Obviously, in your opinion, who is the single best digi scrap designer? If you were only allowed to buy from only one person. Who would you pick? March 9, 2011 7:13 PM
____________
I don't like that kind of questions. Everyone has their own taste.
I'm not sure you could even say there is a single best designer could you? They all have their own strengths and weaknesses, good kits and not so good. I know I don't have a "go to" designer that no matter what I will use her stuff.
I invented digital scrapbooking for myself when I found some printable backgrounds online and just used them in Photoshop to save time. That was in 2000, and I suspect that quite a few other people did a similar thing. :)
SUN 'refreshed' their site again. That's the 4th time in the last 2 years. Seriously. Someone there knows fuck all about branding. -----------------------------
Click on the little yello triangle beside the site name on that site, to get to the previous posting when Erik posted it for sale too. Unfortunately, it does not disclose how much he was asking for. But reading the comments, i suspect it is roughly the same amount. Whether Lee bought it for the price asked or not, is another question.
Did anyone actually think that Lee wouldn't sell DST at some point. He only bought it for the money. He tried to keep it as it was and didn't put much time and effort into it. Guess his 2 site people must make about $350 each a month. Not much for all the work they wind up doing. That's like $11.00 a day. I wouldn't work for $11.00 a day would you?
Did anyone actually think that Lee wouldn't sell DST at some point. He only bought it for the money. He tried to keep it as it was and didn't put much time and effort into it. Guess his 2 site people must make about $350 each a month. Not much for all the work they wind up doing. That's like $11.00 a day. I wouldn't work for $11.00 a day would you?
March 12, 2011 9:57 AM
---
It depends on how much time it would be per day. I doubt they spend an 8 hour day on it probably closer to 15 minutes per day based on how the site is run.
The pay issue might depend on who you are talking about. I think the Insider staff is paid. I remember seeing a call for a paid position in the forum for the Insider. That might be the 6-8 people he mentions. It is obviously not the mods as they are not paid.
and second..take a look at this ad from Moo Two Designs. Those Lime whatever floral packs...those are Chelles Creations (SM) simply plopped in a pack. Big big big NO NO!
and second..take a look at this ad from Moo Two Designs. Those Lime whatever floral packs...those are Chelles Creations (SM) simply plopped in a pack. Big big big NO NO!
^^^^^^^^^^ I was aware of this situation, and from the tiny preview, it does look suspicious. Just want to set the record straight. There is a pattern on the flowers in the kit...it's not visible on the small preview, but if you look at the actual image, it's there. (Can't attach a screenshot, or I'd show you.) Rosemade has followed the rules of my TOU.
Holy shit - Lee tried selling DST for $50,000 and no one bought it! -----
No he didn't. I think he tried to sell it for more.
If he had tried to sell it for $50,000 why didn't he sell it to the one and only bidder who offered that exact amount? I think the $50,000 is the one bid price.
so dawn inskip and jennifer labre come out with kits named couch potato, and even have the same type elements. must be psychic. ----
Or they had a chat and decided to make the same kit as a sort of joke. I remember when Flergs and was it Bren Boone, both made a kit called Fancy Pants or something, same colors and everything. Turned out it was because of a convo on Hello and the did it as a joke
http://www.scrapmatters.com/team/ March 11, 2011 9:18 PM
---------------------------
By my count, 16 of the designers pictured have left or are leaving soon. Some of them haven't been there in more than a year. If they can't be bothered to keep their team page current, I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that they didn't download and QC all the design star kits in round 1.
remember the poster who claims to have been "recognized" while walking thru Michaels? first I wondered what she is doing in Michaels...finding more stuff to photograph to sell as CU? break a few copyright laws? LOL...then i got to wondering...how on earth would she be recognized...I know, I know...I spose someone could see her avatar photo and recognize someone that way...but..more likely its someone like Royanna that puts her damn glamour shots in her kits (if she stopped paying for all those glamour shots she could pay the rent).
I just remembered the dream I had last night (or should I say nightmare?): Royanna had added another "beautiful" photo of her in her TOU folders!
March 13, 2011 4:07 AM
___
you dream about digital scrapbooking people that you haven't met and don't even like? wtf is wrong with you?
March 13, 2011 11:34 AM
First, one can't control her subconscious. Second, I don't like her attitude, but I always download her freebies, because almost always I like her alphas (not her papers-elements). Third, her TOU folders are way too much, considering that she is not a movie super star, just a digiscrap designer. So my question is: what is wrong with you?
And yes, about the poster who has been recognized at Michaels, I thought of her too!
Another new digi scrap store coming soon. You can see which designers are going to be there by clicking on the gallery tab. They've listed their designer galleries already.
LOL on the Royanna dream/nightmare. I never considered downloading her freebies, or even dropping in to see what they are, but thanks for the heads up on the alphas.
The Oscraps birthday party was sort of a fizzle and die, I thought.
Another new digi scrap store coming soon. You can see which designers are going to be there by clicking on the gallery tab. They've listed their designer galleries already.
**************** Wow. She acted like they were still accepting applications. What a liar.
remember the poster who claims to have been "recognized" while walking thru Michaels? first I wondered what she is doing in Michaels...finding more stuff to photograph to sell as CU? break a few copyright laws? LOL
---
It isn't violating copyright to photograph craft items from a different industry. Read the part about deriative works. Sheesh do you expect everyone to make all those pretty flowers on your pages from hand?
And I'm certain that person was lying about being recognized just to stir the pot.
Geez, she meant the person posting about there still being openings, not the one who *thinks* she's good enough to sell there. Read first before you comment.
It isn't violating copyright to photograph craft items from a different industry. Read the part about deriative works. Sheesh do you expect everyone to make all those pretty flowers on your pages from hand? ... March 14, 2011 8:19 AM ---------------
Martha Stewart would certainly not agree with you. Try scanning her flowers and let us go how it goes. Don't you remember the Prima flowers saga?
How so? How do you know she's still not accepting applications? The store hasn't gone live yet.
And where was she supposedly acting like this?
******************
When someone says, "we have an amazing line-up of designers AND we are SOOO ready for this adventure!!" it most likely means that they aren't accepting anyone else.
Martha Stewart would certainly not agree with you. Try scanning her flowers and let us go how it goes. Don't you remember the Prima flowers saga?
March 14, 2011 7:01 PM
---
MS is similar industries so yes, there would be damages in the way of profit. But items that are intended for general craft use would have a hard time proving damages as there is nothing unique about the design. Copyright lawsuits involve damages. If it isn't within your industry and the item is altered enough, it's unlikely that they would win the lawsuit. It's all right there in the copyright law. Try reading it some day.
copyright nazis are back to make all designers terrified to even photograph and extract a rock because the designer didn't make the rock themselves. Don't even the darken the door to Michaels because you might be recognized and accused of copyright violations for photographing and extracting generic stuff that was intended for commercial usage anyway.
the copyright Nazis are coming to get us all and take us to court...
I have never paper scrapped (although I do other crafts). Is there such thing as TOU in the paper kits? Anyway, I have only heard of PU/CU only in digiscrap. When you buy a tube with an acrylic color is it for PU or CU?
It's both. They can't limit what you do with a tool like that and they won't even try. Normal companies don't take Copyright nearly as literally as digiscrappers do! Seriously, I contacted OFray about ribbon use and they were like, "Huh? Yeah. Whatever... We expect people to make stuff with our product and sell it." (paraphrase of the phone convo) Trust me, the digi copyright Nazis care more about it than the companies and are making up rules that don't exist. ex: "You can't photograph denim because those jeans are trademarked/copyrighted." Read the copyright laws for yourself and you'll see. They leave out derative works every time!
But I wouldn't scan or photograph scrapbooking stuff, stickers, or papers because we are in the same industry and they can sue because we take away from their profit. And you can't swipe photos from the web without permission because part of our art is photography (and the photographer says so!). And you can't swipe graphics either because part of our art is graphics. It's all about damages. And it's true that there's a big grey area where it is best to ask permission.
Everyone needs to use common sense on both sides of the spectrum. Know the copyright and trademark laws for yourself!!!
Down with copyright NAZIs and their reign of terror!
I used to work in a flower shop and the owners would go to Michaels and buy tons of fake flowers. They would make these lovely bridal arrangements and sell them for at least a 300% mark-up on what they paid for the flowers. And in some cases they made profit over and over on the same arrangements because they leased them rather than selling. Not much different than what digi does! They never worried about if it was commercial use or even ok to do that. They never called the companies to check.
I think we take it way too seriously and need to lighten up.
I wonder if the difference between the florist selling a bouquet made of silk flowers and the digiscrap industry might be the fact that if you buy a dozen flowers, you can only sell a dozen flowers so the initial seller knows you can make just so much, while in digi, if you buy a dozen overlays, or elements, you can sell it 100 times, so you make much much more than a regular markup. Just a thought. Maybe that is what makes designers more 'ticklish' on the issue?
