----------

If you have reported it and Disney hasn't done anything about it, maybe they don't care?

Has Disney EVER gone after a Digi Designer? I get tire of all the bitching about the trademark violations, but if it such a concern, then why does Disney ignore the reports?

Anonymous said...

Not the grammar police at all. But when one person criticises another for their spelling I think they should make sure they are correct themselves.
_____________________________

BAHAHAHAHA! That's good for a morning laugh, thanks.

December 20, 2010 6:55 AM

--------

Why? I don't see anything funny in that remark at all. Not the OP, just curious.

Anonymous said...

Aren't any of those MODs at DST reading this blog? Is this acceptable? I find it tasteless of both CT and designer.

December 20, 2010 12:24 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^^
It might be tasteless, but is it against the rules?
-----------

Yep, it is against the rules, right there in the first post:

* Duplicate enabling of the same kit per day will be deleted.

Anonymous said...

Why? I don't see anything funny in that remark at all. Not the OP, just curious.
______________________
Because she was scolding a person for not checking their spelling before criticizing <--- someone's spelling. It was a funny/ironic/stupid post.

Anonymous said...

* Duplicate enabling of the same kit per day will be deleted.
^^^^^^^^
The "Disney related kit" was enabled two days in a row, not the same day.

Anonymous said...

Because she was scolding a person for not checking their spelling before criticizing <--- someone's spelling. It was a funny/ironic/stupid post.

December 20, 2010 4:53 PM
-------

Er, dumbo, check again, it is also spelled criticise. Duh!! As was pointed out before. Geez, not everyone lives in the US of A. You just made yourself look stupid.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter if Disney cares or not. The point is that the designers should be creative enough to be able to design a kit without using someone else's (or another companies) ideas to do so.

It is not integitous for a designer to take another person's ideas and sell it as their own and make money off of it.

In my opinion, it does not matter if Disney cares or not. I care, and I refuse to buy anything that has a trademarked or copyrighted image or story line, or theme or whatever in it.

I also can;t believe that others would be willing to design this stuff, knowing it is not their idea!

Anonymous said...

sorry,* integritous
not sure if that is a word, but you get the point.

Anonymous said...

Maybe you are reporting to the wrong organization?

It was my understanding that Creative Memories purchased the licensing rights to produce all things Disney/digital scrapbooking.

Wonder if Creative Memories cares?

Anonymous said...

I don't know what Creative Memories is but if they paid for a Disney licence, it must have been a lot.

Anonymous said...

is it just me, or is this kit full of the most awful mix of total CU items??? good lord, what a damn mess. and yeah, i know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder....and these eyes are beholding ugly.

http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/happy-place-31/%2Awin%2A-my-kit-d-263206/

Anonymous said...

Disney doesn't do anything about the Disney inspired kits because they are not doing anything to cut into their bottom line. Disney usually goes after companies that are trying to represent themselves as selling Disney products. These designers are using Disney as inspiration and not claiming to be selling authentic Disney merchandise.

How do I know this? My artwork is on the wall in one of their stores for sale. They probably could have sued me but approached me to sell the art instead. Now if only it would sell... (and, yes, I used the Mouse Ears in the artwork! I lived to tell the tale!)

Anonymous said...

is it just me, or is this kit full of the most awful mix of total CU items??? good lord, what a damn mess. and yeah, i know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder....and these eyes are beholding ugly.

http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/happy-place-31/%2Awin%2A-my-kit-d-263206/

December 20, 2010 11:09 PM

--------

It just you and me, judging by the comments in the thread. I didn't except there to be any!

Anonymous said...

Disney doesn't do anything about the Disney inspired kits because they are not doing anything to cut into their bottom line. Disney usually goes after companies that are trying to represent themselves as selling Disney products. These designers are using Disney as inspiration and not claiming to be selling authentic Disney merchandise.

^^^^^^^^^^^

That's not entirely true, considering they recently sued a birthday party company for using Disney character costumes. That company did not claim they were Disney or selling Disney merchandise.

Anonymous said...

is it just me, or is this kit full of the most awful mix of total CU items??? good lord, what a damn mess. and yeah, i know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder....and these eyes are beholding ugly.

http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/happy-place-31/%2Awin%2A-my-kit-d-263206/

December 20, 2010 11:09 PM

__________

Not just you! I'm with you.
There is absolutely no shadow on the preview that's why it looks weird! It's so newbie.

