Lots of people were bragging here after iNSD. Remember the chick who said she made thousands?
May 24, 2011 8:32 PM _______
No one here was bragging after iNSD. Someone asked how much people made during the sale, and several people answered. That's not bragging.
I have been fortunate not to have had the displeasure of associating with people who've have felt the need to brag to about how much they make. I think that is a pretty tacky and insensitive thing to do.
She was bragging about making $380.00 for iNSD? Bragging? Are you sure she wasn't complaining? When I come here I feel like I am in an alternate universe, but I do agree - bring it to the smack blog if you want an honest answer because at DST there aren't any.
On the other hand, Alyssa, you are way too smart for this - I read on your blog you are graduating college at age 20 with a young child and a new fiancee couldn't have been easy.
On the other hand, Alyssa, you are way too smart for this - I read on your blog you are graduating college at age 20 with a young child and a new fiancee couldn't have been easy
---------- I'll be 21 when I graduate. I go 21 on June 7. Really I'm just graduating a semester ahead of other people I graduated highschool with in 2008. My original graduation date is May 2012 but thanks to summer semester classes I'm taking I'll be done in December.
^^^ Not surprising, IMO. Miss Tiina hasn't ever struck me as someone who would put up with a lot of bullshit like this. I know she gets raked over the coals here at this blog all time time (still not sure exactly why?), but glad to see that she kicked Shilo to the curb. Curious to see if the other shop owners follow suit.
I have one thing to say. I work for Tina and she has been the nicest, most helpful, most generous store owner I've seen yet. She is very professional, extremely good at marketing and really is genuinely nice. And no.. this isn't her posting. :D
Tina was the most helpful person in this situation! The other store owner not so much. So I'm very grateful to Tina for helping me get the answers I needed and now (even though its very slow) the money owed to me.
I agree that Miss Tiina is a very nice person. She also traced copyrighted artwork and sold it as CU. Turns out you can be nice to others, and a dishonest person at the same time.
Tina was the most helpful person in this situation! The other store owner not so much. So I'm very grateful to Tina for helping me get the answers I needed and now (even though its very slow) the money owed to me.
SD
---------------
SD, you're honestly the biggest idiot. I love how you're completely fine with outing the "mystery store owner" now that you've told everyone that it was Shilo all along, when originally you claimed to be acting solely to protect that store owner's identity. Either your credibility just went further down the toilet, or you need to work on getting your story straight.
Blah blah blah. There is no story to get straight. How do you know I was given the okay to make this public now that all parties involved have answers? Stop ASSuming. The only idiot is you.
I agree that Miss Tiina is a very nice person. She also traced copyrighted artwork and sold it as CU. Turns out you can be nice to others, and a dishonest person at the same time. ----------------
I almost can't believe I am going to waste my time on this topic, but I've gotten so tired of the double-standard when it comes to this one. Yes, if I remember correctly, this incident occurred a while back. Nothing like it has happened since, though, right? So we could all assume that it may have been a one-time thing, resulting from an error in judgment or a misunderstanding of what's allowed and what's not. And before you all jump on me for saying that, let's just take a minute to consider all of the other designers out there (many of them very well-known and talented) who routinely scan/photograph/extract all sorts of objects and sell them as CU, even though those items probably carry a copyright. If Michael's or Hobby Lobby or Martha Stewart or whoever else were to file a claim against one of the designers who does/has done this, they'd go down in the same magnificent ball of flames that Miss Tiina did a while back. I don't know her, and have no real opinion of her, but it's kind of hypocritical for any of us to call her "dishonest" due to one incident, when there are hundreds of others out there who have done something similar and the only difference is that they haven't been "caught". If she were still doing that sort of thing (I'm assuming she's not, since we haven't whooped her ass on here in a while?), then we could all call her dishonest. But let's put this into perspective. She may be a great person, and an honest person, who made one mistake and learned from it and moved on. Or she may be a reckless thieving fool. I have no idea, but I do think it's off-base to call her dishonest when most of her other actions (including this Shilo deal) seem to be pretty decent.
She obviously misunderstood something and like said.. has never done anything like it since. Her patterns and vectors are still cute, she has her own style and I say GOOD FOR HER. If anything she handled all that mess with a huge degree of class. She did what was *right* and has done better for it. I'd like to see one person on this little flame blog who hasn't made a mistake. I'm sure some of them have been *huge* mistakes. I think it is easy to point the finger the other direction to get attention off your own faults.. but that is my opinion.
Lol. How am I a backstabber? Because I chose to confront someone who I trusted and was friends with that I thought was stealing from me and she WAS? Wow. I guess that if you're friends with someone you have to just LET them steal from you. News to me.
So basically what you are saying 1:02 PM, is that because other people have scanned and sold copyrighted items as CU, their actions exonerate Miss Tiina who pursefully traced someone else's art and sold it to other designers for commercial use? That seems like fairly twisted logic to me.
I do agree with you that people can change and become better people. And I hope that Miss Tiina has changed. She really does seem like a nice person, and I'd love to believe that she is honest with her designs now. I would purchase items from another designer at her store without a second thought. However, I would never personally buy her designs or trust her again. Once bitten...
SD I see you took the advice of anonymous posters and changed your blog...that sure of yourself, eh? ------
Oh come on now... she has a completely NEW blog design up. It would be one thing if it was the same one with a different picture now there are two.. both showing her nice breasticles so give the kid a break! LOL
Wow, Demo loves the attention so much that it seems she is sitting at her computer refreshing the smack blog all day. ------ Nope. I'm on my phone. Haha
So basically what you are saying 1:02 PM, is that because other people have scanned and sold copyrighted items as CU, their actions exonerate Miss Tiina who pursefully traced someone else's art and sold it to other designers for commercial use? That seems like fairly twisted logic to me. ------ Not to put words into someone else's mouth, but I don't think OP at 1:02 ever said that Miss Tiina should be exonerated for her actions, but just that it's wrong to constantly bash her for it when nobody else is receiving the same bashing while still doing basically the same thing. I completely agree, because all those others are still doing it! even though her experience should have served as a lesson to all. Makes it seem as though everyone else is doing it even more purposefully than she did that one time. So maybe you should let it go already.
Oh come on now... she has a completely NEW blog design up. It would be one thing if it was the same one with a different picture now there are two.. both showing her nice breasticles so give the kid a break! LOL
------- The bigger one doesn't show my boobs that much lol.
The one from the old blog design, I was pregnant. My son is a year old now. It was time for an updated picture. These ones are more recent!
I put my kits at the top so you don't have to scroll too far to see I'm not selling my boobs. :)
OMG if there were a way for me to hack into this blog and block Studio Demo from posting here, I'd do it. Enough already, please, you self-absorbed nitwit! I've never seen anyone post so many times as themselves within a 24 hour period. The rest of us are ready to move on to smacking around someone else, and you should *welcome* the fact that we're done with you. But you keep coming back for more. Why? (p.s. that last question is rhetorical, so please go away and don't feel compelled to answer it...)
MG if there were a way for me to hack into this blog and block Studio Demo from posting here, I'd do it. Enough already, please, you self-absorbed nitwit! I've never seen anyone post so many times as themselves within a 24 hour period. The rest of us are ready to move on to smacking around someone else, and you should *welcome* the fact that we're done with you. But you keep coming back for more. Why? (p.s. that last question is rhetorical, so please go away and don't feel compelled to answer it...
Someone else bought up my boobs. =/ --------- They 'bought' them up?! Really? Where... from your blog?! ha ha ha ha ha LOL this site just gets funnier and funnier every day.
I vote we let Demo stay so she can keep being moronic. With every keystroke, she takes herself further and further out of contention for anything she might want to do to expand her business in this industry. Having her around here is actually helping thin out the competition for everyone else.
Yeah really, Demo. Take your boobs and get back to being a wannabe designer.
PS- I thought you blamed your skanky attire on being on some tropical island? Your blog states that you're in Boston. ----------- Bermuda is far from being "tropical". I was in college in Boston until I came back home after my son was born. A lot of my family lives out there.
I vote we let Demo stay so she can keep being moronic. With every keystroke, she takes herself further and further out of contention for anything she might want to do to expand her business in this industry. Having her around here is actually helping thin out the competition for everyone else.
------- I'm more worried about getting my degree than expanding in this "industry". :)
------- Nope. I'm studying to be a language teacher... French and spanish.
I'm just at the point where I don't care about you alls stupid little "industry standards". If people chose not to buy from me based on things I say, that's their choice. I'll always have customers & fans. I'm not going to stop designing until I'm ready to. I'm not begging anyone sales. :)
You'll have fans until your fans venture out and see that there is more out there. You don't have anything special to offer that can't be found in other stores.
Miss Tina's mistake wasn't a one time thing. The only problem was that when it all was found out about her copying of other works, she was the hot cheap CU go to and the truth was hidden. Bigger designers didn't want to bring the light about because they had affairs with Tina or was using her stuff. And the effects of her outsting would have been a tad big.
Secondly, one of the biggest reasons most of it was all hush hush was because the person that found out about the use of copyrighted images handled it in a professional and quiet way. Which is commendable, but it ended up letting everything get swept under for Miss Tina and no one being any wiser. Products were pulled quietly and none of the customers were contacted about the images. No one had a clue, because she just started pulling other products she had copied before they too could be found out about and brought to public light. I know of 4 different products that Miss Tina sold as CU that were rip offs, 3 being from stock image sites. It was only in one product that she offered to make it right by sending out some crappy replacement image. Also three of those incidents came a good deal of time after being caught with the first rip off which happened to have been doodles that were from an IKEA line. So no, Miss Tina is not a oops I didn't know about it case. She is a repeat offender that simply got away with it, and all was swept under the rug. So yes, while she might have a good customer service persona for everyone. She is not honest. And she has a reputation that will follow regardless of what happens. Especially when she creates CU items that could easily have an effect on several other designers and their products
All the more reason to make your own items. Any characters, themed elements, etc. that could be copied off of other drawings. Play it safe and be a real artist.
I never use CU and I'm still totally tired of hearing that argument. Some people use CU as a tool. Most artists/trades/businesses use tools developed by someone else to create their product. Get over it.
I never use CU and I'm still totally tired of hearing that argument. Some people use CU as a tool. Most artists/trades/businesses use tools developed by someone else to create their product. Get over it.
May 25, 2011 5:40 PM
Used as tools, fine. Using templates for characters, frames, banners...completely different story. If you can't create it, accept that and stick with what you can create. Don't use element templates created by someone else. If you can modify it enough that it isn't the same thing you started with, good for you. But a lot of "designers" simply recolor, toss a blurry overlay on it and call it art.
What really gets me is all the CU ISO threads at DST. Basically admitting that they have no talent and can't make these things themselves.
Who cares if they are just recoloring it?? How does it change your life one way or the other? Don't buy their product if you don't like it.
Some people might enjoy creating a kit just because they like putting together a swatch and theme and arranging something that they find appealing? Why can't they use CU to do that? Who does it hurt?
Used as tools, fine. Using templates for characters, frames, banners...completely different story. If you can't create it, accept that and stick with what you can create. Don't use element templates created by someone else. If you can modify it enough that it isn't the same thing you started with, good for you. But a lot of "designers" simply recolor, toss a blurry overlay on it and call it art.
_________________________________
I'm getting really tired of hearing this argument. Most customers don't care if the product is a template or CU. If it's pretty or they like the colors or theme, they buy it.
ou'll have fans until your fans venture out and see that there is more out there. You don't have anything special to offer that can't be found in other stores.
------ *Yawns* and that's their choice. I'm not going to get upset over it. :)
but just that it's wrong to constantly bash her for it when nobody else is receiving the same bashing while still doing basically the same thing. -----------
First off, she's not being constantly bashed. Secondly, others who have been outed for doing the same or similar things are also brought up just as 'constantly'. And thirdly, it was more than a one time 'mistake'. If I remember correctly, it was a least a three time 'mistake'.
I was just reading on Miss Tiina's blog that she has been in the biz for 15 years. You can't tell me that after 15 years she didn't have a clear understanding of copy right!
I am really tired of hearing "I made a mistake" or "there was a misunderstanding" excuses. It ranks right up there with "No, I didn't have sex with her". How stupid do you think we are?
I never use CU and I'm still totally tired of hearing that argument. Some people use CU as a tool. Most artists/trades/businesses use tools developed by someone else to create their product. Get over it. ---------------------------------- Yes but if I buy a tool in my business I make an *assumption* that the person I bought it from had a legal right to sell it.
I would not continue to buy from someone who sold me stolen merchandise in the past. Why, when there are so many other option available?
I think whoever is baiting SD is getting as much thrill out of it as SD is. But I am totally bored it. The bickering is reminding me of my children and I do not come to this blog to be reminded of my children.
I'd rather here that then the same tired old CU argument... especially since it has been established that most customers do not care what CU a designer uses as long as they like the end result.
I never use CU and I'm still totally tired of hearing that argument. Some people use CU as a tool. Most artists/trades/businesses use tools developed by someone else to create their product. Get over it. ---------------------------------- Yes but if I buy a tool in my business I make an *assumption* that the person I bought it from had a legal right to sell it.
I would not continue to buy from someone who sold me stolen merchandise in the past. Why, when there are so many other option available?
_________
Um...yeah, smart move not to buy from someone who has sold you stolen merchandise before. You are one savy person for certain! However, the comment you are replying to never said that you should do that. It was simply a statement that the argument about never using CU is getting old.