^ Not in the case sited above. She said she rented the arrangements. It wasn't just a one time sale. Thinking about it, I doubt the maker of the flowers could do anything to prevent that. I don't see how that is very different from selling a digital flower set over and over again.
yep, I agree, it's the digi ghestopo taking copyright too far. It the designer doesn't spin and weave it all by hand they are violating copyright.
oh wait, someone has a copyright claim to the cotton. I better get permission before I start spinning for those handmade flowers I want to photograph and extract.
Oh, and I guess I can't use the paper flowers that I made because I bought the plain pink colored paper from Wal-Mart and they have a copyright to that.
oh wait, someone has a copyright claim to the cotton. I better get permission before I start spinning for those handmade flowers I want to photograph and extract.
---
No, all you need to do is grow the cotton in your backyard. Then it's all yours!
"Remember the poster who claims to have been "recognized" while walking thru Michaels? first I wondered what she is doing in Michaels...finding more stuff to photograph to sell as CU? break a few copyright laws? LOL...then i got to wondering...how on earth would she be recognized...I know, I know...I spose someone could see her avatar photo and recognize someone that way...but..more likely its someone like Royanna that puts her damn glamour shots in her kits (if she stopped paying for all those glamour shots she could pay the rent).
------------------------------ I'm the op you are referring to. If you really can't fathom what I might possibly buy when going to Michael's other than copyright protected items to photograph (which I have never done) then here are the exciting details: Paper, paint, charcoal pencils, art projects for my sons, baking supplies, paper scrap supplies, holiday decorations, oh and the occasional basket or two when they are on sale, among other random things. I've actually never purchased a single flower to photograph as I've never really been sure if it's ok. I am also 100% sure I'm not Royanna. Sorry if my being recognized puts you off. I certainly wasn't trying to be "hot shit" as someone stated. As it wouldn't do much for my ego posting annonymously anyhow. The reason I brought it up was to make a point to a poster that seemed to think it silly that a designer would dare to assume all of their hard work could possibly have resulted in a recognizable brand of any sort.
They way you gals run with things?! Lol. Regular Sherlocks you are.
The reason I brought it up was to make a point to a poster that seemed to think it silly that a designer would dare to assume all of their hard work could possibly have resulted in a recognizable brand of any sort. ---
I'm not really sure how you are correlating a recognizable brand with recognizing you. For instance, I could pretty much recognize a Donna Karan creation, I wouldn't for the life of me recognize her. See the difference? One is a brand and the other is not.
Honestly, I'd be hard pressed to recognize any digital designer on the street or in Michael's.
Sorry, it's really hard to believe you.
March 15, 2011 6:28 PM
-------------------------- not the OP, but why is that hard to believe? I've been digiscrapping for about 4 years now and have alot of favourite designers that I would recognize if I saw them in Micheals to use your example. Really, alot of us subscribe to newsletters, sign up for fan pages on facebook, read DST Insider, Digiscrapaddicts' Enabler, etc. etc. and would have seen pictures of the designers numerous times.
As for a "brand", I would recognize certain designers' products before seeing their name (ie. Flergs, Lorie Davison, Kristin Aagard, KStudio, SMJ, Rosey Posey, Kate Hadfield, just to name a few) on their products. Is that not a brand? I would suggest that since their styles are unique and recognizable, that to me could be considered a brand.
I'm sorry to rain on your parade...but if there were product previews lined up, with NO labeling on them....I would challenge you to name the designer behind the kit. There are too many people who design just like Flergs, Lorie, SMJ.....and at first glance, you might think you know who is who and what is what....but...I'm betting you would be VERY surprized.
I'm sorry to rain on your parade...but if there were product previews lined up, with NO labeling on them....I would challenge you to name the designer behind the kit. There are too many people who design just like Flergs, Lorie, SMJ.....and at first glance, you might think you know who is who and what is what....but...I'm betting you would be VERY surprized.
March 16, 2011 4:24 PM
------------
I guess I just have a sharper eye than you do, or maybe I'm just a tad bit more observant, who knows.
As for a "brand", I would recognize certain designers' products before seeing their name (ie. Flergs, Lorie Davison, Kristin Aagard, KStudio, SMJ, Rosey Posey, Kate Hadfield, just to name a few) on their products. Is that not a brand? I would suggest that since their styles are unique and recognizable, that to me could be considered a brand. March 16, 2011 1:41 PM
------------------------------- oh goodie gumdrops, doesn't it feel like we've been graced by the presence of Maya or one of her dumb minions?! wow, aren't we lucky?? i'm about to squeal with delight! (pfffbttt)
the whole statement is so stupid. there are enough designers out there who have a style similar enough to each one of those people you named that it would be hard to tell them apart without package labels. contrary to what you believe, your designers are not the only unique, original, UBER talented people out there. you're an idiot.
You're really stupid! Why assume it's Maya everytime someones mentions one SBG designer? On that list, there was only 2 designers who sell at SBG.
And sorry to burst your bubble, but there ARE some original designers out there. Kate Hadfield is one. Her style in unique in all digiland. Yes, other people doodle too but she does it in her own way, with watercolor pen. She doesn't use CU doodles. That's to me IS original.
oh goodie gumdrops, doesn't it feel like we've been graced by the presence of Maya or one of her dumb minions?! wow, aren't we lucky?? i'm about to squeal with delight! (pfffbttt)
the whole statement is so stupid. ----
You got that right, your whole statement is so stupid.
Anonymous said... I'm sorry to rain on your parade...but if there were product previews lined up, with NO labeling on them....I would challenge you to name the designer behind the kit. There are too many people who design just like Flergs, Lorie, SMJ.....and at first glance, you might think you know who is who and what is what....but...I'm betting you would be VERY surprized.
March 16, 2011 4:24 PM
Now that's a challenge for a forum! Would anyone shop owner dare to include it? I don't think so...
^within a store, I don't think it would be that difficult to figure out who's who. (and they do games like this all the time, where they show a small portion or element of a kit and we have to figure out who designed it).
Industry wide, there are a few designers that I think their products stand out and could be recognized if the recognizee was really into that product. There aren't many though! And they usually have a very unique style and don't use CU.
I wouldn't recognize a designer in a store just from an avatar picture. I might think it's that person but I wouldn't ask because everyone has look-alikes! And honestly I doubt it can happen from an avie. But whatever. If "Big Shit" says it happened, then maybe it did...
^^^^ ^^^^ Maybe if you know that designer X lives in your neighbourhood, you will recognize her, but if i live in the US and sees even a full size photo of a designer who lives in a different country, i doubt i will assume it is the same person. I might think "this person looks familiar", but nothing more.
Is Laura Banasiak the originator of this template-use stupidity? She's the only one on the list that is an absolute NO. It seems many designers don't care. Now I know to not purchase from her!
I've read she stirs stuff up so I was wondering if this was one of her issues. I'm not in the DCR so I'm not sure on this one. It just seems odd that almost everyone else is "whatever" and she's not.
Is Tracie Stroud's stuff any good or original? I just saw her CU grab bag and saw her paper templates. One of the patterns looks really familiar (small diagonal squares) but I can't seem to remember who had previously released a pattern similar to that a while back.
One of the patterns looks really familiar (small diagonal squares) but I can't seem to remember who had previously released a pattern similar to that a while back.
March 17, 2011 12:35 PM
----
That one's really easy to make so nearly every designer has used a similiar pattern.
If you want original, make it yourself because if it's being sold has CU, it won't be original for very long.
I was wondering that same exact thing.....the gal that did that was originally named "Rustic Garden" and started out at Scrap It Sassy. Then opened up that Fairytale Scraps, and ripped people off...its been about a year....LOL...
Is Laura Banasiak the originator of this template-use stupidity? She's the only one on the list that is an absolute NO. It seems many designers don't care. Now I know to not purchase from her!
I've read she stirs stuff up so I was wondering if this was one of her issues. I'm not in the DCR so I'm not sure on this one. It just seems odd that almost everyone else is "whatever" and she's not. March 17, 2011 12:27 PM
------------------------
I'm one of the last people who would normally want to defend Laura, but I don't think you can blame this one on her. She has stricter terms, compared to what most people are okay with, for sure. But, I don't think she started this one, I think some random CT member did.
I don't remember seeing anything in the DCR related to this topic and her taking a strong stand or anything. I could have missed it. But, on this particular issue, I don't think she is stirring the pot.
I don't remember seeing anything in the DCR related to this topic and her taking a strong stand or anything. I could have missed it. But, on this particular issue, I don't think she is stirring the pot.
March 17, 2011 6:09 PM
-----
Thanks! I was just wondering. I don't want to slander her or anything. I'm just disappointed that those are her terms. :(
I seriously wonder where it all started because it used to not be a big deal to use a template for CT layouts. Because of it, I really do think that the above poster is slightly right about there being a bunch of copyright Nazis running around just making up rules.