Nowadays, people start digiscraping and the next week they join a store. When I started back in the days, I gave freebies for about a year before daring to sell in a store.

Anonymous said...

That's not entirely true, considering they recently sued a birthday party company for using Disney character costumes. That company did not claim they were Disney or selling Disney merchandise.
December 20, 2010 11:49 PM


Then why haven't they gone after these terrible digi-designers that are "stealing" their trademark? It seems to me with the number of reports they would be on it!

Anonymous said...

^^

Maybe they have bigger fish to catch!

Anonymous said...

^^^^^

Yeah, like Nemo - oh, wait, he's only a small fish, isn't he?

Anonymous said...

Er, dumbo, check again, it is also spelled criticise. Duh!! As was pointed out before. Geez, not everyone lives in the US of A. You just made yourself look stupid.
_____________________________
Dumbo? Mmkay. Anyway, Dumbo, Jr., (hey, it's your word.) s/he was originally criticizing someone for spelling lazy with an "s." This would make her not British. So for the purposes of making this short and sweet, we here in the good 'ol US of A, spell criticize with a "z."

Do try and read a bit and keep up. It's making you look lasy&#8482.

Anonymous said...

We all know you in the good old US of A spell criticise with a Z and the rest of us spell it with an S. But we all spell lazy with a Z not an S. When someone spells "lasy" whilst criticising someone else for incorrect spelling they look stupid. And yes, I spell in English and not American.

Moral: Don't critique someone else if you can't get it correct yourself.

Anonymous said...

Maybe you are reporting to the wrong organization?

It was my understanding that Creative Memories purchased the licensing rights to produce all things Disney/digital scrapbooking.

Wonder if Creative Memories cares?

Other companies also have a Disney License. Jolee's Stickers were probably one of the first to have Disney scrapbooking stuff and yes they pay a nice licensing fee to be able to use Disney designs. just because Creative Memories and Jolee's hold licenses doesn't mean they could go after someone. They aren't Disney. Only Disney can go after those who break their TM.

Anonymous said...

They aren't Disney. Only Disney can go after those who break their TM.
December 21, 2010 7:23 AM
-----

And there is the problem. THEY aren't protecting their trademark by not doing something when someone reports it. So either they can't do anything about it because it truly isn't a trademark or copyright violation or they just don't give a crap because it isn't cutting into their profits.

It isn't our job to be the copyright police for a company that does nothing to protect itself in this case. I have reported one seller (her designers aren't even "inspired" they are literally swiped and scanned images) inparticular to them over and over for a year and nothing has changed. I gave up assuming they don't give a crap.

And reporting it to Creative Memories is BS too. Again, it isn't going to change their bottom line unless the designer is actually using Disney images. A couple Mickey ears here and there isn't going to matter.

Anonymous said...

http://rlrcreations.blogspot.com/

I've emailed Disney about ^her many times and she just keeps getting awway with it.

I agree that Disney doesn't give a crap. If they won't do something about that, I seriously doubt that they will do anything about a red, black, and yellow kit.

Anonymous said...

^^^^
WOW! I almost looks like someone who would have a licence. It is REALLY Disney stuff... not even inspired!

Anonymous said...

^^^^
WOW! I almost looks like someone who would have a licence. It is REALLY Disney stuff... not even inspired!
December 21, 2010 8:53 AM

-----

She doesn't have a license. There is no way that I one person operation selling kits for under $5 is going to be able to afford the license. The images are crappy 72dpi converted to 300. Grainy and crappy. She steals from other designers as well to fill the kits.

Anonymous said...

Oh, i didn't mean that she HAD a licence, but she has so much of Disney that it LOOKS (at first glance in the store) that she does. It is not even discrete, it is obvious.

Anonymous said...

blogger keeps eating my comments? is there something wrong with it today or is it because I commented on the pirate's blog and she reported me as a spammer?

Anonymous said...