I think whoever is baiting SD is getting as much thrill out of it as SD is. But I am totally bored it. The bickering is reminding me of my children and I do not come to this blog to be reminded of my children ---------- Well don't come here for a while. Its probably shilo
I was just reading on Miss Tiina's blog that she has been in the biz for 15 years. You can't tell me that after 15 years she didn't have a clear understanding of copy right! *******
OK, I just visited her blog too, and you might want to get your eyes checked. It says very clearly that she's only been a digital scrapbook designer since 2005 (which, I may be rusty on my math, was only 6 years ago). Her reference to 15 years only had to do with how long ago she apparently taught herself how to design graphics/web sites. Now, that still doesn't excuse her from violating someone's copyright. But since we all know this happened a couple of years ago, and the items in question were probably created even before that, it's obviously possible that she made this stuff during her first year or two of designing, before she'd "been in the biz long enough" (your phrase, not mine) to have learned what is acceptable and what isn't. Besides I also disagree completely with whoever said above that it wasn't a one-time deal. Seems to me that it was multiple items, yes, but not something that happened over and over and over. So whether it was one item or ten, if it happened all at one basic time, it was one occurrence. It's not like she got caught once, did it again, got caught again, did it yet again, got caught again, did it again, etc. etc. That’s my view, anyway.
^^^^^^ You'd be wrong. It didn't happen all at once. The frog and kawaii characters happened at about the same time. After that incident was found out, the IKEA doodle debacle came up.
here is another picture of her boobies from her other blog she just likes showing them off alot and she also has the same white lace shirt I think she def needs more sales so she can get a different one!!! LOL This one says she's from Boston also the other one she already changed it maybe she dreams of living in bermuda but really does live in boston... sighhhh poor girl she's so confused!! http://scrappinangelaly.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-09-17T03%3A52%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=7
here is another picture of her boobies from her other blog she just likes showing them off alot and she also has the same white lace shirt I think she def needs more sales so she can get a different one!!! --------------
You'd be wrong. It didn't happen all at once. The frog and kawaii characters happened at about the same time. After that incident was found out, the IKEA doodle debacle came up. _______________
This was all in the same basic time frame, was it not? Not like it was separated by a year or something...
May 25, 2011 10:10 PM ----------------------- LOL OMGAWSHHHH say it isn't so... Really she's only been mentioned on the last 2 pages or so stalker I'm not not creepy maybe yeah sometimes, LOL
I think we have moved on from SD..why are you still bringing it up?
May 25, 2011 10:06 PM -------------------------- ummm because I can do whatever I want just like you can say whatever you want... Freedom of speech and all that jazzy stuff!
No, it was not. The frog and kawaii stuff was well and truly over when the doodle saga came about.
May 25, 2011 10:17 PM ---------------------------------
Not that it matters much, but it was actually vice versa. The doodle incident was before, like 5-6 months at least before. Only the doodles went completely under the rug and was not publicly outted. They were only brought to light shortly after the frog incident to prove the fact that Miss Tina was not mistakenly taking images.
here is another picture of her boobies from her other blog she just likes showing them off alot and she also has the same white lace shirt I think she def needs more sales so she can get a different one!!! LOL This one says she's from Boston also the other one she already changed it maybe she dreams of living in bermuda but really does live in boston... sighhhh poor girl she's so confused!! http://scrappinangelaly.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-09-17T03%3A52%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=7 ----------- Lol wow. That is stalkerish. Why are you so obsessed with me? Same white top? Nope. Lol. That was kind of lame. And only if you could hear me talk you'll see just how Bermudian I am. Lol. Besides. Anyone who "dreams" of living here is a fool. I'm so ready to go back to Boston.
By the way, I've just had the time to go back and read the comments from yesterday. Those last two comments were mine. The other ones from yesterday, no. It seems someone knows a lot about me. *cough*Shilo*cough*. If "I'm" not posting from my name, its probably not me as anyone can sign something "SD" (especially if their initials are the same). Also, I've already said that if I wanted to post, I'm not going to hide behind anonymity.
I understand this is a smack blog but I would appreciate it if you stopped bringing me up since I've done nothing "smack worthy" but bring forward a thief which I'm starting to think was a HUGE mistake. It seems you only went at me because Shilo didn't come here to defend herself and I was the only one you could take it out on and that's really not fair. And yes, I know life is not fair but, I thought that the same women who called me immature, would be the ones who were mature in this situation but, taking your frustrations with Shilo out on me, is not mature at all.
I should have just kept quiet and continue to let people collab with her and let her steal from them too. But what's done is done. I didn't know pretending to be someone on a blog was what grown women did in their free time. I'm trying to get past this and being constantly talked about here for irrelevant and envious reasons (such as my body) is not helping. Neither is someone pretending to be me.
So please just stop. If you aren't a fan of mine and you don't like me for whatever reason, you have no reason to look at my blog. Its simple.
A thief was caught and dealt with so can we please leave this situation behind us.
Demo, all you are doing is feeding the fuel to keep crap circling about you. Stop posting, ignore whats said and we will be able to forget you and your boobs ever existed.
Easy for anyone to pretend to be SD and make it look like she is adding fuel to the fire. Thanks SD for stating, under your name, that YOU are not the one adding to the boring discussion. Now we can hope that if someone tries to impersonate you, that nobody will bite anymore. Time to move to "serious" businesses.
It never stops amazing me how little some of these sites understand about branding. You don't change your look that drastically, it un-does all your branding.
And the odd combination of doodle (the birds) and fantasy (the teacups) is ... well .. odd.
Used as tools, fine. Using templates for characters, frames, banners...completely different story. If you can't create it, accept that and stick with what you can create. Don't use element templates created by someone else. If you can modify it enough that it isn't the same thing you started with, good for you. But a lot of "designers" simply recolor, toss a blurry overlay on it and call it art.
What really gets me is all the CU ISO threads at DST. Basically admitting that they have no talent and can't make these things themselves.
May 25, 2011 5:45 PM -----------------------------------
So what kind of CU products DO most designers (the ones that use CU anyway) use? Papers? Elements? Textures or all of the above? I had no clue since being out of the digi scrap world for awhile, that this was so popular! Seriously do they really use elements and just recolor?
Ribbons extractions, greenery (particularly if they live somewhere where they can't go out in a garden/park and pick their own), layered element templates, some textures if they can't/don't have access to their own.
Ribbons extractions, greenery (particularly if they live somewhere where they can't go out in a garden/park and pick their own), layered element templates, some textures if they can't/don't have access to their own.
May 26, 2011 5:40 PM -----------------------------------
I will use CU for strings, ribbons, buttons, fabric flowers, overlays and fonts.
May 26, 2011 6:13 PM -----------------------------------
hmm...thanks for answering. I was wondering. That doesn't seem too bad to use CU for those items especially if they're changed up. I figured textures would be used, most digital artists use CU textures. I'm guessing that too many designers or wanna be designers are using CU overlays for papers as well as the element templates and NOT changing them. Using them straight out of the box. No wonder people are complaining about lack of originality! Now what about extractions? Are there a lot of extraction services being offered out there? I can see using a GREAT one if I was a designer since a really good extraction takes time...of course I'd want to use someone that was PERFECT with their extractions.
hey people - what is your view on the ethics of using a scanned/photographed object from a paperscrapping company in a digi kit? to me it seems not right, but today I noticed a designer that has been around for a very long time has included a piece of Jolee's Boutique stickers in her new kit. I actually used this item in my paperscrapping days - i checked to make sure and it's exactly the same.
I know exactly who you're talking about. I hesitate to mention her by name because I really love her kits normally. Although when I noticed this, it has really made me think less of the designer. She actually used almost the whole pack of Jolee's Boutique Sand Castles. At least 9 or 10 of the stickers that come in the pack. I would be ashamed to take credit for another artist's creations (that were not bought & paid for, I highly doubt EK Success allowed commerical use of it's products).
It appears to be exactly the same. Which begs an interesting side question - if she recreated it rather than scanning or photographing, would that make a difference?
jeez louise, since the sissies above won't spill, I will.
kit in question: http://www.shabbymissjenndesigns.com/shoppe/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2&products_id=818
closer look at elements in the blog pack: http://www.shabbymissjenndesigns.com/shoppe/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=8&products_id=817
and since I'm lazy and dont feel like searching here is one for sale on ebay: http://cgi.ebay.ca/FUN-BEACH-Sand-Sun-Glasses-Pail-Jolees-Boutique-/260780981641?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_2&hash=item3cb7c1fd89
Yes, maybe she did get permission. We shouldn't assume that she just used them without consulting anyone. Someone in the business as long as her I just don't see her doing that. That, and the items she used are very recognizable. Why would she use without permission when so many people would know they're Jolees?
Wow, I sure hope she DID get permission, seeing as how she's also selling blogwear packages using that kit. !!! IMO that's akin to selling something as CU, because pretty soon everyone on the block will be sporting a Jolee's blog (and then tracing it back to the "original source" is messy, if/when people w/ that blog design start getting complaints from the original artist)! The plot thickens.
I would imagine that if she got permission they would have required her to have some acknowledgement on her packaging. Someone big like Jolee's is not going to give that away without asking for something back.
well looking at them, they are close-- the bag is different (the dots don't match), the ball, sunscreen and others are not the same...i like it is just too close for many peoples comfort..
If you look at the elements they are not identical, so I don't think she scanned the stickers in. I think she recreated them and did a darned good job at that. Is it ok?? I am not an expert in this area so I don't know.
If other companies in competition to Jolee's can make stuff very similar to the actual Jolee's then a designer copying an idea is in the same realm IMHO. If she scanned and copied the Jolee items then she went against Jolee's copyright and I doubt Jolee gives permission as they pay big bucks to other's to use name brand items but one never knows for sure so making assumptions only makes the person an...a...
^^^ I would think that if she purchased them as CU from someone else, that someone else would be listed in the TOU/credits. Judging from what is posted above (if it's in fact accurate), then it would be one of those people. I'm familiar w/ a bunch of their shops (but not all), and don't think any of them carry anything like that.
For anyone that wants to take a closer look: http://postimage.org/gallery/10ohcus94/ They weren't created all digitally because you can see the glue on the pail. She could have made her own by hand.
Someone mentioned the dots being off but you can't judge by that. The stickers are made with real fabric & stitches so each one will look slightly different.
^^^ Yep exactly. When it comes to paper stickers/embellishments they are always slightly different from one another. Never a true carbon copy. But judging from the previews of both, the similarities are far too great for it to not be Jolee
Now question becomes, has anyone contacted either designer about this? Until that is done, we will all just be here on the smack blog speculating. Because whether she scanned and extracted those herself, or bought them CU from someone, the light is on Shabby Miss Jenn.
Here's a better look at the Jolee's stickers. They are virtually identical, with only a few changes by Shabby Miss Jenn. Those few changes lead me to believe that she did not get permission, otherwise, why change them?
the light is on Shabby Miss Jenn. -------------------------------- Well I don't know if anyone will recall but Miss Jenn was one of those who sent Tandika over the edge. Tandika accused Miss Jenn of using one of her tutorials in a magazine and did not credit give her credit. That was when Tandika started banning people from her site and Miss Jenn was one of those banned. Miss Jenn's name was cleared in public because Tandika lost it. But maybe there was more to the story than we know.
I live in the US and around here you are innocent until proven guilty. (although sometimes I think we need to rethink our position on that!) So, before getting in an uproar I would like to hear what Shabby Miss Jenn and Jolee have to say.
the light is on Shabby Miss Jenn. -------------------------------- Well I don't know if anyone will recall but Miss Jenn was one of those who sent Tandika over the edge. Tandika accused Miss Jenn of using one of her tutorials in a magazine and did not credit give her credit. That was when Tandika started banning people from her site and Miss Jenn was one of those banned. Miss Jenn's name was cleared in public because Tandika lost it. But maybe there was more to the story than we know. --------------------------------
Yep I remember, and I can bet that the reason SMJ was easily dismissed was because of her reputation in digiland. But of course then people only were interested in Tandika from it all because of the crazy way she handled everything thing. So that does leave a bit of curiosity to linger now. Things that make ya go hmmmmmmm
The poster who mentioned as a difference the dots on the bag being off place, is a complete idiot. Have you ever tried to cut two identical shapes out of a pattern paper/fabric? To make it clear, the .png bag might not be identical with the photo of the pack on internet, but it is identical with the piece that got scanned/photographed.
So, before getting in an uproar I would like to hear what Shabby Miss Jenn and Jolee have to say. May 27, 2011 10:17 PM ------ Uproar? Compared to other copyright issues that have come up this is one of the most civil discussions I've seen on this blog.
I wonder if SMJ even bothers to check this blog? She may not have a clue that it's been brought up unless someone has actually contacted her directly.
I think EVERYONE needs to read this blog article. Makes a whole lotta sense. Of course there is a science to it.. http://www.austinkleon.com/2011/03/30/how-to-steal-like-an-artist-and-9-other-things-nobody-told-me/
1. The color scheme is different. SMJ's is darker/muddier.
2. The pail, beachball and sunglasses, sunscreen bottle are different. The shapes are different. If you really compare you can see it.
3. The sand castle is different. Although very similar. Jolee's uses glitter. SMJ uses what appears to be sand. The angles are different and the flags are larger.
It is close. But I don't see how this is any different than physical brand knock-offs. I think this industry needs to grow-up and realize that knock-offs will happen and it isn't piracy.
1. The color scheme is different. SMJ's is darker/muddier.
2. The pail, beachball and sunglasses, sunscreen bottle are different. The shapes are different. If you really compare you can see it.