I just re-read that template thread and it doesn't look like there is any drama in it whatsoever. Some CT members were asking their designers if templates were OK, so ta designer started a thread and people answered. All calmly and professionally.
I'm not sure which DST thread you're referring to, and I don't remember commenting on any template threads recently but anyone that has a question about permissions can email me, my siggy over there is linkable :)
I don't think there was a statement being made about it being dramatic. But instead more that it's just a minor thing for anyone to even fuss over especially since most designers really don't care. So, yeah, no real drama but I agree that it's still an example of how digital scrapbooking takes permission requirements and crediting to the extreme.
Laura said... I'm not sure which DST thread you're referring to, and I don't remember commenting on any template threads recently but anyone that has a question about permissions can email me, my siggy over there is linkable :)
March 17, 2011 7:00 PM
---
I'm not going to email you.
Why are you listed in that thread as your templates are not ok for CT use? Someone must have already contacted you to get those terms. If it isn't true, then maybe you need to clear that up. Otherwise why even email? You're just going to say no anyway.
It's fine, because it's your design and you get to determine the terms of use. I won't purchase from you again until you change your template usage terms. I don't really expect you to change. There are plenty of designers out there.
Why are you listed in that thread as your templates are not ok for CT use? Someone must have already contacted you to get those terms. If it isn't true, then maybe you need to clear that up. Otherwise why even email? You're just going to say no anyway.
It's fine, because it's your design and you get to determine the terms of use. I won't purchase from you again until you change your template usage terms. I don't really expect you to change. There are plenty of designers out there.
March 17, 2011 7:11 PM
____
I'm not aware of this thread, and do not remember ever telling anyone that they can't use my templates on CT layouts (although I believe I only have one template in my store, so I'm not sure that it matters much, hehe). My TOU states personal use only, so I can see why some may take that as a form of commercial use, as you are advertising for your designer whenever you create a layout for them. It's a fine line, you know? People will use the products however they choose to, but I ask in my terms that they use them for their personal pages only.
Why do some store owners/designers feel that if they set up something that is 'unique' that the site and forums will just run themselves?
All the excitement in the first few months, only to have it fizzle and pop later and then they wonder why they have to close? Maybe, just maybe, it's because they couldn't be bothered to take an active interest.
well today I attempted to wipe my butt in the restroom at work and the tp got stuck, streaks and all, could have been really embarrassing had I not noticed thought I'd share since the subject has gone to poopy.
Interesting, I see Tara Dunstan the pirate and thief is now selling again under Downunder Studios at Deviant Scrap. She has no shame does she?
Shame she is a pirate because she has taken a new direction and doing illustration type work which looks great, wonder what software she uses for that, meh, probably pirated anyway!! She wouldn't have money to buy it since she had to pay back all that donated money she stole! ROFL!
You are late to the game, I mentioned that over six months ago, and no one was interested. The illustrations are easy to do, it's just using the smudge tool in PS.
Most of them though seem to come from Renderosity which do not allow resale of their work as is.
What's that thing on the left hand side supposed to be? A curtain or a towel or possibly a scarf? I think it's supposed to be a curtain. The mind boggles.
YIKES. Not only is that blue just horrific, but the graphics make zero sense. WTF does a lamp and a towel rod have to do with scrapbooking or art? And shouldn't the lamp graphic be on top of the text?
wow! So, you were a member of that forum and google group. You shared for a while and then you just snagged everything the other pirtaes had to share with the group. Then, when the owner decided to change the rules and you were obviously left out, you ran here to post about it. awesome!
I'm the original posters of the screen shots. My email address is up there too btw as I feel I should be "punished" for sharing too. I didn't leave myself out.
This just makes me sick! I do not understand how any sane person can think it is OK in any way, shape or form to share something that they did not pay for themselves? How simply can this concept be? It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that if someone is selling something, giving it away for free is not right? It is like going to the store and buying one candy bar then giving the rest of the pack to your friends! But it is ok, because you bought one of them, right! This just make me sick!
This just makes me sick! I do not understand how any sane person can think it is OK in any way, shape or form to share something that they did not pay for themselves? How simply can this concept be? It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that if someone is selling something, giving it away for free is not right? It is like going to the store and buying one candy bar then giving the rest of the pack to your friends! But it is ok, because you bought one of them, right! This just make me sick!
March 21, 2011 10:45 AM
------
Are you kidding? It's insane to murder someone, not steal something. Geez, get a grip. I don't condone the sharing either, but let's get dramatic.
It is definitely Halloween in March: http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/new-digital-products-33/new-psp-script-psd-template-pkg-cu4cu-272337/ -----
I don't see that as particularly Halloween, Goth is all year round you know. But it is pretty bad. I wonder if she knows the significance of a razor blade on a chain?
^^^ Oh... Goth! Still not sure i would want that on a scrap page, but maybe I am just weird that way. I didn't know there was a signification for this. What is it?
^^I'm not sure why she thinks everyone wants to see her little witch nosed face on everything she puts out. If the kits aren't enough to make you gag, her face is.
OP here. I saw her post at DST and just thought about how stupid it is that people put their picture on everything. It's annoying. I don't even know her.
I have to say I think Gabs has a lot of potential. I've thought that since I first noticed her stuff. Her syle reminds me a bit like Wish Bliss Studios in training. I think with a bit more time under her belt she will have a good thing going on. I'll be watching her.
The comment about her looks is seriously nasty. I think she's cute enough. And who are u to judge anyhow?
^^^ Personally, I wouldn't want to use my photo to advertise my kits. But I'm not going to knock someone that does. Maybe she thinks it makes her seem more personable?
I have to say I think Gabs has a lot of potential. I've thought that since I first noticed her stuff. Her syle reminds me a bit like Wish Bliss Studios in training. I think with a bit more time under her belt she will have a good thing going on. I'll be watching her.
The comment about her looks is seriously nasty. I think she's cute enough. And who are u to judge anyhow? ******** Thanks for responding, Gabs!
haha. I thought the comment was funny. It is annoying to have a picture of someone you don't know in the middle of the preview you are trying to look at. It gets in the way. No matter how ugly or gorgeous you are.
^^ I do think it's weird to put your own photo (or anyone's photo for that matter) on your kit preview. But I agree that the comment about her looks was nasty. I can understand not liking her designs, I just didn't see the need to bash her on a personal level as well. Does that mean that I must be Gabs too?
I guess it depends on how sensitive people are. I would not have been bothered that much if the comment was made about me. If it had gone further maybe. But the point she was trying to make was that a picture is not needed on every preview. We don;t care what she looks like. What we care about, as customers, is what the kit looks like and it is hard to see that when her picture is in the way.
I totally agree with 3:29. I guess the difference is that you worded it like an adult voicing a legitimate complaint. Whereas 2:11 worded it like a gossipy junior high school brat.
I wouldn't download a single entry, let alone consider paying for one. The color combos are hideous. And to think these are color palettes they chose themselves. Now I can see why "designers" buy color palettes from other "designers."
Here is my feedback, for all it matters (in order of how they appear to me in the gallery). Wyld Web - Cute alpha, but gross, gross colors. Boring brown. Boring colors. Pretty in Green - Nice flowers, but gross colors and I hate the doodled, paper, and sticker element combos. Pick a style, please. Down this Road - wow. So original. A space kit. Never seen one of those before. Dream Big Designs - Just what I need, a stoned looking snail and his half-baked friends. Gross colors again. Digital Paper Press - Cute alpha, but again, hideous colors. Band Geek Designs - Cute idea, but those colors. Just gross. At least they're not oversaturated looking, though, like the other kits. Holley Berry Designs - This actually made it to the last round? Most of those elements make no sense with that kit. Crossbone Cuts - Quite possibly the ugliest color palette I've ever seen. The elements would be nice for a traditional style kit, but I really can't get past those colors. Just awful. Milly Dee - Again, this made it to the last round? Boring papers. Most of the patterns are barely patterns. Boring elements as well. Barfy colors.
I looked at the Design Star kits and I like a lot of them. I downloaded quite a few and most of the contest I have passed pretty much everything by. The colors don't look that bad to me. Maybe you need to take a look at your screen settings?
^^^ I don't see a thing wrong with any of the colors. My favorites are Wyld Web and Band Geek. They are all pretty good though, from a preview only stand point of course.
a couple of the palettes are kinda gross, I agree with that...but what gets me is that these people did alot better in other rounds of the competition. In the very first two rounds, they had some pretty good UNIQUE elements...of course, they were limited CU wise...but now they all seem to be all CU, especially the Space kit, which is cute enough, but all from templates. I thought their "originality" was supposed to shine thru.
Nope. Monitor settings just fine. Viewed on another monitor just in case and they're still hideous. Just personal preference, of course. I think any kit without a neutral to balance is usually pretty hideous.