Dumbo? Mmkay. Anyway, Dumbo, Jr., (hey, it's your word.) s/he was originally criticizing someone for spelling lazy with an "s." This would make her not British. So for the purposes of making this short and sweet, we here in the good 'ol US of A, spell criticize with a "z."

Do try and read a bit and keep up. It's making you look lasy&#8482.

December 21, 2010 6:57 AM
--------

OMG, thanks for the laugh!!! You really are a dumbo. Lazy is spelled with a "z" the world over in any variation of English, even British.

OMG, still laughing. Lazy with an 's', hahahahahahahahahaha.

Anonymous said...

LOL LOL LOL

I criticised her for spelling "laZy" as "laSy". laZy is spelled with a Z in all countries. American, English - it's a Z and never has been an S.

Get with the program people! LOL

Anonymous said...

I can't stop coming here today and laughing at anyone thinking that the Brit spelling of lazy is with an 's'.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, it's as stupid as the people who think kangaroos actually hop around the city streets LOL

Anonymous said...

^^ Actually, they do in Canberra, sometimes. Poor things always look so lost and scared, though.

Anonymous said...

Yeah well Canberra isn't exactly very big and I can understand the occasional roo there but you sure don't see them hopping up and down Sydney or Melbourne streets like some ill informed people think lol

Anonymous said...

________________________________
Yeah, it was sarcasm. If you look up the characters &#8482, it is supposed to make a superscript TM. It didn't work here but even without it, I was OBVIOUSLY misspelling it on purpose. Seriously, are you that stupid?

And I wasn't the one who originally spelled laZY with an "s." I was laughing at the person who was knocking the person who did but then misspelled another word.

wut a stoopid conversashun. For the slow ones in the group, I misspelled those ON PURPOSE. I wouldn't want to be called Dumbo again. (My ears aren't big, anyway.)

Anonymous said...

Have you guys seen this thread? what a fiasco....

http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/scrap-talk-65/ct-members-selling-kits-their-designer-264279/

Anonymous said...

Have you guys seen this thread? what a fiasco....

http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/scrap-talk-65/ct-members-selling-kits-their-designer-264279/

^^^
That's ridiculous - and totally unfair to designers. Some people are just jerks.

Anonymous said...

looks like one of them is "innocent".....but the other ones that are accused keep chiming in - - good grief.

Anonymous said...

Copyright infringement much?

http://photoshop-mumy.blogspot.com/2010/12/calendario-toy-story.html

Anonymous said...

Have you guys seen this thread? what a fiasco....

http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/scrap-talk-65/ct-members-selling-kits-their-designer-264279/


One thing I'm certain. That Janey person can't possibly be a flight attendant like she claims to be. Her English is not much better than google translate!

Anonymous said...

Her French is no better either!

Anonymous said...

Copyright infringement much?

http://photoshop-mumy.blogspot.com/2010/12/calendario-toy-story.html
^^^^^^^
Check the other calendars on that blog! All copyrighted or trademarked.

Anonymous said...

Well, at least she isn't selling it and making profit off of it. Disney turns there back on that type of stuff for the most part. There are sites that have been around for years that offer free Disney Clipart and they haven't been shut down.

Anonymous said...

All that piracy stuff is giving me a headache-- trying to comprehend the broken English. I gave up.

Anonymous said...

this blog owner must be associated with WWW.RLEEROUSH.NET

every time I post something about her Terms of Use it gets deleted????

I've posted other things today and they haven't been deleted?

Anonymous said...

I saw your post just before it's gone.

Comments have been known to disappear here often, though. I don't think the blog owner keeps monitoring and deleting them. Because "normal" posts are lost just as often as those "dangerous" ones. It might be a blogger bug (everyone knows they have a whole lot of them) or maybe the post has a keyword that the program (or the blog owner) pre-identified as spam.

Anonymous said...

ok, maybe not because that post hasn't been deleted. I would assume if the blogger owner is deleting them manually to censor, she would have cut that one out. That is very weird.

Since it won't let me post her terms of use without deleting the post. Go here and read the pirate's TOU: http://www.rleeroush.net/DigitalFAQ.htm

What a freakin' hypocrite!!!! She can steal from Disney and redistribute but the people that buy from her can't do the same? Even though she got all of her images off the internet to begin with. She's ripping people off.