3. The sand castle is different. Although very similar. Jolee's uses glitter. SMJ uses what appears to be sand. The angles are different and the flags are larger.
It is close. But I don't see how this is any different than physical brand knock-offs. I think this industry needs to grow-up and realize that knock-offs will happen and it isn't piracy.
-------
Well I emailed Jolee's legal department and informed them. So I guess they can decide if "knock-offs" are ok with them.
Well I emailed Jolee's legal department and informed them. So I guess they can decide if "knock-offs" are ok with them.
May 28, 2011 11:42 AM ---
The law is clear to those who don't over intrepret like everyone in digiscrap does. Unless it is scanned, copied, or traced it isn't a reproduction. It is altered enough to make it a unique work of art. And those items aren't trademark. (so the Disney arguement doesn't apply in this case.) Add to that that we are in a different industry (physical product vs. digital product), they don't really have a case.
Unless she originally created those elements and Jolee's is paying her to use her designs I don't see how that makes a difference.
May 28, 2011 10:58 AM -----
Disney is not the same thing as scrapbooking or digital scrapbooking. That's like comparing toes to oranges. And we all know that Disney doesn't care what digiscrap does because they NEVER take action. So it doesn't work to even bring up that as an argument.
If she works for Jolee's she may have designed the items herself and got permission to use them in the kit. It just depends on the contract with Jolee's. A number of designers have crossed over into paper. It's a possibility. The other poster may know something everyone else doesn't.
Those items are under a copyright and Jolee's is Trademarked. You trademark symbols, marks, logos, slogans/sayings and the like, not items. Anything you create can be automatically marked with a copyright symbol as well as TM for trademark, though you can't use the R for trademark until you file it. So no they aren't trademarked but they shouldn't be, they are under copyright. I just threw Disney out there because it's a large company and there was something Disney near me. The point is you can't flat out copy something just because you work for the company. Also, Disney may not take action but that doesn't make it ok to copy them. Do you teach your children it's ok to do things that are illegal as long as they don't get caught?
"Add to that that we are in a different industry" ----- Different industry? No, it's all scrapbooking. Craft stores that carry physical scrapbooking products now also carry digital scrapbooking products. Copyright doesn't disappear when you cross over from one to the other.
With this line of thinking I'll just go to the craft store, buy a bunch of physical scrapbooking products, scan them, zip them up and put them in a store.
The law is clear to those who don't over intrepret like everyone in digiscrap does. Unless it is scanned, copied, or traced it isn't a reproduction. It is altered enough to make it a unique work of art. And those items aren't trademark. (so the Disney arguement doesn't apply in this case.) Add to that that we are in a different industry (physical product vs. digital product), they don't really have a case.
May 28, 2011 12:02 PM ------
You'd be safe to completely ignore everything that 12:02 said. She clearly has no idea what she is talking about.
Designers, protect your reputation and your pocket book by not reproducing, tracing, copying, recycling, scanning, photographing or otherwise reusing other designers artwork. Not only can it get you in a lot of trouble legally, it's just plain wrong.
While artists often take inspiration from other artists. That does not mean reproducing their artwork, or changing it slightly and calling it your own.
OMG, I've always admired Shabby miss Jenn and seeing that her reputation could be damaged makes me sad. I really really want to know what she has to say about that.
1. No, those items are not trademarked. The name brand Jolee's is. The items do hold a copyright. But there is nothing unique about the design of sunglasses nor a bucket. If so then Jolee's is in copyright violation of whatever company is currently producing cat eye sunglasses and cute plastic buckets. You can't copyright a shape. Nor can you copyright a certain style, ie paper piecing.
2. We ARE a different industry from scrapbooking. Not many people cross over between the two. Digital Scrapbooking is still a cottage industry. Paper companies haven't broken into it because there isn't enough profit. There have been attempts it's true.
3. You took what I said out of context. (not a surprise because you don't understand the law) I said it is illegal to scan and reproduce. So scanning Jolee's products and selling is illegal and Jolee's can sue. Inspiration isn't illegal when you are creating a different medium of art. It would be copying if she was reproducing it in paper or scanning it directly. She clearly created it digitally.
4. Ethics and the law are different things. It doesn't matter what we feel is right or ethical. Too many are interpreting the law way beyond what it says. I know she didn't violate copyright because I understand the law. Ethically, I don't agree with what she did only if she didn't get permission.
While artists often take inspiration from other artists. That does not mean reproducing their artwork, or changing it slightly and calling it your own.
May 28, 2011 3:40 PM
-----
You are forgetting that we are dealing with a physical product and a digital product. I don't think that she scanned or photographed the items because they are different. It's more likely that she probably created them from scratch, digitally. Which does not violate copyright any more than creating a digital button inspired by a real one. Singer could sue us all by your logic.
You are forgetting that we are dealing with a physical product and a digital product. I don't think that she scanned or photographed the items because they are different. It's more likely that she probably created them from scratch, digitally. Which does not violate copyright any more than creating a digital button inspired by a real one. Singer could sue us all by your logic.
May 28, 2011 5:22 PM -----
First, she obviously scanned the items.
Second, I'm not forgetting that it is a digital product which is different from a physical product. It absolutely does not matter. If you take someone else's copyrighted art (physical or digital) and identically recreate it (physically or digitally), you are violating that artists copyright.
Believe what you like, it doesn't really change the fact that she should have done what she did, unless she had permission from Jolee's.
I have always liked Shabby Miss Jenn's designs. I hope she had permission to do what she did. Being a likeable person and/or having really cute product, doesn't make infringing on someone else's copyright ok.
You are forgetting that we are dealing with a physical product and a digital product. I don't think that she scanned or photographed the items because they are different. It's more likely that she probably created them from scratch, digitally. Which does not violate copyright any more than creating a digital button inspired by a real one. Singer could sue us all by your logic.
May 28, 2011 5:22 PM ---------
So by your logic, if you are a digital designer, I can print out your designs, scan them back into Photoshop, extract them and sell them as my own. Because at one point, your designs were a physical product.
It's nice that you are trying to defend a designer you like, but you don't really know what you are talking about.
I didn't say that you can scan or photograph OR directly COPY someone else's design. I said over and over that is a copyright violation and you will be sued for that.
But You can look at something that is physical and recreate it digitally. It's NOT illegal. We do it all the time. There's rules around how close that can go. But knock-offs happen all the time in business.
And I hope you all realize that a paper designer can look at your digi stuff and *recreate* it into physical paper products for sale and there isn't a darn thing you can do about it. (they can't print it and sell it that way) So if you create a really cute paper pieced cat, they can take some paper, cut it up in a similar pattern, mass produced and sell it at Wal-Mart. If it isn't a direct print or exact shape good luck winning a law suit.
And I'm not defending her. I've posted about this in other places as well. I'm pretty much the only one in the industry who doesn't believe that everything is a copyright violation. I believe that if someone is creating something digitally, it is a different work of art. But only if you start from scratch in your program. Scanning and photographing an object *might* be a copyright violation. It really depends. I don't know which of these SMJ used to get to the final product. If she scanned or photographed without permission, she did violate Jolee's copyright.
I do, however, believe that a designer will sell more products by creating original products. Copying really isn't necessary, nor is it ethical.
So I can take a Thomas Kinkade painting, and recreate it digitally, and sell digital copies or prints? As long as I make it completely from scratch using Photoshop, then it's ok? You don't think Kinkade will sue my butt off and win?
Does that mean that Joanne, who was using Bradford Exchange pictures and drawing them "by hand" to create a script was totally in her right to do so? That is not what transpired from the heated discussion that happened in the Scrap Talk a few weeks ago. This is becoming so complicated!
I think EVERYONE needs to read this blog article. Makes a whole lotta sense. Of course there is a science to it.. http://www.austinkleon.com/2011/03/30/how-to-steal-like-an-artist-and-9-other-things-nobody-told-me/ --------
It becomes complicated because people with no real knowledge of the try to interpret it and apply it...generally, to suit the side of an argument their on. Perhaps, unless you're an IP attorney who is well versed in the law or a jurist, it would be better to stop trying to interpret and apply it to suit what you want.
Unless it is scanned, copied, or traced it isn't a reproduction. It is altered enough to make it a unique work of art. -----------
But they aren't altered enough at all. They look exactly the same. A minor tweak here or there is not an 'alteration', unless we are talking about tailoring a suit to fit.
I believe that if someone is creating something digitally, it is a different work of art. But only if you start from scratch in your program. ---------
Right, so by your argument I can make and use my own money, as long as I did it from scratch in my own program. Thanks for the heads up.
And before you say it's not the same thing, it is the same thing by your own argument.
But I don't see how this is any different than physical brand knock-offs. I think this industry needs to grow-up and realize that knock-offs will happen and it isn't piracy. -----------
I hate to break it to you, but knock offs are piracy and trade mark and/or copyright violations, in any industry. I know, I used to work in a law dept. that dealt with knock offs from brand names.
They may happen, but that doesn't mean we need to 'grow up' and ignore them just because they do.
All sorts of crimes happen, should we just accept them or try and do something about them?
Anyone else getting bored watching the two of them (above) argue over mere speculations and guesses...? Let's someone "invite" SMJ to join in so we can hear the real story. Unless or until that happens, quite possibly we should all move on to some other fun and juicy topic. We're actually going in circles now... yawn.
Right, so by your argument I can make and use my own money, as long as I did it from scratch in my own program. Thanks for the heads up.
And before you say it's not the same thing, it is the same thing by your own argument.
May 28, 2011 8:42 PM
Um, you can do that and it isn't piracy. That is counterfitting. Good luck with that one. Great red herring. Maybe if you are going to call me on poor logic, you should use some yourself?
Anyone else getting bored watching the two of them (above) argue over mere speculations and guesses...? Let's someone "invite" SMJ to join in so we can hear the real story. Unless or until that happens, quite possibly we should all move on to some other fun and juicy topic. We're actually going in circles now... yawn.
May 28, 2011 9:12 PM -------------
From what I can tell there are actually several people involved in the discussion.
But yes dear, why don't you run along and find Miss Jenn to play with. The grown-ups are having a conversation here.
I hate to break it to you, but knock offs are piracy and trade mark and/or copyright violations, in any industry. I know, I used to work in a law dept. that dealt with knock offs from brand names.
----
I can walk into Hobby Lobby and by generic flowers that are identical to Prima. They didn't sue anyone for stealing their idea. You can't really tell the difference between the two either unless you look really close.
It is really only illegal if they try to put the name brand on it (counterfeit). I don't believe that you worked in a law dept. that dealt with this. Isn't that convenient that you would?
It becomes complicated because people with no real knowledge of the try to interpret it and apply it...generally, to suit the side of an argument their on. Perhaps, unless you're an IP attorney who is well versed in the law or a jurist, it would be better to stop trying to interpret and apply it to suit what you want.
-------------- Nope, I'm not an attorney. But I am a designer. Therefore, I need to try to understand what I can and cannot do with regards to copyright. Ignoring it, is not an option.
Also, we can discuss whatever we like here. Just like you can. Why is there someone always trying to stop the current thread of conversation? Let it flow, it will change on it's own. We were discussing 5 kid boobies, a couple days ago and now it's moved on to SMJ's faux pas. In a couple days it will be something else. That's how this place works.
Um, you can do that and it isn't piracy. That is counterfitting. Good luck with that one. Great red herring. Maybe if you are going to call me on poor logic, you should use some yourself? ------------
What's counterfitting? Oh, did you mean counterfeiting? You weren't speaking exclusively about piracy, not that it matters if you were. My response to your illogical argument still stands.
It is really only illegal if they try to put the name brand on it (counterfeit). I don't believe that you worked in a law dept. that dealt with this. Isn't that convenient that you would? ------
How is it convenient? Don't believe me, doesn't matter one iota. I know the truth.
I can walk into Hobby Lobby and by generic flowers that are identical to Prima. They didn't sue anyone for stealing their idea. You can't really tell the difference between the two either unless you look really close.
--------
Your point is what exactly? Just because some do it, doesn't mean it's legal. And how do you know they don't sue? Do you work for Prima?
So we're going to continue slamming Miss Tiina, then let Shabby Miss Jenn slide until we hear from her because we like her so well? Shame on you all for being so damn hypocritical.
Does that mean that Joanne, who was using Bradford Exchange pictures and drawing them "by hand" to create a script was totally in her right to do so? That is not what transpired from the heated discussion that happened in the Scrap Talk a few weeks ago. This is becoming so complicated!
May 28, 2011 8:11 PM ====
I don't believe that she was drawing them by hand. I believe that she was stealing the images and tracing or running filters on them to make them look drawn and adding to the pictures. The images were too exact. That is piracy. If she was drawing them, it wouldn't be exact and she would have the ability to make them cuter rather than an ugly clearly photoshopped image. Then it would have been a grey area but probably not piracy.
Really the only way for this to get answered is for someone to actually take a designer to court. That would clarify some of the grey areas.
So we're going to continue slamming Miss Tiina, then let Shabby Miss Jenn slide until we hear from her because we like her so well? Shame on you all for being so damn hypocritical. -------
There a bunch of people who not letting SMJ slide. What the heck are you talking about?
Your point is what exactly? Just because some do it, doesn't mean it's legal. And how do you know they don't sue? Do you work for Prima?
May 28, 2011 9:44 PM
Actually it does. It usually means that the company that is being ripped off didn't have a law to lean on to stop the competition from knocking off their items. And if they did sue and WON, we would no longer see the knock-offs on the shelves when we go That's how I know...