And I agree about the lack of creativity this final round. It's like everyone just went ape shit with the CU when they did OK before without it.
Meh - I'm uninspired by the final round. Truth is I know plenty of designers who started the competition and don't get why they're not still in. But whatever.
I asked only because I see people say they won't register fairly often and I've never understood why they won't. I was just curious as to what your reasons are. You aren't required to buy anything to register in a forum, and it takes 30 seconds to register. Not a big deal in the scheme of things.
Not that interested in the contest and I'm certainly not interested in the forum, so, why bother? Just to give an opinion on a contest in which I have no interest?
You definitely need to calibrate your monitor (s). There is nothing wrong with those colors palettes. If it's a matter of preferences, you must not like a lot of kits out there. Show us a few examples of what is not gross according to you. I'm curious.
My feedback Wyld Web Designs: The swatch seems ok to me. I love the theme she picked, but I would have expected more elements. The alpha is a great idea. I would consider buying this kit. Pretty in green: I don't like peach color. Period. The alpha is cute, the rest of the elements quite suck. I kept only the animals and the fence, but I am sure I already have them! Down this road: Not an original theme, many CU, the swatch is not perfect. I'll keep it, but I would never buy it. Dream big designs: I like it, because it's different. Not sure if I'll use it. The stoned critters are fun but maybe not usable. Good try, though. Digital paper press: The theme matches the swatch. I like the transparent balloons. Not very original idea, though Band Geek Designs: Not very original theme. The colors are ok to me. I like some patterned papers. I kept it (though I would have never bought it) Holley Berry: I like her style with the drawn elements. The real elements she included look quite odd. Nice alpha. Most of the papers are boring. Cross bone cuts. The colors are gross. I kept only some elements (cupcake, peach...). Not sure if I'll ever use them. Milly Dee: I kept only the alpha and the heart-flower. Not my colors.
BTW, the "stars" of round 1 are still waiting for their feedback! LMAO!
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:
1 – 200 of 2036 Newer› Newest»I just want to come and wish you all a wonderful day. I hope you are enjoying life and getting in all the scrapping time your hearts desire.
Well aren't you full of cheer and good will.
Obviously, in your opinion, who is the single best digi scrap designer? If you were only allowed to buy from only one person. Who would you pick?
March 9, 2011 7:13 PM
____________
I don't like that kind of questions. Everyone has their own taste.
I'm not sure you could even say there is a single best designer could you? They all have their own strengths and weaknesses, good kits and not so good. I know I don't have a "go to" designer that no matter what I will use her stuff.
well, GOOD. the cheater didn't move on in the SM design star contest.
So, Little Dreamer Designs is closing-discuss.
^I heard it was because of this blog.
^^^^^^
LOLOLOL! now THAT comment made my darn day :)
So, Little Dreamer Designs is closing-discuss.
March 10, 2011 3:52 PM
--------
Fail.
So, Little Dreamer Designs is closing-discuss.
---------------------------
Old news
Why fail? Because that news is 2-3 weeks old we can't discuss it? Ooooh!!! Then, find another topic, this blog is dead.
About LDD, maybe the owner is bored or fed up and wants to move on. After so many years in this industry, I would understand.
Why fail? Because that news is 2-3 weeks old we can't discuss it? Ooooh!!! Then, find another topic, this blog is dead.
----
It's a fail because no one wanted to discuss it the first time around, why do you think they want to discuss it now?
I wasn't the OP and I discussed it!
The roots of paper scrapbooking are hard to find. Thank God, we all know who invented digital scrapbooking.
(that was sarcasm).
^^^
Oh! Oh! Oh! I know! Maya!!
Bwahahahahahahahaha...
^^^^
Maybe it was Al Gore?
I invented digital scrapbooking for myself when I found some printable backgrounds online and just used them in Photoshop to save time. That was in 2000, and I suspect that quite a few other people did a similar thing. :)
SUN 'refreshed' their site again. That's the 4th time in the last 2 years. Seriously. Someone there knows fuck all about branding.
So who are the new designers going to be at Shabby Pickle?
Anyway care to speculate?
SUN 'refreshed' their site again. That's the 4th time in the last 2 years. Seriously. Someone there knows fuck all about branding.
-----------------------------
Agreed. The new look is super generic.
Yes SUN looks generic, but also, you can't have lasting branding if you keep changing your logo.
Are you talking about this?
I think it looks nice and clean.
http://sunshinestudioscraps.com/
wow. someone hasn't updated at all recently.
http://www.scrapmatters.com/team/
^^Not surprising considering they're still working on feedback for the first round contestants a month later
Holy shit - Lee tried selling DST for $50,000 and no one bought it!
https://flippa.com/124397-Large-Digital-Scrapbooking-Community---Huge-Forum-and-Gallery
^^^^
I think he wanted more than $50,000 as that looks like the one and only bid price, which is probably why he didn't sell it.
Are you talking about this?
I think it looks nice and clean.
http://sunshinestudioscraps.com/
-------
It does, but it's generic. You look and go on, there's nothing distinctive about it.
Holy shit - Lee tried selling DST for $50,000 and no one bought it!
______________________________
Does anyone remember how much the owners bought it for?
Click on the little yello triangle beside the site name on that site, to get to the previous posting when Erik posted it for sale too. Unfortunately, it does not disclose how much he was asking for. But reading the comments, i suspect it is roughly the same amount. Whether Lee bought it for the price asked or not, is another question.
Did anyone actually think that Lee wouldn't sell DST at some point. He only bought it for the money. He tried to keep it as it was and didn't put much time and effort into it. Guess his 2 site people must make about $350 each a month. Not much for all the work they wind up doing. That's like $11.00 a day. I wouldn't work for $11.00 a day would you?
Did anyone actually think that Lee wouldn't sell DST at some point. He only bought it for the money. He tried to keep it as it was and didn't put much time and effort into it. Guess his 2 site people must make about $350 each a month. Not much for all the work they wind up doing. That's like $11.00 a day. I wouldn't work for $11.00 a day would you?
March 12, 2011 9:57 AM
---
It depends on how much time it would be per day. I doubt they spend an 8 hour day on it probably closer to 15 minutes per day based on how the site is run.
The pay issue might depend on who you are talking about. I think the Insider staff is paid. I remember seeing a call for a paid position in the forum for the Insider. That might be the 6-8 people he mentions. It is obviously not the mods as they are not paid.
Oh.... $700 divided by 7 people (let's make the average), that is $100 per month / 30 days (just rounding up) = $3,33/day.
two things -
where did you guys see the DST for sale stuff at?
and second..take a look at this ad from Moo Two Designs. Those Lime whatever floral packs...those are Chelles Creations (SM) simply plopped in a pack. Big big big NO NO!
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/new-digital-products-33/new-cup-o-cozy-frames-papers-cu-lucky-moo-two-designs-271552/
^^^^^^
For sale here:
https://flippa.com/124397-Large-Digital-Scrapbooking-Community---Huge-Forum-and-Gallery
The link was posted a few posts above.
thanks for the link. i missed it :)
two things -
where did you guys see the DST for sale stuff at?
and second..take a look at this ad from Moo Two Designs. Those Lime whatever floral packs...those are Chelles Creations (SM) simply plopped in a pack. Big big big NO NO!
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/new-digital-products-33/new-cup-o-cozy-frames-papers-cu-lucky-moo-two-designs-271552/
^^^^^^^^^^
I was aware of this situation, and from the tiny preview, it does look suspicious.
Just want to set the record straight. There is a pattern on the flowers in the kit...it's not visible on the small preview, but if you look at the actual image, it's there. (Can't attach a screenshot, or I'd show you.) Rosemade has followed the rules of my TOU.
Thanks,
--Chelle
so dawn inskip and jennifer labre come out with kits named couch potato, and even have the same type elements. must be psychic.
^^^^^
Just oversaturated!
Same theme, totally different style, I will get dawn inskip's because her style is unique.
Holy shit - Lee tried selling DST for $50,000 and no one bought it!
-----
No he didn't. I think he tried to sell it for more.
If he had tried to sell it for $50,000 why didn't he sell it to the one and only bidder who offered that exact amount? I think the $50,000 is the one bid price.
so dawn inskip and jennifer labre come out with kits named couch potato, and even have the same type elements. must be psychic.
----
Or they had a chat and decided to make the same kit as a sort of joke. I remember when Flergs and was it Bren Boone, both made a kit called Fancy Pants or something, same colors and everything. Turned out it was because of a convo on Hello and the did it as a joke
wow. someone hasn't updated at all recently.
http://www.scrapmatters.com/team/
March 11, 2011 9:18 PM
---------------------------
By my count, 16 of the designers pictured have left or are leaving soon. Some of them haven't been there in more than a year. If they can't be bothered to keep their team page current, I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that they didn't download and QC all the design star kits in round 1.
^^^^^
Word.