Anonymous said...

has a keyword that the program (or the blog owner) pre-identified as spam.
December 22, 2010 1:31 PM
---

I posted the same thing a few times yesterday. Every time it disappears. I think this is a possibility.

So the blog owner is probably not associated with the site listed above. This is a retraction.

Anonymous said...

And I wasn't the one who originally spelled laZY with an "s." I was laughing at the person who was knocking the person who did but then misspelled another word.
--------

But she never misspelled that word.

Anonymous said...

For the slow ones in the group,
--------

You know, every time yo say that, you make yourself look less credible. You 'dun' goofed, admit it and laugh.

Anonymous said...

One thing I'm certain. That Janey person can't possibly be a flight attendant like she claims to be. Her English is not much better than google translate!

December 22, 2010 12:37 PM
-------

What a silly thing to say. I wasn't aware that being fluent in written languages was a requirement for being a flight attendant. Also, she may only be a domestic flight attendant.

Just because her written language is questionable, doesn't mean her spoken language is. I can't write in German at all, but I speak it fluently and I can read it well enough.

Anonymous said...

If you are fluent in a language, you might make spelling errors, but not in the order/choice of words. Also, she mentions being a flight attendant, as an explanation for being in France, Germany and China. Not very domestic!

Anonymous said...

I just read the thread and now I have a headache. I had to laugh at DutchDiva though. She dissed Janey for her crap "spoken" English and French (yeah, coz I can hear every word) and then she proceeds to 'speak' crap German.

Anonymous said...

If you are fluent in a language, you might make spelling errors, but not in the order/choice of words.
--------------

Possibly, like I said before, I speak fluent German but get me to write something down and it would be terrible. I can read it though. I can also read Italian and French, but don't understand it that well when spoken (too many different accents I guess).

I hadn't got to the part about her being in France, Germany and China when I wrote my original post, so apologies on that score.

Anonymous said...

s/he was originally criticizing someone for spelling lazy with an "s." This would make her not British.
----------

Um, say what? How do you figure that?

Anonymous said...

About the lasy-lazy thing, people, just let it go already!!!

Anonymous said...

And I wasn't the one who originally spelled laZY with an "s." I was laughing at the person who was knocking the person who did but then misspelled another word.

^^^^^

You STILL don't get it??? You mocked her for misspelling the word 'criticise' when she DID NOT.

It's not even about the fucking spelling anymore, but you keep defending yourself when you were totally in the wrong, and that's annoying. People keep pointing out to you why you were wrong and you keep saying 'but she misspelled a word' and are really condescending about it.

It's funny when people dumb as wood tell other people to 'try to keep up.'

Anonymous said...

It's not funny when people argue about stupid crap like spelling on a smack blog.

Drop it and grow up.

Anonymous said...

So....notice anything interesting about the ho's?

http://www.the-lilypad.com/store/product.php?productid=4676&cat=0&page=1

http://creativemundi.com.br/blog/?p=3009

Anonymous said...

It's not funny when people argue about stupid crap like spelling on a smack blog.

Drop it and grow up.

^^^^

Did you read? I said it's NOT about the fucking spelling.

Anonymous said...

Ok
I have a question. What is the deal with royanna fritschmann? I have noticed that she is one of the most bashed people around here. But I just saw her entire shop on sale for $15.oo. It looks like a great bargain. Any reason why I shouldnt buy it?
Thanks

Anonymous said...

It's not funny when people argue about stupid crap like spelling on a smack blog.

Drop it and grow up.

December 22, 2010 11:33 PM

-------

Grow up? Did you really say that?

Anonymous said...

Did you read? I said it's NOT about the fucking spelling.
December 22, 2010 11:44 PM

----

Yes, I did read it.

And you keep defending yourself over this stupid topic as well. We get it.

You win.

Now MOVE ON!

Anonymous said...

So....notice anything interesting about the ho's?

http://www.the-lilypad.com/store/product.php?productid=4676&cat=0&page=1

http://creativemundi.com.br/blog/?p=3009


Nothing interesting there. Most probably both designers bought the same CU product, that's all.
I saw a whole lot of CU stuff in both kits. I mean, A LOT.
Seen these same shapes/doodles/santa in a few other Christmas kits already. Ugh!