Really the only way for this to get answered is for someone to actually take a designer to court. That would clarify some of the grey areas. ------------
Artists, and I'm using a generic term here, have already been taken to court over this issue. There is no real grey area.
So we're going to continue slamming Miss Tiina, then let Shabby Miss Jenn slide until we hear from her because we like her so well? Shame on you all for being so damn hypocritical.
May 28, 2011 9:45 PM
----
I don't think anyone is letting this "slide". What are you expecting us to do? She's getting smacked as much as miss Tiina. It's up to Jolee's to take action.
Oh boy! What a shame this is to hear about Shabby Miss Jenn. This is so unexpected. I'm not going to trash her but I will say that as a loyal customer of hers I am extremely disappointed if this in fact true. To me she seemed right up there with Shabby Princess; a good reputation as an artist, sweet girl and never any drama (that I knew of anyway) Nonetheless, as a customer and a long time fan I'd like to hear her explanation and side of things before I continue to support her and buy any more of her products :(
I seriously doubt that she will come her to explain herself. It just doesn't seem like her style.
Has anyone ever noticed that she refers to her company as "We" on her blog? Does she hire designers to design for her? It seem odd that she isn't using "I"...
That might explain how this happened. (not that it isn't still her responsibility, but she can't know all the paper products)
anyone ever hear of knockoffs. Lots of Gucci, Louis Vuitton and other fakes out there. How about watches? Just saw some Michael Kors knockoffs at a store the other day. Plenty of jewelry knockoffs to be had especially Tiffany look alikes. Of course there are enough changes made that no one gets sued for this type of copying. If companies aren't worrying about the big guys then I sure am not going to worry about the little guys. This kind of thing is in every industry out there. So get real, get a life and know that unless she scanned the Jolee items, which is a copyright offense she hasn't done anything any of the big guys don't do day in and day out. Louis was one of the first to put his initials on his bags-know how many now have just their initials on their look alike bags?
OMG, listen for a second. Knock offs are not okay. If they are made to look like the original, they are a counterfeit. They hurt the original designer, and they hurt the consumers who refuse to buy the knock-offs because the price on the original goes up. That applies to any industry that knock-offs appear in. It is not the victimless crime you seem to think it is.
Your logic is completely wrong, you are here spouting your personal unethical beliefs as if they were fact. Do five minutes of research about knock offs and you will soon come to understand why we all think you are complete moron right now.
They might be unethical, but they aren't illegal. So go ahead and whine about it hurting the designer and all that boo-hoo. It's called competition and without it we wouldn't be able to afford anything!
What I noticed is that Prima has responded to the copycats by producing even prettier flowers that are very unique.
Buying knock offs isn't illegal. But selling them is illegal.
Get your facts straight. You are the only person posting here that doesn't realize that the things you are saying over and over are extremely stupid. If you are trying to justify your behavior, then go ahead and keep lying to yourself. But when you get busted for copying someone else's designs, no one is going to care that you "believed" it wasn't wrong.
I think EVERYONE needs to read this blog article. Makes a whole lotta sense. Of course there is a science to it.. http://www.austinkleon.com/2011/03/30/how-to-steal-like-an-artist-and-9-other-things-nobody-told-me/ --------
A very good read, thanks for the link. ------------------------------
Glad you liked it! I thought it was relevant. Not sure many (from here anyway) have read it or understood it.
Buying knock offs isn't illegal. But selling them is illegal.
Get your facts straight. You are the only person posting here that doesn't realize that the things you are saying over and over are extremely stupid. If you are trying to justify your behavior, then go ahead and keep lying to yourself. But when you get busted for copying someone else's designs, no one is going to care that you "believed"
----------
Hey moron, it's not illegal if they are using their own brand name. If they try to put the other brand name or trademark on it, then it is illegal. A knock off indicates that it isn't an exact copy too.
Buying knock offs isn't illegal. But selling them is illegal.
---
It's illegal to sell counterfeits, not knock-offs. Counterfeits are illegal because you aren't getting an authentic product and the seller is stealing the trademark of the company. This happens all the time with purses, Disney items, and watches.
A knock-off would indicate that there is some difference and the company is using it's own brand logo and trademark. For example every time you buy jeans you are buying a great-grandchild knock-off of Levi's. And think how much it sucks to be "Ralph Lauren Polo". JCP's Arizon company (and Kohl's Sonoma) create "polo's" and advertise them as such. But it's NOT illegal.
Either way this doesn't relate to the situation at hand. It looks like it is possible that that the SMJ items are scanned. It isn't counterfeiting or creating a knock-off. It's piracy. (unless she got permission!)
Everything digi is a knock-off of paper scrapbooking or general graphic design. There is hardly anything that is original. But I think it's very clear that scanning and using something that isn't your design is wrong!
Get your facts straight. You are the only person posting here that doesn't realize that the things you are saying over and over are extremely stupid. If you are trying to justify your behavior, then go ahead and keep lying to yourself. But when you get busted for copying someone else's designs, no one is going to care that you "believed" it wasn't wrong.
May 29, 2011 10:54 AM
---
Well, there's more than one of us replying to your ignorance on this matter. Learn the difference between counterfeit and knock-off.
I can't speak for the other people posting but I'm not a designer nor do I own a business that creates unique designs. So your accusation that someone who believes creating knocks-offs is doing something illegal only digs you deaper into a hole of ignorance. I agree with the PP that said that digi is a knock-off of paper. It is rare that something really is original. And you are living in dreamland if you think that's a possibility.
I shop a lot and don't care to spend money on top designer brands just for the sake of supporting art or design. I prefer the cheaper knock-offs. I'm the same way with buying my digital scrapbooking products. I don't pay Designer Digitals prices when I can get something close at other shops for a lot less. That's a knock-off.
I don't support piracy or countfeiting. It's illegal.
I think that in the course of this whole back-and-forth argument, some of you are losing sight of the real issue at hand. The real issue here is that copyright law exists in order to protect the original artist/creator of any work of art, etc. Whether in the form of the written word, or a painting, or sculpture, or paper scrapbooking stickers... the original artist/creator retains the copyright to that object.
Now, it's been established here that SMJ obviously scanned/photographed the original items and used them in her kit. Let's not argue this, OK? You can see the glue residue, etc. It wasn't created digitally. So essentially, she's passing off someone else's work as her own. This violates copyright.
Let's not argue the semantics of knock-offs, counterfeits, flowers at Hobby Lobby and whether other companies can create something that looks like Prima, etc... it doesn't matter. All irrelevant. The only thing that matters here is that IF she scanned/photographed those elements and used them in her kit WITHOUT permission/credit given, she's basically passing them off as her own -- a violation of the original artist's (presumably Jolee's) copyright.
A knock-off is something that is meant to look like something else, but has enough differences that it's not a direct copy. The elements in the kit by SMJ are not a knock-off, they are an direct copy. And it doesn't matter if they were scanned or if she re-created them. Either way, they are a direct copy and that is not legal unless she had permission to do that.
I'm disappointed about this because I did buy the kit and now I feel like I can't use it.
I'm disappointed about this because I did buy the kit and now I feel like I can't use it.
May 29, 2011 2:57 PM
----------
Are you fucking kidding? You feel like you can't use it now? I'm jealous of you if this is a major concern in your day to day life. Unless you're the designer being ripped off, why should you care? Insane.
Are you fucking kidding? You feel like you can't use it now? I'm jealous of you if this is a major concern in your day to day life. Unless you're the designer being ripped off, why should you care? Insane. -------
Not the OP, but some people clearly have a higher moral compass than you do.
Now, it's been established here that SMJ obviously scanned/photographed the original items and used them in her kit. Let's not argue this, OK? You can see the glue residue, etc. It wasn't created digitally. So essentially, she's passing off someone else's work as her own. This violates copyright.
Let's not argue the semantics of knock-offs, counterfeits, flowers at Hobby Lobby and whether other companies can create something that looks like Prima, etc... it doesn't matter. All irrelevant. The only thing that matters here is that IF she scanned/photographed those elements and used them in her kit WITHOUT permission/credit given, she's basically passing them off as her own -- a violation of the original artist's (presumably Jolee's) copyright. --------------
Anonymous said... Are you fucking kidding? You feel like you can't use it now? I'm jealous of you if this is a major concern in your day to day life. Unless you're the designer being ripped off, why should you care? Insane. -------
Not the OP, but some people clearly have a higher moral compass than you do.
May 29, 2011 5:58 PM
Not the OP or PP I've met many hypocrites in my life. She's one of them. How can I tell? Well, she comes here, reads and posts. Need more?
I am just an average scrapper, not a designer. I am not active on any CT's, although I have been in the past. I am not active in any "scrapbook community", I don't post on the message boards, and I don't post my layouts online anymore. I read the Digi boards for entertainment, and am constantly amazed at what people share on the internet. I freely admit to reading the scrapbook smack blogs, it is a guilty pleasure.
You can email me at: DSTHallofFame@gmail.com
2,036 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1601 – 1800 of 2036 Newer› Newest»Lots of people were bragging here after iNSD. Remember the chick who said she made thousands?
They were asked how much they made, so not technically bragging.
Lots of people were bragging here after iNSD. Remember the chick who said she made thousands?
May 24, 2011 8:32 PM
_______
No one here was bragging after iNSD. Someone asked how much people made during the sale, and several people answered. That's not bragging.
I have been fortunate not to have had the displeasure of associating with people who've have felt the need to brag to about how much they make. I think that is a pretty tacky and insensitive thing to do.
Right, because no one has ever asked anyone how much they make.
She was bragging about making $380.00 for iNSD? Bragging? Are you sure she wasn't complaining? When I come here I feel like I am in an alternate universe, but I do agree - bring it to the smack blog if you want an honest answer because at DST there aren't any.
On the other hand, Alyssa, you are way too smart for this - I read on your blog you are graduating college at age 20 with a young child and a new fiancee couldn't have been easy.
On the other hand, Alyssa, you are way too smart for this - I read on your blog you are graduating college at age 20 with a young child and a new fiancee couldn't have been easy
----------
I'll be 21 when I graduate. I go 21 on June 7. Really I'm just graduating a semester ahead of other people I graduated highschool with in 2008. My original graduation date is May 2012 but thanks to summer semester classes I'm taking I'll be done in December.
Thank you.
Shilo is no longer at SHCO.
Well it's good to hear that Miss Tiina chose to do the right thing.
^^^
Not surprising, IMO. Miss Tiina hasn't ever struck me as someone who would put up with a lot of bullshit like this. I know she gets raked over the coals here at this blog all time time (still not sure exactly why?), but glad to see that she kicked Shilo to the curb. Curious to see if the other shop owners follow suit.
I have one thing to say. I work for Tina and she has been the nicest, most helpful, most generous store owner I've seen yet. She is very professional, extremely good at marketing and really is genuinely nice. And no.. this isn't her posting. :D
Tina was the most helpful person in this situation! The other store owner not so much. So I'm very grateful to Tina for helping me get the answers I needed and now (even though its very slow) the money owed to me.
SD
I agree that Miss Tiina is a very nice person. She also traced copyrighted artwork and sold it as CU. Turns out you can be nice to others, and a dishonest person at the same time.
Tina was the most helpful person in this situation! The other store owner not so much. So I'm very grateful to Tina for helping me get the answers I needed and now (even though its very slow) the money owed to me.
SD
---------------
SD, you're honestly the biggest idiot. I love how you're completely fine with outing the "mystery store owner" now that you've told everyone that it was Shilo all along, when originally you claimed to be acting solely to protect that store owner's identity. Either your credibility just went further down the toilet, or you need to work on getting your story straight.
I'm confused...is it Tiina or Tina??
Blah blah blah. There is no story to get straight. How do you know I was given the okay to make this public now that all parties involved have answers? Stop ASSuming. The only idiot is you.
SD
Her name is Tina. Her design name is Miss Tiina
I agree that Miss Tiina is a very nice person. She also traced copyrighted artwork and sold it as CU. Turns out you can be nice to others, and a dishonest person at the same time.
----------------
I almost can't believe I am going to waste my time on this topic, but I've gotten so tired of the double-standard when it comes to this one. Yes, if I remember correctly, this incident occurred a while back. Nothing like it has happened since, though, right? So we could all assume that it may have been a one-time thing, resulting from an error in judgment or a misunderstanding of what's allowed and what's not. And before you all jump on me for saying that, let's just take a minute to consider all of the other designers out there (many of them very well-known and talented) who routinely scan/photograph/extract all sorts of objects and sell them as CU, even though those items probably carry a copyright. If Michael's or Hobby Lobby or Martha Stewart or whoever else were to file a claim against one of the designers who does/has done this, they'd go down in the same magnificent ball of flames that Miss Tiina did a while back. I don't know her, and have no real opinion of her, but it's kind of hypocritical for any of us to call her "dishonest" due to one incident, when there are hundreds of others out there who have done something similar and the only difference is that they haven't been "caught". If she were still doing that sort of thing (I'm assuming she's not, since we haven't whooped her ass on here in a while?), then we could all call her dishonest. But let's put this into perspective. She may be a great person, and an honest person, who made one mistake and learned from it and moved on. Or she may be a reckless thieving fool. I have no idea, but I do think it's off-base to call her dishonest when most of her other actions (including this Shilo deal) seem to be pretty decent.
I don't usually post but I wanted to say that my experiences with Miss Tiina have always been very positive.
For the poster 2 about me...