If you are going to do something as dweeby as having a team page, at least keep it up to date.
I just remembered the dream I had last night (or should I say nightmare?): Royanna had added another "beautiful" photo of her in her TOU folders!
LOL
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I just remembered the dream I had last night (or should I say nightmare?): Royanna had added another "beautiful" photo of her in her TOU folders!
March 13, 2011 4:07 AM
___
you dream about digital scrapbooking people that you haven't met and don't even like? wtf is wrong with you?
remember the poster who claims to have been "recognized" while walking thru Michaels? first I wondered what she is doing in Michaels...finding more stuff to photograph to sell as CU? break a few copyright laws? LOL...then i got to wondering...how on earth would she be recognized...I know, I know...I spose someone could see her avatar photo and recognize someone that way...but..more likely its someone like Royanna that puts her damn glamour shots in her kits (if she stopped paying for all those glamour shots she could pay the rent).
Anonymous said...
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I just remembered the dream I had last night (or should I say nightmare?): Royanna had added another "beautiful" photo of her in her TOU folders!
March 13, 2011 4:07 AM
___
you dream about digital scrapbooking people that you haven't met and don't even like? wtf is wrong with you?
March 13, 2011 11:34 AM
First, one can't control her subconscious. Second, I don't like her attitude, but I always download her freebies, because almost always I like her alphas (not her papers-elements). Third, her TOU folders are way too much, considering that she is not a movie super star, just a digiscrap designer. So my question is: what is wrong with you?
And yes, about the poster who has been recognized at Michaels, I thought of her too!
http://www.digitaldandelions.com/index.html
Another new digi scrap store coming soon. You can see which designers are going to be there by clicking on the gallery tab. They've listed their designer galleries already.
^^^
I really like the look of the site so far. Very pretty.
Is this the one started by the girl from Little Dreamer?
LOL on the Royanna dream/nightmare. I never considered downloading her freebies, or even dropping in to see what they are, but thanks for the heads up on the alphas.
The Oscraps birthday party was sort of a fizzle and die, I thought.
you dream about digital scrapbooking people that you haven't met and don't even like? wtf is wrong with you?
March 13, 2011 11:34 AM
------
You took that seriously? WTF is wrong with you?
Is this the one started by the girl from Little Dreamer?
March 13, 2011 4:07 PM
----
Yes, it does look like it's that woman from LDD.
http://www.digitaldandelions.com/index.html
Another new digi scrap store coming soon. You can see which designers are going to be there by clicking on the gallery tab. They've listed their designer galleries already.
****************
Wow. She acted like they were still accepting applications. What a liar.
^^^^
How so? How do you know she's still not accepting applications? The store hasn't gone live yet.
And where was she supposedly acting like this?
She is still accepting applications. I'm a designer there and she's said many times to keep spreading the word cause she's looking for more designers
remember the poster who claims to have been "recognized" while walking thru Michaels? first I wondered what she is doing in Michaels...finding more stuff to photograph to sell as CU? break a few copyright laws? LOL
---
It isn't violating copyright to photograph craft items from a different industry. Read the part about deriative works. Sheesh do you expect everyone to make all those pretty flowers on your pages from hand?
And I'm certain that person was lying about being recognized just to stir the pot.
well, I responded to her designer call, and haven't heard a word. and I'm damn good, so that's not it.
She is still accepting applications. I'm a designer there and she's said many times to keep spreading the word cause she's looking for more designers
---------
Hi Shilo, I had a feeling you hung out here.
Haha, you guessed wrong! Shilo is already on the gallery list.
Geez, she meant the person posting about there still being openings, not the one who *thinks* she's good enough to sell there. Read first before you comment.
Hi Shilo, I had a feeling you hung out here.
----------------------------
Wrong, care to guess again?
Hi Shilo, I had a feeling you hung out here.
March 14, 2011 12:03 PM
___
LOL! shilo will be at that store for about 2 weeks before she hops to another one.
It isn't violating copyright to photograph craft items from a different industry. Read the part about deriative works. Sheesh do you expect everyone to make all those pretty flowers on your pages from hand?
...
March 14, 2011 8:19 AM
---------------
Martha Stewart would certainly not agree with you. Try scanning her flowers and let us go how it goes. Don't you remember the Prima flowers saga?
How so? How do you know she's still not accepting applications? The store hasn't gone live yet.
And where was she supposedly acting like this?
******************
When someone says, "we have an amazing line-up of designers AND we are SOOO ready for this adventure!!" it most likely means that they aren't accepting anyone else.
so where is Paula Kesslring moving to on the 22nd since she is leaving Deviant? any guesses?
Digiscrap Brasil?
Martha Stewart would certainly not agree with you. Try scanning her flowers and let us go how it goes. Don't you remember the Prima flowers saga?
March 14, 2011 7:01 PM
---
MS is similar industries so yes, there would be damages in the way of profit. But items that are intended for general craft use would have a hard time proving damages as there is nothing unique about the design. Copyright lawsuits involve damages. If it isn't within your industry and the item is altered enough, it's unlikely that they would win the lawsuit. It's all right there in the copyright law. Try reading it some day.
copyright nazis are back to make all designers terrified to even photograph and extract a rock because the designer didn't make the rock themselves. Don't even the darken the door to Michaels because you might be recognized and accused of copyright violations for photographing and extracting generic stuff that was intended for commercial usage anyway.
the copyright Nazis are coming to get us all and take us to court...
^^^^
blithering idiot
I only ever see this attitude from those designers who use a lot of CU.
If they aren't using CU then where the hell do you think they get their stuff? At Michael's, moron!
Unless they make the totally crappy all digital stuff. Then it's just blech.
I have never paper scrapped (although I do other crafts). Is there such thing as TOU in the paper kits? Anyway, I have only heard of PU/CU only in digiscrap. When you buy a tube with an acrylic color is it for PU or CU?
It's both. They can't limit what you do with a tool like that and they won't even try. Normal companies don't take Copyright nearly as literally as digiscrappers do! Seriously, I contacted OFray about ribbon use and they were like, "Huh? Yeah. Whatever... We expect people to make stuff with our product and sell it." (paraphrase of the phone convo) Trust me, the digi copyright Nazis care more about it than the companies and are making up rules that don't exist. ex: "You can't photograph denim because those jeans are trademarked/copyrighted." Read the copyright laws for yourself and you'll see. They leave out derative works every time!
But I wouldn't scan or photograph scrapbooking stuff, stickers, or papers because we are in the same industry and they can sue because we take away from their profit. And you can't swipe photos from the web without permission because part of our art is photography (and the photographer says so!). And you can't swipe graphics either because part of our art is graphics. It's all about damages. And it's true that there's a big grey area where it is best to ask permission.
Everyone needs to use common sense on both sides of the spectrum. Know the copyright and trademark laws for yourself!!!
Down with copyright NAZIs and their reign of terror!
I don't get it either.
I used to work in a flower shop and the owners would go to Michaels and buy tons of fake flowers. They would make these lovely bridal arrangements and sell them for at least a 300% mark-up on what they paid for the flowers. And in some cases they made profit over and over on the same arrangements because they leased them rather than selling. Not much different than what digi does! They never worried about if it was commercial use or even ok to do that. They never called the companies to check.
I think we take it way too seriously and need to lighten up.
I wonder if the difference between the florist selling a bouquet made of silk flowers and the digiscrap industry might be the fact that if you buy a dozen flowers, you can only sell a dozen flowers so the initial seller knows you can make just so much, while in digi, if you buy a dozen overlays, or elements, you can sell it 100 times, so you make much much more than a regular markup. Just a thought. Maybe that is what makes designers more 'ticklish' on the issue?
^ Not in the case sited above. She said she rented the arrangements. It wasn't just a one time sale. Thinking about it, I doubt the maker of the flowers could do anything to prevent that. I don't see how that is very different from selling a digital flower set over and over again.
yep, I agree, it's the digi ghestopo taking copyright too far. It the designer doesn't spin and weave it all by hand they are violating copyright.
oh wait, someone has a copyright claim to the cotton. I better get permission before I start spinning for those handmade flowers I want to photograph and extract.
Oh, and I guess I can't use the paper flowers that I made because I bought the plain pink colored paper from Wal-Mart and they have a copyright to that.
oh wait, someone has a copyright claim to the cotton. I better get permission before I start spinning for those handmade flowers I want to photograph and extract.
---
No, all you need to do is grow the cotton in your backyard. Then it's all yours!
Has anyone ever left a comment on a LO without mentioning the words "love" and "cute"?
So who's going to Digiscrap*apalooza?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
So who's going to Digiscrap*apalooza?
March 15, 2011 4:00 PM
___
are you asking if anyone here is going? scrap orchard has an open digiscrapapalooza forum, you could go see for yourself.
Has anyone ever left a comment on a LO without mentioning the words "love" and "cute"?