Anonymous said...

So....notice anything interesting about the ho's?

http://www.the-lilypad.com/store/product.php?productid=4676&cat=0&page=1

http://creativemundi.com.br/blog/?p=3009

December 22, 2010 11:39 PM

-------

Good old CU, gotta love it.

Anonymous said...

Grow up? Did you really say that?
December 23, 2010 12:25 AM


No, I typed it.

I know this blog is immature, but it's hit an all time low at this point. It reminds me of my children bickering over petty topics.

Anonymous said...

Now MOVE ON!

December 23, 2010 12:27 AM
-------

Why should she? Because you don't like it? Too bad.

Anonymous said...

I know this blog is immature, but it's hit an all time low at this point. It reminds me of my children bickering over petty topics.

December 23, 2010 12:29 AM

------------

Yep, and you keep contributing to it as well, just like your kids.

I know I am too, but I'm sick to death over copyright violations so I'm just egging it on.

Anonymous said...

Why should she? Because you don't like it? Too bad.
December 23, 2010 12:31 AM


Do you like the bickering over spelling? Seriously?

My guess is you just like to argue for argument's sake.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I did read it.

And you keep defending yourself over this stupid topic as well. We get it.

You win.

Now MOVE ON!

^^^^

Wrong. I only posted today - I am not the same person who made the argument yesterday or the day before. I suspect a few people did it, but dumb as boards person who mocked the brit spelling of criticise still didn't get it.

I am not defending myself at all. Where the fuck did that come from?

If you don't like it, maybe you are the one who should move on.

Anonymous said...

Who the fuck cares if it's immature? Why are you still here if it bugs you so much? Maybe you should go find something that's a copyright violation so you can link it for us and we can all talk about how wrong it is.

Anonymous said...

^I already did. It got burried in the stupid spelling comments.

But people are more interested in arguing about spelling on a DIGITAL SCRAPBOOKING SMACK BLOG?

As I said. It's an all time low.

Anonymous said...

Why are you still here if it bugs you so much?
------------

Because usually we are talking about digital scrapbooking. Excuse me for being confused and thinking that a post title "Digital Scrapbook Day" would indicate a discussion around Digital Scrapbooking and not spelling.

Anonymous said...

Yes you are very confused if you think that the smack blog has comments that actually pertain to the post.

Anonymous said...

I know it gets off topic. But 3 days of the shitty spelling topic? Seriously?

Anonymous said...

Yep. DST no longer censors so there isn't much use for this board. All the drama is right there in the forums!

Anonymous said...

I know it gets off topic. But 3 days of the shitty spelling topic? Seriously?


-------

And what have you contributed?

Anonymous said...

a lot. If you can read between the crappy spelling comments.

Anonymous said...

But people are more interested in arguing about spelling on a DIGITAL SCRAPBOOKING SMACK BLOG?

---------

It's not a DIGITAL SCRAPBOOKING SMACK BLOG, it's a blog about DST, or it used to be.

Besides, spelling is very important in word art, so it is relevant.

Anonymous said...

a lot. If you can read between the crappy spelling comments.

December 23, 2010 1:02 AM

------

oh, the Disney stuff? Yet again? Puhleez. That's even more boring.

Anonymous said...

And what have you contributed?
December 23, 2010 1:01 AM


This is one of those lame responses that people use when there is nothing else left in an argument.

Deflection. You may need to look it up.

Anonymous said...

Besides, spelling is very important in word art, so it is relevant.
December 23, 2010 1:02 AM
......

The spelling problem wasn't in word art.

Anonymous said...

topics on this page:

1- Disney copyright shit
2- Royanna
3- arrogant American laughing at a Brit for 'misspelling' a word that wasn't misspelled


Seems like a no brainer to me.

Anonymous said...

^^^^^^^^^

I think you should move on, seriously.

Anonymous said...

Deflection. You may need to look it up.

December 23, 2010 1:05 AM

-----

Bitch, you may need to look that up.

Anonymous said...

This is one of those lame responses that people use when there is nothing else left in an argument.

Deflection. You may need to look it up.

December 23, 2010 1:05 AM

-----

Yeah, coz this is so much more intelligent *rolls eyes*

Anonymous said...