A-FREAKING-MEN
She obviously misunderstood something and like said.. has never done anything like it since. Her patterns and vectors are still cute, she has her own style and I say GOOD FOR HER. If anything she handled all that mess with a huge degree of class. She did what was *right* and has done better for it. I'd like to see one person on this little flame blog who hasn't made a mistake. I'm sure some of them have been *huge* mistakes. I think it is easy to point the finger the other direction to get attention off your own faults.. but that is my opinion.
I'm a trashy back stabber.
SD
Lol. How am I a backstabber? Because I chose to confront someone who I trusted and was friends with that I thought was stealing from me and she WAS? Wow. I guess that if you're friends with someone you have to just LET them steal from you. News to me.
SD
Quit talking to yourself, silly.
So basically what you are saying 1:02 PM, is that because other people have scanned and sold copyrighted items as CU, their actions exonerate Miss Tiina who pursefully traced someone else's art and sold it to other designers for commercial use? That seems like fairly twisted logic to me.
I do agree with you that people can change and become better people. And I hope that Miss Tiina has changed. She really does seem like a nice person, and I'd love to believe that she is honest with her designs now. I would purchase items from another designer at her store without a second thought. However, I would never personally buy her designs or trust her again. Once bitten...
Wow, Demo loves the attention so much that it seems she is sitting at her computer refreshing the smack blog all day.
SD I see you took the advice of anonymous posters and changed your blog...that sure of yourself, eh?
SD I see you took the advice of anonymous posters and changed your blog...that sure of yourself, eh?
------
Oh come on now... she has a completely NEW blog design up. It would be one thing if it was the same one with a different picture now there are two.. both showing her nice breasticles so give the kid a break! LOL
( o Y o )
Wow, Demo loves the attention so much that it seems she is sitting at her computer refreshing the smack blog all day.
------
Nope. I'm on my phone. Haha
So basically what you are saying 1:02 PM, is that because other people have scanned and sold copyrighted items as CU, their actions exonerate Miss Tiina who pursefully traced someone else's art and sold it to other designers for commercial use? That seems like fairly twisted logic to me.
------
Not to put words into someone else's mouth, but I don't think OP at 1:02 ever said that Miss Tiina should be exonerated for her actions, but just that it's wrong to constantly bash her for it when nobody else is receiving the same bashing while still doing basically the same thing. I completely agree, because all those others are still doing it! even though her experience should have served as a lesson to all. Makes it seem as though everyone else is doing it even more purposefully than she did that one time. So maybe you should let it go already.
Oh come on now... she has a completely NEW blog design up. It would be one thing if it was the same one with a different picture now there are two.. both showing her nice breasticles so give the kid a break! LOL
-------
The bigger one doesn't show my boobs that much lol.
The one from the old blog design, I was pregnant. My son is a year old now. It was time for an updated picture. These ones are more recent!
I put my kits at the top so you don't have to scroll too far to see I'm not selling my boobs. :)
I don't understand why designers feel the need to have a photo of themselves on the top of their home page or in zip files.
OMG if there were a way for me to hack into this blog and block Studio Demo from posting here, I'd do it. Enough already, please, you self-absorbed nitwit! I've never seen anyone post so many times as themselves within a 24 hour period. The rest of us are ready to move on to smacking around someone else, and you should *welcome* the fact that we're done with you. But you keep coming back for more. Why? (p.s. that last question is rhetorical, so please go away and don't feel compelled to answer it...)
MG if there were a way for me to hack into this blog and block Studio Demo from posting here, I'd do it. Enough already, please, you self-absorbed nitwit! I've never seen anyone post so many times as themselves within a 24 hour period. The rest of us are ready to move on to smacking around someone else, and you should *welcome* the fact that we're done with you. But you keep coming back for more. Why? (p.s. that last question is rhetorical, so please go away and don't feel compelled to answer it...
-------
Someone else bought up my boobs. =/
Yeah really, Demo. Take your boobs and get back to being a wannabe designer.
PS- I thought you blamed your skanky attire on being on some tropical island? Your blog states that you're in Boston.
Someone else bought up my boobs. =/
---------
They 'bought' them up?! Really? Where... from your blog?! ha ha ha ha ha LOL this site just gets funnier and funnier every day.
I vote we let Demo stay so she can keep being moronic. With every keystroke, she takes herself further and further out of contention for anything she might want to do to expand her business in this industry. Having her around here is actually helping thin out the competition for everyone else.
You have to admit, this is the most exciting this blog has been in the last while.
Yeah really, Demo. Take your boobs and get back to being a wannabe designer.
PS- I thought you blamed your skanky attire on being on some tropical island? Your blog states that you're in Boston.
-----------
Bermuda is far from being "tropical". I was in college in Boston until I came back home after my son was born. A lot of my family lives out there.
I vote we let Demo stay so she can keep being moronic. With every keystroke, she takes herself further and further out of contention for anything she might want to do to expand her business in this industry. Having her around here is actually helping thin out the competition for everyone else.
-------
I'm more worried about getting my degree than expanding in this "industry". :)
they give degrees for showing your boobies?
they give degrees for showing your boobies?
-------
Nope. I'm studying to be a language teacher... French and spanish.
I'm just at the point where I don't care about you alls stupid little "industry standards". If people chose not to buy from me based on things I say, that's their choice. I'll always have customers & fans. I'm not going to stop designing until I'm ready to. I'm not begging anyone sales. :)
LOL @ "you alls"
You'll have fans until your fans venture out and see that there is more out there. You don't have anything special to offer that can't be found in other stores.
^^^^^^
Based on the misspelled words you might want to study a little harder.
Miss Tina's mistake wasn't a one time thing. The only problem was that when it all was found out about her copying of other works, she was the hot cheap CU go to and the truth was hidden. Bigger designers didn't want to bring the light about because they had affairs with Tina or was using her stuff. And the effects of her outsting would have been a tad big.
Secondly, one of the biggest reasons most of it was all hush hush was because the person that found out about the use of copyrighted images handled it in a professional and quiet way. Which is commendable, but it ended up letting everything get swept under for Miss Tina and no one being any wiser. Products were pulled quietly and none of the customers were contacted about the images. No one had a clue, because she just started pulling other products she had copied before they too could be found out about and brought to public light.
I know of 4 different products that Miss Tina sold as CU that were rip offs, 3 being from stock image sites. It was only in one product that she offered to make it right by sending out some crappy replacement image.
Also three of those incidents came a good deal of time after being caught with the first rip off which happened to have been doodles that were from an IKEA line.
So no, Miss Tina is not a oops I didn't know about it case. She is a repeat offender that simply got away with it, and all was swept under the rug.
So yes, while she might have a good customer service persona for everyone. She is not honest. And she has a reputation that will follow regardless of what happens. Especially when she creates CU items that could easily have an effect on several other designers and their products
All the more reason to make your own items. Any characters, themed elements, etc. that could be copied off of other drawings. Play it safe and be a real artist.
^^^
I never use CU and I'm still totally tired of hearing that argument. Some people use CU as a tool. Most artists/trades/businesses use tools developed by someone else to create their product. Get over it.
I never use CU and I'm still totally tired of hearing that argument. Some people use CU as a tool. Most artists/trades/businesses use tools developed by someone else to create their product. Get over it.
May 25, 2011 5:40 PM
Used as tools, fine. Using templates for characters, frames, banners...completely different story. If you can't create it, accept that and stick with what you can create. Don't use element templates created by someone else. If you can modify it enough that it isn't the same thing you started with, good for you. But a lot of "designers" simply recolor, toss a blurry overlay on it and call it art.
What really gets me is all the CU ISO threads at DST. Basically admitting that they have no talent and can't make these things themselves.
Who cares if they are just recoloring it?? How does it change your life one way or the other? Don't buy their product if you don't like it.
Some people might enjoy creating a kit just because they like putting together a swatch and theme and arranging something that they find appealing? Why can't they use CU to do that? Who does it hurt?
Who does it hurt?
May 25, 2011 5:49 PM
_______
My eyeballs.
Used as tools, fine. Using templates for characters, frames, banners...completely different story. If you can't create it, accept that and stick with what you can create. Don't use element templates created by someone else. If you can modify it enough that it isn't the same thing you started with, good for you. But a lot of "designers" simply recolor, toss a blurry overlay on it and call it art.
_________________________________
I'm getting really tired of hearing this argument. Most customers don't care if the product is a template or CU. If it's pretty or they like the colors or theme, they buy it.
Play it safe and be a real artist.
************************
That'll cost you a bit more $
Based on the misspelled words you might want to study a little harder.
------
If only this were a graded essay....
ou'll have fans until your fans venture out and see that there is more out there. You don't have anything special to offer that can't be found in other stores.
------
*Yawns* and that's their choice. I'm not going to get upset over it. :)
but just that it's wrong to constantly bash her for it when nobody else is receiving the same bashing while still doing basically the same thing.
-----------
First off, she's not being constantly bashed. Secondly, others who have been outed for doing the same or similar things are also brought up just as 'constantly'. And thirdly, it was more than a one time 'mistake'. If I remember correctly, it was a least a three time 'mistake'.
they give degrees for showing your boobies?
May 25, 2011 3:25 PM
----------
You are a little obsessed, did you know that?
I was just reading on Miss Tiina's blog that she has been in the biz for 15 years. You can't tell me that after 15 years she didn't have a clear understanding of copy right!
I am really tired of hearing "I made a mistake" or "there was a misunderstanding" excuses. It ranks right up there with "No, I didn't have sex with her". How stupid do you think we are?
I never use CU and I'm still totally tired of hearing that argument. Some people use CU as a tool. Most artists/trades/businesses use tools developed by someone else to create their product. Get over it.
----------------------------------
Yes but if I buy a tool in my business I make an *assumption* that the person I bought it from had a legal right to sell it.
I would not continue to buy from someone who sold me stolen merchandise in the past. Why, when there are so many other option available?
I think whoever is baiting SD is getting as much thrill out of it as SD is. But I am totally bored it. The bickering is reminding me of my children and I do not come to this blog to be reminded of my children.
I'd rather here that then the same tired old CU argument... especially since it has been established that most customers do not care what CU a designer uses as long as they like the end result.
I never use CU and I'm still totally tired of hearing that argument. Some people use CU as a tool. Most artists/trades/businesses use tools developed by someone else to create their product. Get over it.
----------------------------------
Yes but if I buy a tool in my business I make an *assumption* that the person I bought it from had a legal right to sell it.
I would not continue to buy from someone who sold me stolen merchandise in the past. Why, when there are so many other option available?
_________
Um...yeah, smart move not to buy from someone who has sold you stolen merchandise before. You are one savy person for certain! However, the comment you are replying to never said that you should do that. It was simply a statement that the argument about never using CU is getting old.
I think whoever is baiting SD is getting as much thrill out of it as SD is. But I am totally bored it. The bickering is reminding me of my children and I do not come to this blog to be reminded of my children
----------
Well don't come here for a while. Its probably shilo
I love Designer Digitals. It is the only store I have found to buy something at.
^^ hi random
I was just reading on Miss Tiina's blog that she has been in the biz for 15 years. You can't tell me that after 15 years she didn't have a clear understanding of copy right!
*******
OK, I just visited her blog too, and you might want to get your eyes checked. It says very clearly that she's only been a digital scrapbook designer since 2005 (which, I may be rusty on my math, was only 6 years ago). Her reference to 15 years only had to do with how long ago she apparently taught herself how to design graphics/web sites. Now, that still doesn't excuse her from violating someone's copyright. But since we all know this happened a couple of years ago, and the items in question were probably created even before that, it's obviously possible that she made this stuff during her first year or two of designing, before she'd "been in the biz long enough" (your phrase, not mine) to have learned what is acceptable and what isn't. Besides I also disagree completely with whoever said above that it wasn't a one-time deal. Seems to me that it was multiple items, yes, but not something that happened over and over and over. So whether it was one item or ten, if it happened all at one basic time, it was one occurrence. It's not like she got caught once, did it again, got caught again, did it yet again, got caught again, did it again, etc. etc. That’s my view, anyway.
^^^^^^
You'd be wrong. It didn't happen all at once. The frog and kawaii characters happened at about the same time. After that incident was found out, the IKEA doodle debacle came up.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bRUmKx3NFlU/TBjwXawPjLI/AAAAAAAAABQ/HSRZX5gUf8A/s1600-R/0501103copy.png
here is another picture of her boobies from her other blog she just likes showing them off alot and she also has the same white lace shirt I think she def needs more sales so she can get a different one!!! LOL
This one says she's from Boston also the other one she already changed it maybe she dreams of living in bermuda but really does live in boston... sighhhh poor girl she's so confused!!
http://scrappinangelaly.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-09-17T03%3A52%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=7
^^^^^^^^
I think we have moved on from SD..why are you still bringing it up?
^^^
probably because my name is Shilo and I still can't *believe* that everyone's giving SD all of the attention I so rightfully earned/deserve!
here is another picture of her boobies from her other blog she just likes showing them off alot and she also has the same white lace shirt I think she def needs more sales so she can get a different one!!!
--------------
Your starting to be a bit stalkerish and creepy.
You'd be wrong. It didn't happen all at once. The frog and kawaii characters happened at about the same time. After that incident was found out, the IKEA doodle debacle came up.
_______________
This was all in the same basic time frame, was it not? Not like it was separated by a year or something...
^^^^^
No, it was not. The frog and kawaii stuff was well and truly over when the doodle saga came about.
Your starting to be a bit stalkerish and creepy.