March 15, 2011 3:30 PM
-----
Yes, all the time.
If they aren't using CU then where the hell do you think they get their stuff? At Michael's, moron!
----
Whatever, fucktard.
I love how so many of you just don't get the copyright issue. I can tell by your gross exaggerations.
Those who bitch the loudest and all that.
Anyway, I have only heard of PU/CU only in digiscrap.
---
It's all over the place, not just in digi scrap, despite what some of the posters here will tell you.
The comparisons being made between a physical product and a digital product tells you they don't know jack.
Has anyone ever left a comment on a LO without mentioning the words "love" and "cute"?
March 15, 2011 3:30 PM
-----
Yes, all the time.
March 15, 2011 5:09 PM
------
In fact, I've never used the word 'cute' on a layout.
"Remember the poster who claims to have been "recognized" while walking thru Michaels? first I wondered what she is doing in Michaels...finding more stuff to photograph to sell as CU? break a few copyright laws? LOL...then i got to wondering...how on earth would she be recognized...I know, I know...I spose someone could see her avatar photo and recognize someone that way...but..more likely its someone like Royanna that puts her damn glamour shots in her kits (if she stopped paying for all those glamour shots she could pay the rent).
------------------------------
I'm the op you are referring to. If you really can't fathom what I might possibly buy when going to Michael's other than copyright protected items to photograph (which I have never done) then here are the exciting details: Paper, paint, charcoal pencils, art projects for my sons, baking supplies, paper scrap supplies, holiday decorations, oh and the occasional basket or two when they are on sale, among other random things. I've actually never purchased a single flower to photograph as I've never really been sure if it's ok. I am also 100% sure I'm not Royanna. Sorry if my being recognized puts you off. I certainly wasn't trying to be "hot shit" as someone stated. As it wouldn't do much for my ego posting annonymously anyhow. The reason I brought it up was to make a point to a poster that seemed to think it silly that a designer would dare to assume all of their hard work could possibly have resulted in a recognizable brand of any sort.
They way you gals run with things?! Lol. Regular Sherlocks you are.
Honestly, I'd be hard pressed to recognize any digital designer on the street or in Michael's.
Sorry, it's really hard to believe you.
^^^
Believe what you will. No difference to me and no offense taken.
The reason I brought it up was to make a point to a poster that seemed to think it silly that a designer would dare to assume all of their hard work could possibly have resulted in a recognizable brand of any sort.
---
I'm not really sure how you are correlating a recognizable brand with recognizing you. For instance, I could pretty much recognize a Donna Karan creation, I wouldn't for the life of me recognize her. See the difference? One is a brand and the other is not.
^^^
I'm not going to articulate. Go back and read the posts I'm referring too. Or not. But your generalizing the point.
I'm not going to articulate.
---
thank goodness.
I'm not going to articulate. Go back and read the posts I'm referring too. Or not. But your generalizing the point.
March 15, 2011 9:02 PM
---
I know exactly what you are referring to and I'm not generalizing the point at all.
I'm not going to articulate.
^
"Pontificate" is really a better word.
^^^^^
Yes, it is.
The comparisons being made between a physical product and a digital product tells you they don't know jack.
March 15, 2011 5:13 PM
---
Not when it is a physical product becoming a digital product. The copyright Nazis are the ones who don't know jack. I suspect you are one of them.
Honestly, I'd be hard pressed to recognize any digital designer on the street or in Michael's.
Sorry, it's really hard to believe you.
March 15, 2011 6:28 PM
--------------------------
not the OP, but why is that hard to believe? I've been digiscrapping for about 4 years now and have alot of favourite designers that I would recognize if I saw them in Micheals to use your example. Really, alot of us subscribe to newsletters, sign up for fan pages on facebook, read DST Insider, Digiscrapaddicts' Enabler, etc. etc. and would have seen pictures of the designers numerous times.
As for a "brand", I would recognize certain designers' products before seeing their name (ie. Flergs, Lorie Davison, Kristin Aagard, KStudio, SMJ, Rosey Posey, Kate Hadfield, just to name a few) on their products. Is that not a brand? I would suggest that since their styles are unique and recognizable, that to me could be considered a brand.
I'm sorry to rain on your parade...but if there were product previews lined up, with NO labeling on them....I would challenge you to name the designer behind the kit. There are too many people who design just like Flergs, Lorie, SMJ.....and at first glance, you might think you know who is who and what is what....but...I'm betting you would be VERY surprized.
Not when it is a physical product becoming a digital product. The copyright Nazis are the ones who don't know jack. I suspect you are one of them.
March 16, 2011 11:50 AM
--------
You suspect wrong. But that's hardly surprising.
here are too many people who design just like Flergs, Lorie, SMJ.....
------
Flergs - check
SMJ - check
Lorie - don't think so. Her style is unique
You suspect wrong. But that's hardly surprising.
March 16, 2011 4:26 PM
---
Then why are you responding to them if you agree that copyright "rules" have been taken way beyond what the law says?
I didn't agree one way or the other. I'm neutral. There are exaggerations on both sides of the copyright fence.
I'm sorry to rain on your parade...but if there were product previews lined up, with NO labeling on them....I would challenge you to name the designer behind the kit. There are too many people who design just like Flergs, Lorie, SMJ.....and at first glance, you might think you know who is who and what is what....but...I'm betting you would be VERY surprized.
March 16, 2011 4:24 PM
------------
I guess I just have a sharper eye than you do, or maybe I'm just a tad bit more observant, who knows.
As for a "brand", I would recognize certain designers' products before seeing their name (ie. Flergs, Lorie Davison, Kristin Aagard, KStudio, SMJ, Rosey Posey, Kate Hadfield, just to name a few) on their products. Is that not a brand? I would suggest that since their styles are unique and recognizable, that to me could be considered a brand.
March 16, 2011 1:41 PM
-------------------------------
oh goodie gumdrops, doesn't it feel like we've been graced by the presence of Maya or one of her dumb minions?! wow, aren't we lucky?? i'm about to squeal with delight! (pfffbttt)
the whole statement is so stupid. there are enough designers out there who have a style similar enough to each one of those people you named that it would be hard to tell them apart without package labels. contrary to what you believe, your designers are not the only unique, original, UBER talented people out there. you're an idiot.
^wow! who's like Kate & Lorie? since you seem to know it all...
presence of Maya or one of her dumb minions?!
-------------------------
If that was true, then why did she mention a number of designers not at SBG?
presence of Maya or one of her dumb minions?!
-------------------------
You're really stupid! Why assume it's Maya everytime someones mentions one SBG designer? On that list, there was only 2 designers who sell at SBG.
And sorry to burst your bubble, but there ARE some original designers out there. Kate Hadfield is one. Her style in unique in all digiland. Yes, other people doodle too but she does it in her own way, with watercolor pen. She doesn't use CU doodles. That's to me IS original.
oh goodie gumdrops, doesn't it feel like we've been graced by the presence of Maya or one of her dumb minions?! wow, aren't we lucky?? i'm about to squeal with delight! (pfffbttt)
the whole statement is so stupid.
----
You got that right, your whole statement is so stupid.
Yes, other people doodle too but she does it in her own way, with watercolor pen.
-----
Actually, it looks more like a marker, than a watercolor pen.
Anonymous said...
I'm sorry to rain on your parade...but if there were product previews lined up, with NO labeling on them....I would challenge you to name the designer behind the kit. There are too many people who design just like Flergs, Lorie, SMJ.....and at first glance, you might think you know who is who and what is what....but...I'm betting you would be VERY surprized.
March 16, 2011 4:24 PM
Now that's a challenge for a forum! Would anyone shop owner dare to include it? I don't think so...
^within a store, I don't think it would be that difficult to figure out who's who. (and they do games like this all the time, where they show a small portion or element of a kit and we have to figure out who designed it).
Industry wide, there are a few designers that I think their products stand out and could be recognized if the recognizee was really into that product. There aren't many though! And they usually have a very unique style and don't use CU.
I wouldn't recognize a designer in a store just from an avatar picture. I might think it's that person but I wouldn't ask because everyone has look-alikes! And honestly I doubt it can happen from an avie. But whatever. If "Big Shit" says it happened, then maybe it did...
Is it Halloween already?
http://www.digishoptalk.com/products/showphoto.php?photo=87231
^^^^
^^^^
Maybe if you know that designer X lives in your neighbourhood, you will recognize her, but if i live in the US and sees even a full size photo of a designer who lives in a different country, i doubt i will assume it is the same person. I might think "this person looks familiar", but nothing more.
Is Laura Banasiak the originator of this template-use stupidity? She's the only one on the list that is an absolute NO. It seems many designers don't care. Now I know to not purchase from her!
I've read she stirs stuff up so I was wondering if this was one of her issues. I'm not in the DCR so I'm not sure on this one. It just seems odd that almost everyone else is "whatever" and she's not.