Move on from what? From wasting time on the smack blog? Why do you need to keep telling me that - I'm here to waste time. I don't need to go anywhere.

Anonymous said...

Bitch, you may need to look that up

----

I know what it means.

And there is more of it.

Anonymous said...

Besides, spelling is very important in word art, so it is relevant.
December 23, 2010 1:02 AM
......

The spelling problem wasn't in word art.

December 23, 2010 1:07 AM
-------

Are you still here?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, coz this is so much more intelligent *rolls eyes*


---

Again. Lame.

Anonymous said...

For fuck sakes, you are so judgmental telling everyone else they are 'lame' and 'immature' and 'deflecting' when you are doing the same damn thing. Get the fuck over yourself.

Anonymous said...

Oh, you are so mean and make me want to cry. boo hoo.

Lame.

Anonymous said...

Yes, you are lame.

Anonymous said...

wow! you must really have problems to get so messed up over being called lame.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, coz this is so much more intelligent *rolls eyes*


---

Again. Lame.

December 23, 2010 1:14 AM

------------

Well, master of non lameness in her own mind, show me better.

Anonymous said...

It would be lame to try to undo the lameness above.

Anonymous said...

Again. Lame.

December 23, 2010 1:14 AM

----

Honey, until you can show me that you will understand something else, I'm not going to bother. I don't want to exclude you.

Anonymous said...

It would be lame to try to undo the lameness above.

December 23, 2010 1:33 AM
--------------

Fer sure.

Anonymous said...

Honey, until you can show me that you will understand something else, I'm not going to bother. I don't want to exclude you.
December 23, 2010 1:33 AM


----

In other words, YOU GOT NOTHIN' so you're just making it up.

Anonymous said...

It would be lame to try to undo the lameness above.

December 23, 2010 1:33 AM
--------------

Fer sure.
December 23, 2010 1:34 AM
----

LMAO!!!!

Anonymous said...

I'll be back in a few days. Hope you two are still at it. :) Have fun!

Anonymous said...

I'll be back in a few days. Hope you two are still at it. :) Have fun!
December 23, 2010 1:54 AM


---------------

aw, you're just too lasy to check in.

Anonymous said...

In other words, YOU GOT NOTHIN' so you're just making it up.

December 23, 2010 1:39 AM
----------

Lame!

Anonymous said...

so boring here...

Anonymous said...

http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/scrap-talk-65/ct-members-selling-kits-their-designer-264279/index16.html

Such a circus.

Elo was accusing a bunch of people of being pirates. When it started to look as if maybe only one or two people are actually involved in selling the kits, Elo refused to listen and tried to delete the whole thread.

I feel bad for those who are not fluent in English, really. (It's not my first language either.) It must be hard for them to defend themselves, if they're really innocent. (Or, most probably, just MORE innocent than others.) Since when it is fair to treat them as guilty until proven innocent?

Anonymous said...

With so many new comments since yesterday I was sure there was a new big scandal going on. Now I'm disappointed.

Anonymous said...

Since when it is fair to treat them as guilty until proven innocent?
^^^^^^
This is true, but at the same time, would an employer risk his money if they were given circumstantial (sp?) evidence one employee was stealing from them? I think that temporarily suspending the suspected employee during investigation would be fair. Firing the employee without proof would be unfair, keeping a suspected employee in position to continue stealing would be stupid. So, what to do? It is obviously not black and white.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the designers or store owners have access to private information, like their CT IPs to compare if any of them are "one and the same person"?

Anonymous said...

Yes, they can easily compare IPs. I don't log onto this blog from my home store, or any scrap site. I go to a Google screen first.

Carina Gardner sure thinks highly of herself! The smallest kits at the biggest prices - this at Jessica Sprague.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

so boring here...

December 23, 2010 4:53 AM

-----------

Thanks for playing!

Anonymous said...

Carina Gardner sure thinks highly of herself! The smallest kits at the biggest prices - this at Jessica Sprague.

^^^^^

Maybe because she has paper and fabric lines as well?

So is that what JessicaSprague's digital designer training is? Here's how to use illustrator to make papers and rub-on/stamps/brushes/stickers. Now you are certified.

Anonymous said...