May 25, 2011 10:10 PM
-----------------------
LOL OMGAWSHHHH say it isn't so... Really she's only been mentioned on the last 2 pages or so stalker I'm not not creepy maybe yeah sometimes, LOL
I think we have moved on from SD..why are you still bringing it up?
May 25, 2011 10:06 PM
--------------------------
ummm because I can do whatever I want just like you can say whatever you want...
Freedom of speech and all that jazzy stuff!
^^^^^^^^
Are you high?
LOL OMGAWSHHHH say it isn't so... Really she's only been mentioned on the last 2 pages or so stalker I'm not not creepy maybe yeah sometimes,
--------
No, it was your need to point out her photo on her old blog that made you look like a stalker.
No, it was not. The frog and kawaii stuff was well and truly over when the doodle saga came about.
May 25, 2011 10:17 PM
---------------------------------
Not that it matters much, but it was actually vice versa. The doodle incident was before, like 5-6 months at least before. Only the doodles went completely under the rug and was not publicly outted. They were only brought to light shortly after the frog incident to prove the fact that Miss Tina was not mistakenly taking images.
^^^^
Thanks. I knew they weren't together, I just couldn't remember the order of events.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bRUmKx3NFlU/TBjwXawPjLI/AAAAAAAAABQ/HSRZX5gUf8A/s1600-R/0501103copy.png
here is another picture of her boobies from her other blog she just likes showing them off alot and she also has the same white lace shirt I think she def needs more sales so she can get a different one!!! LOL
This one says she's from Boston also the other one she already changed it maybe she dreams of living in bermuda but really does live in boston... sighhhh poor girl she's so confused!!
http://scrappinangelaly.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-09-17T03%3A52%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=7
-----------
Lol wow. That is stalkerish. Why are you so obsessed with me? Same white top? Nope. Lol. That was kind of lame. And only if you could hear me talk you'll see just how Bermudian I am. Lol. Besides. Anyone who "dreams" of living here is a fool. I'm so ready to go back to Boston.
No, it was your need to point out her photo on her old blog that made you look like a stalker
------
I don't even remember the picture I have on my old blog. I wonder how she found it. Yeah that is stalkerish
By the way, I've just had the time to go back and read the comments from yesterday. Those last two comments were mine. The other ones from yesterday, no. It seems someone knows a lot about me. *cough*Shilo*cough*. If "I'm" not posting from my name, its probably not me as anyone can sign something "SD" (especially if their initials are the same). Also, I've already said that if I wanted to post, I'm not going to hide behind anonymity.
I understand this is a smack blog but I would appreciate it if you stopped bringing me up since I've done nothing "smack worthy" but bring forward a thief which I'm starting to think was a HUGE mistake. It seems you only went at me because Shilo didn't come here to defend herself and I was the only one you could take it out on and that's really not fair. And yes, I know life is not fair but, I thought that the same women who called me immature, would be the ones who were mature in this situation but, taking your frustrations with Shilo out on me, is not mature at all.
I should have just kept quiet and continue to let people collab with her and let her steal from them too. But what's done is done. I didn't know pretending to be someone on a blog was what grown women did in their free time. I'm trying to get past this and being constantly talked about here for irrelevant and envious reasons (such as my body) is not helping. Neither is someone pretending to be me.
So please just stop. If you aren't a fan of mine and you don't like me for whatever reason, you have no reason to look at my blog. Its simple.
A thief was caught and dealt with so can we please leave this situation behind us.
if you would just stop posting this would go away.
please.
stop posting.
^^^
DITTO
Demo, all you are doing is feeding the fuel to keep crap circling about you. Stop posting, ignore whats said and we will be able to forget you and your boobs ever existed.
Easy for anyone to pretend to be SD and make it look like she is adding fuel to the fire. Thanks SD for stating, under your name, that YOU are not the one adding to the boring discussion. Now we can hope that if someone tries to impersonate you, that nobody will bite anymore. Time to move to "serious" businesses.
Stop posting, ignore whats said and we will be able to forget you and your boobs ever existed.
May 26, 2011 8:29 AM
__________
LMFAO!
Good grief - Scrappity Doo Dah's new look gives me a headache. FYI - teacups don't belong in trees
It never stops amazing me how little some of these sites understand about branding. You don't change your look that drastically, it un-does all your branding.
And the odd combination of doodle (the birds) and fantasy (the teacups) is ... well .. odd.
I actually like it. Everyone has different tastes though.
I've never been to their site before so I don't know what it looked like before but I think it has a Cinderella(ish) feel to it.
So to me it goes with the light hearted theme like zipity doo dah for scrappity doo dah.
Used as tools, fine. Using templates for characters, frames, banners...completely different story. If you can't create it, accept that and stick with what you can create. Don't use element templates created by someone else. If you can modify it enough that it isn't the same thing you started with, good for you. But a lot of "designers" simply recolor, toss a blurry overlay on it and call it art.
What really gets me is all the CU ISO threads at DST. Basically admitting that they have no talent and can't make these things themselves.
May 25, 2011 5:45 PM
-----------------------------------
So what kind of CU products DO most designers (the ones that use CU anyway) use? Papers? Elements? Textures or all of the above? I had no clue since being out of the digi scrap world for awhile, that this was so popular! Seriously do they really use elements and just recolor?
Ribbons extractions, greenery (particularly if they live somewhere where they can't go out in a garden/park and pick their own), layered element templates, some textures if they can't/don't have access to their own.
I will use CU for strings, ribbons, buttons, fabric flowers, overlays and fonts.
FYI - teacups don't belong in trees
-------
Unless they are 'tea' trees.
I will use CU for strings, ribbons, buttons, fabric flowers, overlays and fonts.
---------
So, a whole kit then?
And the odd combination of doodle (the birds) and fantasy (the teacups) is ... well .. odd.
--------
Agreed. It looks like Disney gone wrong.
This is something I found kinda' cool not sure if you guys think so..
But this collab by TDC
http://www.thedigichick.com/shop/Wishes-Hopes-and-Dreams.html
and this collab by Oscraps
http://www.oscraps.com/shop/product.php?productid=26262&cat=339&page=1
kinda' match! I bought both and the colors were similar enough to mix and match.
Ribbons extractions, greenery (particularly if they live somewhere where they can't go out in a garden/park and pick their own), layered element templates, some textures if they can't/don't have access to their own.
May 26, 2011 5:40 PM
-----------------------------------
I will use CU for strings, ribbons, buttons, fabric flowers, overlays and fonts.
May 26, 2011 6:13 PM
-----------------------------------
hmm...thanks for answering. I was wondering. That doesn't seem too bad to use CU for those items especially if they're changed up. I figured textures would be used, most digital artists use CU textures. I'm guessing that too many designers or wanna be designers are using CU overlays for papers as well as the element templates and NOT changing them. Using them straight out of the box. No wonder people are complaining about lack of originality! Now what about extractions? Are there a lot of extraction services being offered out there? I can see using a GREAT one if I was a designer since a really good extraction takes time...of course I'd want to use someone that was PERFECT with their extractions.
I will use CU for strings, ribbons, buttons, fabric flowers, overlays and fonts.
---------
So, a whole kit then?
May 26, 2011 6:22 PM
Not if you hand draw any other themed elements or patterns.
Just saw that mandabean is leaving SSD.
Discuss.
There's nothing to discuss. She's retiring from designing, not switching stores.
Yaaawwwwnn.
Is Shilo out of all her stores now? I see Sugar hill and digital dandelions is gone. Was(is) she in any more?
The one where she posted things from the designer area, or it was supposedly her.
http://store.digiscrappersbrasil.com.br/shilo-designs-m-43.html
She's still in her guest store at Shabby Pickle.
hey people - what is your view on the ethics of using a scanned/photographed object from a paperscrapping company in a digi kit? to me it seems not right, but today I noticed a designer that has been around for a very long time has included a piece of Jolee's Boutique stickers in her new kit. I actually used this item in my paperscrapping days - i checked to make sure and it's exactly the same.
thoughts?
I know exactly who you're talking about. I hesitate to mention her by name because I really love her kits normally. Although when I noticed this, it has really made me think less of the designer. She actually used almost the whole pack of Jolee's Boutique Sand Castles. At least 9 or 10 of the stickers that come in the pack. I would be ashamed to take credit for another artist's creations (that were not bought & paid for, I highly doubt EK Success allowed commerical use of it's products).
is it scanned? or did she create it herself and it just looks the same?
It appears to be exactly the same. Which begs an interesting side question - if she recreated it rather than scanning or photographing, would that make a difference?
Looks like she used the entire element pack to me. It's called Jolee's Boutique FUN AT THE BEACH Sticker Collage. Maybe she obtained permission?
http://www.shabbymissjenndesigns.com/shoppe/bmz_cache/9/95cd23d31ae480f97faa69a6545f0b8a.image.531x620.jpg
http://www.simonsaysstamp.com/servlet/the-29643/Jolee's-Boutique-FUN-AT/Detail
jeez louise, since the sissies above won't spill, I will.
kit in question:
http://www.shabbymissjenndesigns.com/shoppe/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2&products_id=818
closer look at elements in the blog pack:
http://www.shabbymissjenndesigns.com/shoppe/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=8&products_id=817
and since I'm lazy and dont feel like searching here is one for sale on ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.ca/FUN-BEACH-Sand-Sun-Glasses-Pail-Jolees-Boutique-/260780981641?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_2&hash=item3cb7c1fd89
have at it
Wow.
It doesn't matter if you scan it or just recreate it. It's wrong.
She didn't even bother to change the color scheme, just stole it outright.
Maybe she obtained permission to use them?
Yes, maybe she did get permission. We shouldn't assume that she just used them without consulting anyone. Someone in the business as long as her I just don't see her doing that. That, and the items she used are very recognizable. Why would she use without permission when so many people would know they're Jolees?
Wow, I sure hope she DID get permission, seeing as how she's also selling blogwear packages using that kit. !!! IMO that's akin to selling something as CU, because pretty soon everyone on the block will be sporting a Jolee's blog (and then tracing it back to the "original source" is messy, if/when people w/ that blog design start getting complaints from the original artist)! The plot thickens.
Wow, I think that's seriously not okay.
I would imagine that if she got permission they would have required her to have some acknowledgement on her packaging. Someone big like Jolee's is not going to give that away without asking for something back.
Oh wow I bought that kit earlier today. I don't buy actual scrapbook products so I didn't recognize the stickers.
TOU credits: "Special thanks to Amanda Rockwell, Miss Tiina, Tracie Stroud, KittyDesigns, Ritta Massela, Rachael Scutt & Fruit Loop Sally."
well looking at them, they are close-- the bag is different (the dots don't match), the ball, sunscreen and others are not the same...i like it is just too close for many peoples comfort..
^^ I was basing off of this website
http://www.simonsaysstamp.com/servlet/the-29643/Jolee%27s-Boutique-FUN-AT/Detail
If you look at the elements they are not identical, so I don't think she scanned the stickers in. I think she recreated them and did a darned good job at that. Is it ok?? I am not an expert in this area so I don't know.
If other companies in competition to Jolee's can make stuff very similar to the actual Jolee's then a designer copying an idea is in the same realm IMHO. If she scanned and copied the Jolee items then she went against Jolee's copyright and I doubt Jolee gives permission as they pay big bucks to other's to use name brand items but one never knows for sure so making assumptions only makes the person an...a...
There's always the possibility she purchased them as CU from someone else.
^^^
I would think that if she purchased them as CU from someone else, that someone else would be listed in the TOU/credits. Judging from what is posted above (if it's in fact accurate), then it would be one of those people. I'm familiar w/ a bunch of their shops (but not all), and don't think any of them carry anything like that.
For anyone that wants to take a closer look:
http://postimage.org/gallery/10ohcus94/
They weren't created all digitally because you can see the glue on the pail. She could have made her own by hand.
Someone mentioned the dots being off but you can't judge by that. The stickers are made with real fabric & stitches so each one will look slightly different.
^^^
Yep exactly. When it comes to paper stickers/embellishments they are always slightly different from one another. Never a true carbon copy. But judging from the previews of both, the similarities are far too great for it to not be Jolee
Now question becomes, has anyone contacted either designer about this? Until that is done, we will all just be here on the smack blog speculating. Because whether she scanned and extracted those herself, or bought them CU from someone, the light is on Shabby Miss Jenn.
Here's a better look at the Jolee's stickers. They are virtually identical, with only a few changes by Shabby Miss Jenn. Those few changes lead me to believe that she did not get permission, otherwise, why change them?
http://www.scrapdazzle.net/images/products/detail/SPJB080.jpg
the light is on Shabby Miss Jenn.
--------------------------------
Well I don't know if anyone will recall but Miss Jenn was one of those who sent Tandika over the edge. Tandika accused Miss Jenn of using one of her tutorials in a magazine and did not credit give her credit. That was when Tandika started banning people from her site and Miss Jenn was one of those banned. Miss Jenn's name was cleared in public because Tandika lost it. But maybe there was more to the story than we know.
I live in the US and around here you are innocent until proven guilty. (although sometimes I think we need to rethink our position on that!) So, before getting in an uproar I would like to hear what Shabby Miss Jenn and Jolee have to say.
I hadn't noticed an uproar. Just a discussion so far.
the light is on Shabby Miss Jenn.
--------------------------------
Well I don't know if anyone will recall but Miss Jenn was one of those who sent Tandika over the edge. Tandika accused Miss Jenn of using one of her tutorials in a magazine and did not credit give her credit. That was when Tandika started banning people from her site and Miss Jenn was one of those banned. Miss Jenn's name was cleared in public because Tandika lost it. But maybe there was more to the story than we know.