Is Tracie Stroud's stuff any good or original? I just saw her CU grab bag and saw her paper templates. One of the patterns looks really familiar (small diagonal squares) but I can't seem to remember who had previously released a pattern similar to that a while back.
One of the patterns looks really familiar (small diagonal squares) but I can't seem to remember who had previously released a pattern similar to that a while back.
March 17, 2011 12:35 PM
----
That one's really easy to make so nearly every designer has used a similiar pattern.
If you want original, make it yourself because if it's being sold has CU, it won't be original for very long.
Does anyone know who owns Scrapping Fairytales? I saw their calls in the public forum, but they aren't in the dcr. I went to the site and no info.
Just wondering, because that store that got shit all over last year for selling pirated stuff was Fairytale Scraps.
^^^^
I was wondering that same exact thing.....the gal that did that was originally named "Rustic Garden" and started out at Scrap It Sassy. Then opened up that Fairytale Scraps, and ripped people off...its been about a year....LOL...
Is it Halloween already?
http://www.digishoptalk.com/products/showphoto.php?photo=87231
=================
OMG that's ugly.
Is Laura Banasiak the originator of this template-use stupidity? She's the only one on the list that is an absolute NO. It seems many designers don't care. Now I know to not purchase from her!
I've read she stirs stuff up so I was wondering if this was one of her issues. I'm not in the DCR so I'm not sure on this one. It just seems odd that almost everyone else is "whatever" and she's not.
March 17, 2011 12:27 PM
------------------------
I'm one of the last people who would normally want to defend Laura, but I don't think you can blame this one on her. She has stricter terms, compared to what most people are okay with, for sure. But, I don't think she started this one, I think some random CT member did.
I don't remember seeing anything in the DCR related to this topic and her taking a strong stand or anything. I could have missed it. But, on this particular issue, I don't think she is stirring the pot.
I don't remember seeing anything in the DCR related to this topic and her taking a strong stand or anything. I could have missed it. But, on this particular issue, I don't think she is stirring the pot.
March 17, 2011 6:09 PM
-----
Thanks! I was just wondering. I don't want to slander her or anything. I'm just disappointed that those are her terms. :(
I seriously wonder where it all started because it used to not be a big deal to use a template for CT layouts. Because of it, I really do think that the above poster is slightly right about there being a bunch of copyright Nazis running around just making up rules.
I just re-read that template thread and it doesn't look like there is any drama in it whatsoever. Some CT members were asking their designers if templates were OK, so ta designer started a thread and people answered. All calmly and professionally.
^^^^
Agreed.
On an aside, it never ever crossed my mind to use templates for my CT work, unless of course the template was the work.
I'm not sure which DST thread you're referring to, and I don't remember commenting on any template threads recently but anyone that has a question about permissions can email me, my siggy over there is linkable :)
All calmly and professionally.
March 17, 2011 6:25 PM
---
I don't think there was a statement being made about it being dramatic. But instead more that it's just a minor thing for anyone to even fuss over especially since most designers really don't care. So, yeah, no real drama but I agree that it's still an example of how digital scrapbooking takes permission requirements and crediting to the extreme.
^^^^
They aren't the only ones. Don't be so insular.
Laura said...
I'm not sure which DST thread you're referring to, and I don't remember commenting on any template threads recently but anyone that has a question about permissions can email me, my siggy over there is linkable :)
March 17, 2011 7:00 PM
---
I'm not going to email you.
Why are you listed in that thread as your templates are not ok for CT use? Someone must have already contacted you to get those terms. If it isn't true, then maybe you need to clear that up. Otherwise why even email? You're just going to say no anyway.
It's fine, because it's your design and you get to determine the terms of use. I won't purchase from you again until you change your template usage terms. I don't really expect you to change. There are plenty of designers out there.
I'm not going to email you.
Why are you listed in that thread as your templates are not ok for CT use? Someone must have already contacted you to get those terms. If it isn't true, then maybe you need to clear that up. Otherwise why even email? You're just going to say no anyway.
It's fine, because it's your design and you get to determine the terms of use. I won't purchase from you again until you change your template usage terms. I don't really expect you to change. There are plenty of designers out there.
March 17, 2011 7:11 PM
____
I'm not aware of this thread, and do not remember ever telling anyone that they can't use my templates on CT layouts (although I believe I only have one template in my store, so I'm not sure that it matters much, hehe). My TOU states personal use only, so I can see why some may take that as a form of commercial use, as you are advertising for your designer whenever you create a layout for them. It's a fine line, you know? People will use the products however they choose to, but I ask in my terms that they use them for their personal pages only.
^I bought the one template that you have because it's a two-pager. LOL And I like your siggie templates.
Oh well, it's fine if those are your terms.
yawn...
there really is nothing to talk about.
^^^^^
and you felt the need to point that out why?
farts.
burps
Why do some store owners/designers feel that if they set up something that is 'unique' that the site and forums will just run themselves?
All the excitement in the first few months, only to have it fizzle and pop later and then they wonder why they have to close? Maybe, just maybe, it's because they couldn't be bothered to take an active interest.
well today I attempted to wipe my butt in the restroom at work and the tp got stuck, streaks and all, could have been really embarrassing had I not noticed
thought I'd share since the subject has gone to poopy.
Which site are you referring to?
Interesting, I see Tara Dunstan the pirate and thief is now selling again under Downunder Studios at Deviant Scrap. She has no shame does she?
Shame she is a pirate because she has taken a new direction and doing illustration type work which looks great, wonder what software she uses for that, meh, probably pirated anyway!! She wouldn't have money to buy it since she had to pay back all that donated money she stole! ROFL!
You are late to the game, I mentioned that over six months ago, and no one was interested. The illustrations are easy to do, it's just using the smudge tool in PS.
Most of them though seem to come from Renderosity which do not allow resale of their work as is.
Which site are you referring to?
March 18, 2011 7:20 PM
---------
Any site really. The closing of the store is just a hypothetical situation.
Whoever did the new graphics at MSA should keep their day job.
ok...duh moment..duh....which store is MSA? honestly...LOL..I can't think of which it is.
MSA is myscrapbookart
http://www.myscrapbookart.com/forums/index.php
^^^^^
Sweet buttery jesus, that is horrendous!
What's that thing on the left hand side supposed to be? A curtain or a towel or possibly a scarf? I think it's supposed to be a curtain. The mind boggles.
^^^
damn, it really is bad!
oh my, that's really something isn't it?
YIKES. Not only is that blue just horrific, but the graphics make zero sense. WTF does a lamp and a towel rod have to do with scrapbooking or art? And shouldn't the lamp graphic be on top of the text?
it's a frizzled, pixelated mess. Maybe that's what the towel is for? And the lamp is needed so they can see what a mess it is?
it's a frizzled, pixelated mess
---------------
No! It's "artistic" lmao!!!!!!
Who are the new owners?
I think some people should look into this forum:
http://scrapping-addicts.proboards.com/
and this google group:
http://groups.google.com/group/scrappingaddicts
They are owned by the same person.
They are MAJOR kit sharers/pirates.
Some screen shots...
The google group. Over 4000 messages/kits sent.
http://i54.tinypic.com/sgoolt.jpg
How they share in the forum:
http://i53.tinypic.com/2qi4v11.jpg
More from the forum:
http://i54.tinypic.com/34jaweh.jpg
A message the owner of the sharing group sent out:
http://i55.tinypic.com/35a66fq.jpg
Member list:
http://i52.tinypic.com/3145yyf.jpg
Another new Member:
http://i54.tinypic.com/jl4i1f.jpg
The owner wants to start selling kits:
http://i56.tinypic.com/2helgnp.jpg
Other new members are:
xxcizzyxx@gmail.com
optamiholmes@gmail.com
heatherlovesshaun@gmail.com
VegasScrapoholic@aol.com
That's pretty disgusting.
wow! So, you were a member of that forum and google group. You shared for a while and then you just snagged everything the other pirtaes had to share with the group. Then, when the owner decided to change the rules and you were obviously left out, you ran here to post about it. awesome!
Nope. I'm still in the group which is kinda the reason I could get the SS. I don't share anymore because I found out it was illegal.
good luck to her trying to make and sell kits now. lol
I'm the original posters of the screen shots. My email address is up there too btw as I feel I should be "punished" for sharing too. I didn't leave myself out.
This just makes me sick! I do not understand how any sane person can think it is OK in any way, shape or form to share something that they did not pay for themselves? How simply can this concept be? It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that if someone is selling something, giving it away for free is not right? It is like going to the store and buying one candy bar then giving the rest of the pack to your friends! But it is ok, because you bought one of them, right! This just make me sick!
I am more amazed someone still uses AOL for email.
If you are a designer and your work is being shared through that group, you can file a copyright violation complaint with Google here:
http://www.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=lr_dmca&product=groups
It is a clear violation of the Google Groups terms of service, so I imagine they will kill the group if they get enough complaints.
wasn't this Katie - jameszwifey - the one caught pirating before? I remember seeing that loser's name in here somewhere before.