Merry Christmas fellow smack blog hags!!

Anonymous said...

The graduates from the Sprague Digital Designer Certified Training Class had a blog train last month and if the class cost more than $5.00 they got ripped off.

Anonymous said...

$325

Anonymous said...

"Yes, they can easily compare IPs. I don't log onto this blog from my home store, or any scrap site. I go to a Google screen first."

----------------------------------------------------------

You are really that concerned to have someone find out you post here? First they would only have your IP address, then they would have to give it out to stores so they could compare to match it to data you have on their server.

I really doubt anyone is that concerned you post here. Plus what are they going to do about it? Ban you from buying anything from their store?

It makes me laugh how concerned people are about posting here. God forbid you tarnish that stellar digi reputation!

Anonymous said...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Then how come you are still posting as "anonymous"?

Anonymous said...

^^^^^

Not the OP, but that is just a ridiculous comment. I post as anon because it's easier.

Anonymous said...

Because it's easier?? Yeah right.

Anonymous said...

It is. I don't have a google account. You believe whatever you want to believe.

I can sign my name, but what does that prove? Nothing except I can write any name I want.

Anonymous said...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Then how come you are still posting as "anonymous"?

December 24, 2010 2:21 PM

----------

Duh! Posting as anonymous is completely different from logging in from another screen etc. That indicates paranoia.

I'm constantly amazed at how stupid some people are.

Anonymous said...

I thought people (store owners) could trace not only where one came from (what URL) but also where (URL) one goes next.

Anonymous said...

^^^^

On that note, can I just say, Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Seasons Greetings etc, whatever the heck you celebrate, have a wonderful one!!!

Anonymous said...

Then how come you are still posting as "anonymous"?

-----------------------------------------------

For one that is different than taking preventative measures to make sure people can't track you down. You are being PARANOID!

I don't have a blogger or google account nor am I going to set one up. Plus I could give a damn if you know who I am. I don't hang out at DST and I am not worried about losing my perfect internet reputation with them if for some reason, gasp! they find out I post here.

Anonymous said...

http://www.gottapixel.net/store/product.php?productid=31237

Talk about blatant copyright violations

Anonymous said...

Nope, but I think it is an excellent interpretation! You get the idea that it's a Spiderman kit without one actual Spiderman image, with the exception of her kid in his costume. Then again, it does not say spiderman anywhere on the costume either. I think she did a great job.

Anonymous said...

I agree - I thought that at the start - but it looks like it may actually be "inspired" by rather than copyright.

Anonymous said...

http://www.gottapixel.net/store/product.php?productid=31237

Talk about blatant copyright violations

December 26, 2010 3:34 PM
-------

Er, no. It's neither blatant nor a violation.

Anonymous said...

Well the one word art has “spider-man” and the spider on one of the brads is the actual spider-man spider, as well as the brad with the mask which is from the spider-man costume, then she has the kid in the costume so how is it not a violation, shes obviously associating the kit to spider-man. Just asking because I am confused with this...

Anonymous said...

She's not selling the kid in the costume. Yes, she is associating the kit with Spiderman, but that itself is not a copyright violation. I'll grant you the two brads and the word art.

Anonymous said...

I wasn't aware you could copyright a spider. Or a shape that looks like a mask. Does that mean no one can ever make a spider again? Or a mask? (That was sarcasm.)

Anonymous said...

Not what i mean, this is obviously a spider man theme kit, it has the colors, the name etc, no I am sure the spider or mask alone would not be a problem but come on, shes using the costume to promote and associate with the kit. I think Marvel comics would not allow that, but then again I don't know, I am discussing it, no need for sarcasm.

Anonymous said...

Considering Marvel is now owned by Disney it is another Disney Copyright Violation. She does use a key phrase in her word-art. This is just as bad as the Mickey ears posted above.

Anonymous said...

Did you report it? but honestly, Disney doesn't give a crap! They probably can't do anything with inpsired kits. A spider on a web is not a copyright/trademark violation.

Anonymous said...

shes using the costume to promote and associate with the kit.
-----

So? She bought the costume, she's not selling it. Using it to promote the kit is not a copyright or trademark violation.

«Oldest ‹Older   801 – 1000 of 1198   Newer› Newest»