--------------------------------
Yep I remember, and I can bet that the reason SMJ was easily dismissed was because of her reputation in digiland. But of course then people only were interested in Tandika from it all because of the crazy way she handled everything thing. So that does leave a bit of curiosity to linger now.
Things that make ya go hmmmmmmm
I hadn't noticed an uproar. Just a discussion so far.
------------
Agreed.
The poster who mentioned as a difference the dots on the bag being off place, is a complete idiot. Have you ever tried to cut two identical shapes out of a pattern paper/fabric? To make it clear, the .png bag might not be identical with the photo of the pack on internet, but it is identical with the piece that got scanned/photographed.
So, before getting in an uproar I would like to hear what Shabby Miss Jenn and Jolee have to say.
May 27, 2011 10:17 PM
------
Uproar?
Compared to other copyright issues that have come up this is one of the most civil discussions I've seen on this blog.
I wonder if SMJ even bothers to check this blog? She may not have a clue that it's been brought up unless someone has actually contacted her directly.
I hadn't noticed an uproar. Just a discussion so far.
------------
Agreed.
---------------------------------
My mistake. I think it was the couple of cocktails I had that made it seem an uproar.
I think EVERYONE needs to read this blog article. Makes a whole lotta sense. Of course there is a science to it..
http://www.austinkleon.com/2011/03/30/how-to-steal-like-an-artist-and-9-other-things-nobody-told-me/
She works for Jolee's Boutique.
It's not the same.
http://jolees.eksuccessbrands.com/Product/Fun+At+The+Beach.aspx
1. The color scheme is different. SMJ's is darker/muddier.
2. The pail, beachball and sunglasses, sunscreen bottle are different. The shapes are different. If you really compare you can see it.
3. The sand castle is different. Although very similar. Jolee's uses glitter. SMJ uses what appears to be sand. The angles are different and the flags are larger.
It is close. But I don't see how this is any different than physical brand knock-offs. I think this industry needs to grow-up and realize that knock-offs will happen and it isn't piracy.
^^^
If that's what you tell yourself to justify stealing, you need to re-evaluate your ethical standards.
She works for Jolee's Boutique.
------
Ok? I could work for Disney and I still wouldn't be allowed to sell images of Mickey Mouse on my personal time.
Unless she originally created those elements and Jolee's is paying her to use her designs I don't see how that makes a difference.
It's not the same.
http://jolees.eksuccessbrands.com/Product/Fun+At+The+Beach.aspx
1. The color scheme is different. SMJ's is darker/muddier.
2. The pail, beachball and sunglasses, sunscreen bottle are different. The shapes are different. If you really compare you can see it.
3. The sand castle is different. Although very similar. Jolee's uses glitter. SMJ uses what appears to be sand. The angles are different and the flags are larger.
It is close. But I don't see how this is any different than physical brand knock-offs. I think this industry needs to grow-up and realize that knock-offs will happen and it isn't piracy.
-------
Well I emailed Jolee's legal department and informed them. So I guess they can decide if "knock-offs" are ok with them.
Well I emailed Jolee's legal department and informed them. So I guess they can decide if "knock-offs" are ok with them.
May 28, 2011 11:42 AM
---
The law is clear to those who don't over intrepret like everyone in digiscrap does. Unless it is scanned, copied, or traced it isn't a reproduction. It is altered enough to make it a unique work of art. And those items aren't trademark. (so the Disney arguement doesn't apply in this case.) Add to that that we are in a different industry (physical product vs. digital product), they don't really have a case.
Unless she originally created those elements and Jolee's is paying her to use her designs I don't see how that makes a difference.
May 28, 2011 10:58 AM
-----
Disney is not the same thing as scrapbooking or digital scrapbooking. That's like comparing toes to oranges. And we all know that Disney doesn't care what digiscrap does because they NEVER take action. So it doesn't work to even bring up that as an argument.
If she works for Jolee's she may have designed the items herself and got permission to use them in the kit. It just depends on the contract with Jolee's. A number of designers have crossed over into paper. It's a possibility. The other poster may know something everyone else doesn't.
Those items are under a copyright and Jolee's is Trademarked. You trademark symbols, marks, logos, slogans/sayings and the like, not items. Anything you create can be automatically marked with a copyright symbol as well as TM for trademark, though you can't use the R for trademark until you file it.
So no they aren't trademarked but they shouldn't be, they are under copyright.
I just threw Disney out there because it's a large company and there was something Disney near me. The point is you can't flat out copy something just because you work for the company. Also, Disney may not take action but that doesn't make it ok to copy them. Do you teach your children it's ok to do things that are illegal as long as they don't get caught?
"Add to that that we are in a different industry" ----- Different industry? No, it's all scrapbooking. Craft stores that carry physical scrapbooking products now also carry digital scrapbooking products. Copyright doesn't disappear when you cross over from one to the other.
With this line of thinking I'll just go to the craft store, buy a bunch of physical scrapbooking products, scan them, zip them up and put them in a store.
The law is clear to those who don't over intrepret like everyone in digiscrap does. Unless it is scanned, copied, or traced it isn't a reproduction. It is altered enough to make it a unique work of art. And those items aren't trademark. (so the Disney arguement doesn't apply in this case.) Add to that that we are in a different industry (physical product vs. digital product), they don't really have a case.
May 28, 2011 12:02 PM
------
You'd be safe to completely ignore everything that 12:02 said. She clearly has no idea what she is talking about.
Designers, protect your reputation and your pocket book by not reproducing, tracing, copying, recycling, scanning, photographing or otherwise reusing other designers artwork. Not only can it get you in a lot of trouble legally, it's just plain wrong.
While artists often take inspiration from other artists. That does not mean reproducing their artwork, or changing it slightly and calling it your own.
OMG, I've always admired Shabby miss Jenn and seeing that her reputation could be damaged makes me sad. I really really want to know what she has to say about that.
1. No, those items are not trademarked. The name brand Jolee's is. The items do hold a copyright. But there is nothing unique about the design of sunglasses nor a bucket. If so then Jolee's is in copyright violation of whatever company is currently producing cat eye sunglasses and cute plastic buckets. You can't copyright a shape. Nor can you copyright a certain style, ie paper piecing.
2. We ARE a different industry from scrapbooking. Not many people cross over between the two. Digital Scrapbooking is still a cottage industry. Paper companies haven't broken into it because there isn't enough profit. There have been attempts it's true.
3. You took what I said out of context. (not a surprise because you don't understand the law) I said it is illegal to scan and reproduce. So scanning Jolee's products and selling is illegal and Jolee's can sue. Inspiration isn't illegal when you are creating a different medium of art. It would be copying if she was reproducing it in paper or scanning it directly. She clearly created it digitally.
4. Ethics and the law are different things. It doesn't matter what we feel is right or ethical. Too many are interpreting the law way beyond what it says. I know she didn't violate copyright because I understand the law. Ethically, I don't agree with what she did only if she didn't get permission.
While artists often take inspiration from other artists. That does not mean reproducing their artwork, or changing it slightly and calling it your own.
May 28, 2011 3:40 PM
-----
You are forgetting that we are dealing with a physical product and a digital product. I don't think that she scanned or photographed the items because they are different. It's more likely that she probably created them from scratch, digitally. Which does not violate copyright any more than creating a digital button inspired by a real one. Singer could sue us all by your logic.
You are forgetting that we are dealing with a physical product and a digital product. I don't think that she scanned or photographed the items because they are different. It's more likely that she probably created them from scratch, digitally. Which does not violate copyright any more than creating a digital button inspired by a real one. Singer could sue us all by your logic.
May 28, 2011 5:22 PM
-----
First, she obviously scanned the items.
Second, I'm not forgetting that it is a digital product which is different from a physical product. It absolutely does not matter. If you take someone else's copyrighted art (physical or digital) and identically recreate it (physically or digitally), you are violating that artists copyright.
Believe what you like, it doesn't really change the fact that she should have done what she did, unless she had permission from Jolee's.
I have always liked Shabby Miss Jenn's designs. I hope she had permission to do what she did. Being a likeable person and/or having really cute product, doesn't make infringing on someone else's copyright ok.
You are forgetting that we are dealing with a physical product and a digital product. I don't think that she scanned or photographed the items because they are different. It's more likely that she probably created them from scratch, digitally. Which does not violate copyright any more than creating a digital button inspired by a real one. Singer could sue us all by your logic.
May 28, 2011 5:22 PM
---------
So by your logic, if you are a digital designer, I can print out your designs, scan them back into Photoshop, extract them and sell them as my own. Because at one point, your designs were a physical product.
It's nice that you are trying to defend a designer you like, but you don't really know what you are talking about.
I didn't say that you can scan or photograph OR directly COPY someone else's design. I said over and over that is a copyright violation and you will be sued for that.
But You can look at something that is physical and recreate it digitally. It's NOT illegal. We do it all the time. There's rules around how close that can go. But knock-offs happen all the time in business.
And I hope you all realize that a paper designer can look at your digi stuff and *recreate* it into physical paper products for sale and there isn't a darn thing you can do about it. (they can't print it and sell it that way) So if you create a really cute paper pieced cat, they can take some paper, cut it up in a similar pattern, mass produced and sell it at Wal-Mart. If it isn't a direct print or exact shape good luck winning a law suit.
And I'm not defending her. I've posted about this in other places as well. I'm pretty much the only one in the industry who doesn't believe that everything is a copyright violation. I believe that if someone is creating something digitally, it is a different work of art. But only if you start from scratch in your program. Scanning and photographing an object *might* be a copyright violation. It really depends. I don't know which of these SMJ used to get to the final product. If she scanned or photographed without permission, she did violate Jolee's copyright.
I do, however, believe that a designer will sell more products by creating original products. Copying really isn't necessary, nor is it ethical.
So I can take a Thomas Kinkade painting, and recreate it digitally, and sell digital copies or prints? As long as I make it completely from scratch using Photoshop, then it's ok? You don't think Kinkade will sue my butt off and win?
She clearly created it digitally.
-----------
No she did not, you MORON.
I'd have to agree that you're a moron if you think this was created digitally.
http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/4055/unled3rs.jpg
Does that mean that Joanne, who was using Bradford Exchange pictures and drawing them "by hand" to create a script was totally in her right to do so? That is not what transpired from the heated discussion that happened in the Scrap Talk a few weeks ago. This is becoming so complicated!
I think EVERYONE needs to read this blog article. Makes a whole lotta sense. Of course there is a science to it..
http://www.austinkleon.com/2011/03/30/how-to-steal-like-an-artist-and-9-other-things-nobody-told-me/
--------
A very good read, thanks for the link.
It becomes complicated because people with no real knowledge of the try to interpret it and apply it...generally, to suit the side of an argument their on. Perhaps, unless you're an IP attorney who is well versed in the law or a jurist, it would be better to stop trying to interpret and apply it to suit what you want.
Unless it is scanned, copied, or traced it isn't a reproduction. It is altered enough to make it a unique work of art.
-----------
But they aren't altered enough at all. They look exactly the same. A minor tweak here or there is not an 'alteration', unless we are talking about tailoring a suit to fit.
^^^^^
I should add that I'm neither an IP attorney nor a jurist, do not know exactly how to interpret copyright law and don't intend to try.
It would be copying if she was reproducing it in paper or scanning it directly. She clearly created it digitally.
------------
No, she didn't. They are quite clearly scanned, with minor alterations. The textures of the papers on the paper items are identical.
I believe that if someone is creating something digitally, it is a different work of art. But only if you start from scratch in your program.
---------
Right, so by your argument I can make and use my own money, as long as I did it from scratch in my own program. Thanks for the heads up.
And before you say it's not the same thing, it is the same thing by your own argument.
But I don't see how this is any different than physical brand knock-offs. I think this industry needs to grow-up and realize that knock-offs will happen and it isn't piracy.
-----------
I hate to break it to you, but knock offs are piracy and trade mark and/or copyright violations, in any industry. I know, I used to work in a law dept. that dealt with knock offs from brand names.
They may happen, but that doesn't mean we need to 'grow up' and ignore them just because they do.
All sorts of crimes happen, should we just accept them or try and do something about them?
Anyone else getting bored watching the two of them (above) argue over mere speculations and guesses...? Let's someone "invite" SMJ to join in so we can hear the real story. Unless or until that happens, quite possibly we should all move on to some other fun and juicy topic. We're actually going in circles now... yawn.
Right, so by your argument I can make and use my own money, as long as I did it from scratch in my own program. Thanks for the heads up.
And before you say it's not the same thing, it is the same thing by your own argument.
May 28, 2011 8:42 PM
Um, you can do that and it isn't piracy. That is counterfitting. Good luck with that one. Great red herring. Maybe if you are going to call me on poor logic, you should use some yourself?
Anyone else getting bored watching the two of them (above) argue over mere speculations and guesses...? Let's someone "invite" SMJ to join in so we can hear the real story. Unless or until that happens, quite possibly we should all move on to some other fun and juicy topic. We're actually going in circles now... yawn.
May 28, 2011 9:12 PM
-------------
From what I can tell there are actually several people involved in the discussion.
But yes dear, why don't you run along and find Miss Jenn to play with. The grown-ups are having a conversation here.
I hate to break it to you, but knock offs are piracy and trade mark and/or copyright violations, in any industry. I know, I used to work in a law dept. that dealt with knock offs from brand names.