Some of the links in the screen shots were thru Pando. Can designers not file complaints with them as well?
This just makes me sick! I do not understand how any sane person can think it is OK in any way, shape or form to share something that they did not pay for themselves? How simply can this concept be? It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that if someone is selling something, giving it away for free is not right? It is like going to the store and buying one candy bar then giving the rest of the pack to your friends! But it is ok, because you bought one of them, right! This just make me sick!
March 21, 2011 10:45 AM
------
Are you kidding? It's insane to murder someone, not steal something. Geez, get a grip. I don't condone the sharing either, but let's get dramatic.
^^^
Let's NOT get dramatic. damn.
I think some people should look into this forum:
http://scrapping-addicts.proboards.com/
----
Great work, NOT! You just made them go underground.
From the look of those emails, there were already underground - forum address being sent off-list, by invite only.
It is definitely Halloween in March:
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/new-digital-products-33/new-psp-script-psd-template-pkg-cu4cu-272337/
Not sure I would want a bloody razor blade on my scrap page! ouch!
It is definitely Halloween in March:
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/new-digital-products-33/new-psp-script-psd-template-pkg-cu4cu-272337/
-----
I don't see that as particularly Halloween, Goth is all year round you know. But it is pretty bad. I wonder if she knows the significance of a razor blade on a chain?
^^^
Oh... Goth! Still not sure i would want that on a scrap page, but maybe I am just weird that way. I didn't know there was a signification for this. What is it?
I wouldn't want it on my page either.
At least 10 people read this blog.
^view count on that thread at DST? I didn't go. Bloody razor blade on a chain? No thanks!
Regarding the list of names posted that share:
As a store owner and designer I will be watching those names as customers (they were asked to buy something) and for ct members.
What names?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
What names?
March 22, 2011 10:25 AM
_____________________
the email addresses, dipshit.
I don't see any email addresses, but thanks for the nickname.
scroll up half a page. it's not that hard.
http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z136/evitangel/2011%20-%20gabs-art/kits/shabby%20spring/folder-ga-shspr.jpg
^^I'm not sure why she thinks everyone wants to see her little witch nosed face on everything she puts out. If the kits aren't enough to make you gag, her face is.
^^^
Wow, that's pretty bitchy. Why the personal attack? Did she step on your toes, or you just felt like blowing out someone's candle today?
OP here. I saw her post at DST and just thought about how stupid it is that people put their picture on everything. It's annoying. I don't even know her.
I have to say I think Gabs has a lot of potential. I've thought that since I first noticed her stuff. Her syle reminds me a bit like Wish Bliss Studios in training. I think with a bit more time under her belt she will have a good thing going on. I'll be watching her.
The comment about her looks is seriously nasty. I think she's cute enough. And who are u to judge anyhow?
^^^
Personally, I wouldn't want to use my photo to advertise my kits. But I'm not going to knock someone that does. Maybe she thinks it makes her seem more personable?
I have to say I think Gabs has a lot of potential. I've thought that since I first noticed her stuff. Her syle reminds me a bit like Wish Bliss Studios in training. I think with a bit more time under her belt she will have a good thing going on. I'll be watching her.
The comment about her looks is seriously nasty. I think she's cute enough. And who are u to judge anyhow?
********
Thanks for responding, Gabs!
haha. I thought the comment was funny. It is annoying to have a picture of someone you don't know in the middle of the preview you are trying to look at. It gets in the way. No matter how ugly or gorgeous you are.
^^
I do think it's weird to put your own photo (or anyone's photo for that matter) on your kit preview. But I agree that the comment about her looks was nasty. I can understand not liking her designs, I just didn't see the need to bash her on a personal level as well. Does that mean that I must be Gabs too?
I guess it depends on how sensitive people are. I would not have been bothered that much if the comment was made about me. If it had gone further maybe. But the point she was trying to make was that a picture is not needed on every preview. We don;t care what she looks like. What we care about, as customers, is what the kit looks like and it is hard to see that when her picture is in the way.
I totally agree with 3:29. I guess the difference is that you worded it like an adult voicing a legitimate complaint. Whereas 2:11 worded it like a gossipy junior high school brat.
Thanks for responding, Gabs!
March 22, 2011 3:14 PM
-----
Thanks for being the token idiot today.
No comments on the Design Star finalists?
http://scrapmatters.com/gallery3/showgallery.php/cat/1985
I wouldn't download a single entry, let alone consider paying for one. The color combos are hideous. And to think these are color palettes they chose themselves. Now I can see why "designers" buy color palettes from other "designers."
Here is my feedback, for all it matters (in order of how they appear to me in the gallery).
Wyld Web - Cute alpha, but gross, gross colors. Boring brown. Boring colors.
Pretty in Green - Nice flowers, but gross colors and I hate the doodled, paper, and sticker element combos. Pick a style, please.
Down this Road - wow. So original. A space kit. Never seen one of those before.
Dream Big Designs - Just what I need, a stoned looking snail and his half-baked friends. Gross colors again.
Digital Paper Press - Cute alpha, but again, hideous colors.
Band Geek Designs - Cute idea, but those colors. Just gross. At least they're not oversaturated looking, though, like the other kits.
Holley Berry Designs - This actually made it to the last round? Most of those elements make no sense with that kit.
Crossbone Cuts - Quite possibly the ugliest color palette I've ever seen. The elements would be nice for a traditional style kit, but I really can't get past those colors. Just awful.
Milly Dee - Again, this made it to the last round? Boring papers. Most of the patterns are barely patterns. Boring elements as well. Barfy colors.
No comments on the Design Star finalists?
----
Nope, because I can't see the entries without registering.
You are taking a strong stand against registering in a forum? Why?
I looked at the Design Star kits and I like a lot of them. I downloaded quite a few and most of the contest I have passed pretty much everything by. The colors don't look that bad to me. Maybe you need to take a look at your screen settings?
^^^
I don't see a thing wrong with any of the colors. My favorites are Wyld Web and Band Geek. They are all pretty good though, from a preview only stand point of course.
a couple of the palettes are kinda gross, I agree with that...but what gets me is that these people did alot better in other rounds of the competition. In the very first two rounds, they had some pretty good UNIQUE elements...of course, they were limited CU wise...but now they all seem to be all CU, especially the Space kit, which is cute enough, but all from templates. I thought their "originality" was supposed to shine thru.
Nope. Monitor settings just fine. Viewed on another monitor just in case and they're still hideous. Just personal preference, of course. I think any kit without a neutral to balance is usually pretty hideous.
And I agree about the lack of creativity this final round. It's like everyone just went ape shit with the CU when they did OK before without it.
Meh - I'm uninspired by the final round. Truth is I know plenty of designers who started the competition and don't get why they're not still in. But whatever.
You are taking a strong stand against registering in a forum? Why?
---
I wasn't aware saying I'm not registering is a 'strong' stand. Well, blow me down. You learn something new every day.
As for why I don't want to register, I have no interest in the store or the site, good enough for you?
Blow me down? LOL!
I asked only because I see people say they won't register fairly often and I've never understood why they won't. I was just curious as to what your reasons are. You aren't required to buy anything to register in a forum, and it takes 30 seconds to register. Not a big deal in the scheme of things.
Not that interested in the contest and I'm certainly not interested in the forum, so, why bother? Just to give an opinion on a contest in which I have no interest?
@March 22, 2011 6:49 PM
You definitely need to calibrate your monitor (s). There is nothing wrong with those colors palettes.
If it's a matter of preferences, you must not like a lot of kits out there. Show us a few examples of what is not gross according to you. I'm curious.
My feedback
Wyld Web Designs: The swatch seems ok to me. I love the theme she picked, but I would have expected more elements. The alpha is a great idea. I would consider buying this kit.
Pretty in green: I don't like peach color. Period. The alpha is cute, the rest of the elements quite suck. I kept only the animals and the fence, but I am sure I already have them!
Down this road: Not an original theme, many CU, the swatch is not perfect. I'll keep it, but I would never buy it.
Dream big designs: I like it, because it's different. Not sure if I'll use it. The stoned critters are fun but maybe not usable. Good try, though.
Digital paper press: The theme matches the swatch. I like the transparent balloons. Not very original idea, though
Band Geek Designs: Not very original theme. The colors are ok to me. I like some patterned papers. I kept it (though I would have never bought it)
Holley Berry: I like her style with the drawn elements. The real elements she included look quite odd. Nice alpha. Most of the papers are boring.
Cross bone cuts. The colors are gross. I kept only some elements (cupcake, peach...). Not sure if I'll ever use them.
Milly Dee: I kept only the alpha and the heart-flower. Not my colors.
BTW, the "stars" of round 1 are still waiting for their feedback! LMAO!
Post a Comment