----
I can walk into Hobby Lobby and by generic flowers that are identical to Prima. They didn't sue anyone for stealing their idea. You can't really tell the difference between the two either unless you look really close.
It is really only illegal if they try to put the name brand on it (counterfeit). I don't believe that you worked in a law dept. that dealt with this. Isn't that convenient that you would?
It becomes complicated because people with no real knowledge of the try to interpret it and apply it...generally, to suit the side of an argument their on. Perhaps, unless you're an IP attorney who is well versed in the law or a jurist, it would be better to stop trying to interpret and apply it to suit what you want.
--------------
Nope, I'm not an attorney. But I am a designer. Therefore, I need to try to understand what I can and cannot do with regards to copyright. Ignoring it, is not an option.
Also, we can discuss whatever we like here. Just like you can. Why is there someone always trying to stop the current thread of conversation? Let it flow, it will change on it's own. We were discussing 5 kid boobies, a couple days ago and now it's moved on to SMJ's faux pas. In a couple days it will be something else. That's how this place works.
Um, you can do that and it isn't piracy. That is counterfitting. Good luck with that one. Great red herring. Maybe if you are going to call me on poor logic, you should use some yourself?
------------
What's counterfitting? Oh, did you mean counterfeiting? You weren't speaking exclusively about piracy, not that it matters if you were. My response to your illogical argument still stands.
It is really only illegal if they try to put the name brand on it (counterfeit). I don't believe that you worked in a law dept. that dealt with this. Isn't that convenient that you would?
------
How is it convenient? Don't believe me, doesn't matter one iota. I know the truth.
I can walk into Hobby Lobby and by generic flowers that are identical to Prima. They didn't sue anyone for stealing their idea. You can't really tell the difference between the two either unless you look really close.
--------
Your point is what exactly? Just because some do it, doesn't mean it's legal. And how do you know they don't sue? Do you work for Prima?
So we're going to continue slamming Miss Tiina, then let Shabby Miss Jenn slide until we hear from her because we like her so well? Shame on you all for being so damn hypocritical.
Does that mean that Joanne, who was using Bradford Exchange pictures and drawing them "by hand" to create a script was totally in her right to do so? That is not what transpired from the heated discussion that happened in the Scrap Talk a few weeks ago. This is becoming so complicated!
May 28, 2011 8:11 PM
====
I don't believe that she was drawing them by hand. I believe that she was stealing the images and tracing or running filters on them to make them look drawn and adding to the pictures. The images were too exact. That is piracy. If she was drawing them, it wouldn't be exact and she would have the ability to make them cuter rather than an ugly clearly photoshopped image. Then it would have been a grey area but probably not piracy.
Really the only way for this to get answered is for someone to actually take a designer to court. That would clarify some of the grey areas.
Anyone else getting bored watching the two of them (above) argue over mere speculations and guesses...?
----------
No, I'm only bored by people like you who are trying to divert the conversation. Besides, there's more than two people involved in this discussion.
So we're going to continue slamming Miss Tiina, then let Shabby Miss Jenn slide until we hear from her because we like her so well? Shame on you all for being so damn hypocritical.
-------
There a bunch of people who not letting SMJ slide. What the heck are you talking about?
Your point is what exactly? Just because some do it, doesn't mean it's legal. And how do you know they don't sue? Do you work for Prima?
May 28, 2011 9:44 PM
Actually it does. It usually means that the company that is being ripped off didn't have a law to lean on to stop the competition from knocking off their items. And if they did sue and WON, we would no longer see the knock-offs on the shelves when we go That's how I know...
Really the only way for this to get answered is for someone to actually take a designer to court. That would clarify some of the grey areas.
------------
Artists, and I'm using a generic term here, have already been taken to court over this issue. There is no real grey area.
And if they did sue and WON, we would no longer see the knock-offs on the shelves when we go That's how I know...
-------
Dream on. One company gets sued, another company takes up the baton. Your argument is simplistic to the extreme.
So we're going to continue slamming Miss Tiina, then let Shabby Miss Jenn slide until we hear from her because we like her so well? Shame on you all for being so damn hypocritical.
May 28, 2011 9:45 PM
----
I don't think anyone is letting this "slide". What are you expecting us to do? She's getting smacked as much as miss Tiina. It's up to Jolee's to take action.
Dream on. One company gets sued, another company takes up the baton. Your argument is simplistic to the extreme.
May 28, 2011 9:52 PM
Not when I buy the same brand of off-brand flowers time after time after time.
^yep! they r even in the milk bottle. ;) wonder how they get away with copying?
Not when I buy the same brand of off-brand flowers time after time after time.
------------
Sigh.
Oh boy! What a shame this is to hear about Shabby Miss Jenn. This is so unexpected. I'm not going to trash her but I will say that as a loyal customer of hers I am extremely disappointed if this in fact true. To me she seemed right up there with Shabby Princess; a good reputation as an artist, sweet girl and never any drama (that I knew of anyway) Nonetheless, as a customer and a long time fan I'd like to hear her explanation and side of things before I continue to support her and buy any more of her products :(
So go ask her ;)
I seriously doubt that she will come her to explain herself. It just doesn't seem like her style.
Has anyone ever noticed that she refers to her company as "We" on her blog? Does she hire designers to design for her? It seem odd that she isn't using "I"...
That might explain how this happened. (not that it isn't still her responsibility, but she can't know all the paper products)
anyone ever hear of knockoffs. Lots of Gucci, Louis Vuitton and other fakes out there. How about watches? Just saw some Michael Kors knockoffs at a store the other day. Plenty of jewelry knockoffs to be had especially Tiffany look alikes. Of course there are enough changes made that no one gets sued for this type of copying. If companies aren't worrying about the big guys then I sure am not going to worry about the little guys. This kind of thing is in every industry out there. So get real, get a life and know that unless she scanned the Jolee items, which is a copyright offense she hasn't done anything any of the big guys don't do day in and day out. Louis was one of the first to put his initials on his bags-know how many now have just their initials on their look alike bags?
OMG, listen for a second. Knock offs are not okay. If they are made to look like the original, they are a counterfeit. They hurt the original designer, and they hurt the consumers who refuse to buy the knock-offs because the price on the original goes up. That applies to any industry that knock-offs appear in. It is not the victimless crime you seem to think it is.
Your logic is completely wrong, you are here spouting your personal unethical beliefs as if they were fact. Do five minutes of research about knock offs and you will soon come to understand why we all think you are complete moron right now.
They might be unethical, but they aren't illegal. So go ahead and whine about it hurting the designer and all that boo-hoo. It's called competition and without it we wouldn't be able to afford anything!
What I noticed is that Prima has responded to the copycats by producing even prettier flowers that are very unique.
Buying knock offs isn't illegal. But selling them is illegal.
Get your facts straight. You are the only person posting here that doesn't realize that the things you are saying over and over are extremely stupid. If you are trying to justify your behavior, then go ahead and keep lying to yourself. But when you get busted for copying someone else's designs, no one is going to care that you "believed" it wasn't wrong.
I think EVERYONE needs to read this blog article. Makes a whole lotta sense. Of course there is a science to it..
http://www.austinkleon.com/2011/03/30/how-to-steal-like-an-artist-and-9-other-things-nobody-told-me/
--------
A very good read, thanks for the link.
------------------------------
Glad you liked it! I thought it was relevant. Not sure many (from here anyway) have read it or understood it.
Anonymous said...
She clearly created it digitally.
-----------
No she did not, you MORON.
May 28, 2011 6:41 PM
Anonymous said...
I'd have to agree that you're a moron if you think this was created digitally.
http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/4055/unled3rs.jpg
May 28, 2011 7:27 PM
Maybe she also creates real gluedigitally!
Buying knock offs isn't illegal. But selling them is illegal.
Get your facts straight. You are the only person posting here that doesn't realize that the things you are saying over and over are extremely stupid. If you are trying to justify your behavior, then go ahead and keep lying to yourself. But when you get busted for copying someone else's designs, no one is going to care that you "believed"
----------
Hey moron, it's not illegal if they are using their own brand name. If they try to put the other brand name or trademark on it, then it is illegal. A knock off indicates that it isn't an exact copy too.
Glad you liked it! I thought it was relevant. Not sure many (from here anyway) have read it or understood it.
May 29, 2011 11:06 AM
I wouldn't count on too many understanding here. It's like talking to a brick wall.
It's needs "to be" illegal for sake of drama.
Buying knock offs isn't illegal. But selling them is illegal.
---
It's illegal to sell counterfeits, not knock-offs. Counterfeits are illegal because you aren't getting an authentic product and the seller is stealing the trademark of the company. This happens all the time with purses, Disney items, and watches.
A knock-off would indicate that there is some difference and the company is using it's own brand logo and trademark. For example every time you buy jeans you are buying a great-grandchild knock-off of Levi's. And think how much it sucks to be "Ralph Lauren Polo". JCP's Arizon company (and Kohl's Sonoma) create "polo's" and advertise them as such. But it's NOT illegal.
Either way this doesn't relate to the situation at hand. It looks like it is possible that that the SMJ items are scanned. It isn't counterfeiting or creating a knock-off. It's piracy. (unless she got permission!)
Everything digi is a knock-off of paper scrapbooking or general graphic design. There is hardly anything that is original. But I think it's very clear that scanning and using something that isn't your design is wrong!
Get your facts straight. You are the only person posting here that doesn't realize that the things you are saying over and over are extremely stupid. If you are trying to justify your behavior, then go ahead and keep lying to yourself. But when you get busted for copying someone else's designs, no one is going to care that you "believed" it wasn't wrong.
May 29, 2011 10:54 AM
---
Well, there's more than one of us replying to your ignorance on this matter. Learn the difference between counterfeit and knock-off.
I can't speak for the other people posting but I'm not a designer nor do I own a business that creates unique designs. So your accusation that someone who believes creating knocks-offs is doing something illegal only digs you deaper into a hole of ignorance. I agree with the PP that said that digi is a knock-off of paper. It is rare that something really is original. And you are living in dreamland if you think that's a possibility.
I shop a lot and don't care to spend money on top designer brands just for the sake of supporting art or design. I prefer the cheaper knock-offs. I'm the same way with buying my digital scrapbooking products. I don't pay Designer Digitals prices when I can get something close at other shops for a lot less. That's a knock-off.
I don't support piracy or countfeiting. It's illegal.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Product-Knockoff-or-Counterfeit&id=6291149
I think that in the course of this whole back-and-forth argument, some of you are losing sight of the real issue at hand. The real issue here is that copyright law exists in order to protect the original artist/creator of any work of art, etc. Whether in the form of the written word, or a painting, or sculpture, or paper scrapbooking stickers... the original artist/creator retains the copyright to that object.
Now, it's been established here that SMJ obviously scanned/photographed the original items and used them in her kit. Let's not argue this, OK? You can see the glue residue, etc. It wasn't created digitally. So essentially, she's passing off someone else's work as her own. This violates copyright.
Let's not argue the semantics of knock-offs, counterfeits, flowers at Hobby Lobby and whether other companies can create something that looks like Prima, etc... it doesn't matter. All irrelevant. The only thing that matters here is that IF she scanned/photographed those elements and used them in her kit WITHOUT permission/credit given, she's basically passing them off as her own -- a violation of the original artist's (presumably Jolee's) copyright.
A knock-off is something that is meant to look like something else, but has enough differences that it's not a direct copy. The elements in the kit by SMJ are not a knock-off, they are an direct copy. And it doesn't matter if they were scanned or if she re-created them. Either way, they are a direct copy and that is not legal unless she had permission to do that.
I'm disappointed about this because I did buy the kit and now I feel like I can't use it.
I'm disappointed about this because I did buy the kit and now I feel like I can't use it.
May 29, 2011 2:57 PM
----------
Are you fucking kidding? You feel like you can't use it now? I'm jealous of you if this is a major concern in your day to day life. Unless you're the designer being ripped off, why should you care? Insane.
I wouldn't count on too many understanding here. It's like talking to a brick wall.
It's needs "to be" illegal for sake of drama.
-------------
You clearly didn't understand it either, judging by your last statement.
Are you fucking kidding? You feel like you can't use it now? I'm jealous of you if this is a major concern in your day to day life. Unless you're the designer being ripped off, why should you care? Insane.
-------
Not the OP, but some people clearly have a higher moral compass than you do.
Now, it's been established here that SMJ obviously scanned/photographed the original items and used them in her kit. Let's not argue this, OK? You can see the glue residue, etc. It wasn't created digitally. So essentially, she's passing off someone else's work as her own. This violates copyright.
Let's not argue the semantics of knock-offs, counterfeits, flowers at Hobby Lobby and whether other companies can create something that looks like Prima, etc... it doesn't matter. All irrelevant. The only thing that matters here is that IF she scanned/photographed those elements and used them in her kit WITHOUT permission/credit given, she's basically passing them off as her own -- a violation of the original artist's (presumably Jolee's) copyright.
--------------
Thank you! The voice of reason.
Anonymous said...
Are you fucking kidding? You feel like you can't use it now? I'm jealous of you if this is a major concern in your day to day life. Unless you're the designer being ripped off, why should you care? Insane.
-------
Not the OP, but some people clearly have a higher moral compass than you do.
May 29, 2011 5:58 PM
Not the OP or PP
I've met many hypocrites in my life. She's one of them. How can I tell? Well, she comes here, reads and posts. Need more?
How does that make her a hyporcite? Not everything posted is nasty and mean.
Post a Comment