But, for me at least, I see an increase in sales and increase in new customers during and for a period after the train. I wouldn't discount them altogether. You really need to look at the whole picture as annoying as I find the freebie hunters. *** Really? Because it seems like freebie hunters only hunt freebies, and never buy. If you don't mind sharing, how much of an increase are you talking about?
You should quote the whole message, not just this part. I think the OP already gave a sound argument about high page ranking for search engine.
"I take part in these trains too for the most part, I don't have time for all of them but you also need to consider that the high web hits also mean higher page rankings which translate into more traffic from searches. It's not just about the higher sales. But, for me at least, I see an increase in sales and increase in new customers during and for a period after the train. I wouldn't discount them altogether. You really need to look at the whole picture as annoying as I find the freebie hunters."
True, freebie hunters drive the page views. But page views translate to higher ranking and that means potential customers can find you easier.
Really? Because it seems like freebie hunters only hunt freebies, and never buy. If you don't mind sharing, how much of an increase are you talking about?
--------------------------
It's not about the freebie hunters, they are just collateral to the effect of a rounded marketing plan. It's not all about the blog train. It's not all about the sales the blog train brings. The increase I get is not huge but it's there. The steady growth of customers, page hits from people adding your blog to their reader, the freebie hunter website picking it up and advertising for you. Really, don't be in it for the comments, or the "love" and appreciation you get. Be in it to make it work for you as part of a marketing plan. The blog train is just a part of it and an easy and cheap tool. But you need other marketing tools otherwise all you'll ever be is a blog train participant.
To #4... She never said she was relying on her blog for her marketing. She clearly said "you need other marketing tools" as well. FGS, sometimes it's like talking to monkeys when you post here. Can you please employ some reading comprehension skills before you continue to argue about a topic which, clearly, you have nothing to offer?! Why are you even debating the merits of participating in the blog train if you DON'T? You have no bloody clue what you're talking about.
You pick up page hits, a few sales. I almost always try to be marketing a new product alongside the blogtrain. I also push newsletter subscription and see a fairly good number of new subscribers during the first few days.
So designers at new stores:
Karen Lewis - Scrapbookgraphics Trish H. - Divine Digital Fee Jardine - coming back (my guess back at Sweet Shoppe since they are having a call)
LOL I was tickled when I pulled up this blog this morning and saw my comment from yesterday has become the header-title for the March space! Simple minds, simple pleasures, I know.
Karen Lewis: I'm honestly surprised she left TDC for SBG. I would have understood if she had left for SSD, but SBG doesn't seem that great a match for her style and I do wonder if it will truly equate to more sales & customers.
Trish H: I've not ever followed her before, and would know nothing about her if it weren't for her involvement (?) in the blog train. So don't much care where she'll be selling.
Fee: My bet is SSD, too, as I believe she left last year just to have a break and b/c she wasn't going to be putting out regular product again. Earlier this week I read on her blog (or Facebook? can't recall) that she's bursting w/ new ideas and inspiration, so my guess is she'll just go home to SSD. Makes sense.
Well, FFS. I said *I* don't rely on my blog for marketing. I certainly understood what she was saying, but since I actually make a decent income (not $50/month) my time output has to be worth it.
To make it easy to understand for the dumbasses: Too much work for too little money = Not good business sense.
I wondered if I was missing out on a goldmine, but clearly I'm not.
When I click on the link to go to Profile Couture's site (from the blog train site) it takes me to a site that hasn't been updated since last week. How/where are you all seeing her contribution?
The blog train is craptastic every month. I'd be surprised if these designers make $50 a month, and the color palette is the least of their problems.
------------
I can name multiple designers from the blog train list who I know make at least 10-20x that much money in a month. Just because the palette's godawful and many (ok most) of the kits are disasters doesn't mean that a notable few aren't using it for marketing reasons and benefitting.
Either 19 is Happy Tits or totally high. It's not listed on the PC blog, but the preview is in the PB album. It's not all that great, but I wouldn't download it on principle alone.
I have to admit that I did take part of the blog train and to be honest, I know my part is nowhere near as good as I could have made it. I lost interest and really should have just pulled out.
But I didn't, because it does bring traffic and that's been talked to death above.
I'm one of the (I'm sure many) designers who make more than $50 a month. I average about 3-450 a month and I'm happy with that.
Yes, we know. But this morning when someone had already chosen her minikit as one of their favorites, the most recent post on her blog was the 2/26 post about Best Buds. The point being made was - how did that person know they liked hers so much, if it wasn't even posted on her blog yet?
What? Thing 1 and Thing 2? You'd have a hard time making that a copyright volition. Or even Sam I Am. Now, if it had been Lorax or something very Seusssian, yeah, but now you just look either silly or like a pot stirrer.
You're kidding right? Thing 1 and Thing 2 is TOTALLY Seuss. No one else has used those characters. Ever.
And you look like you must be a Stuff That's Crap designer. Or maybe Nicole, the owner known to allow copyright violations because 'chances are you won't get sued.'
Totally disagree, post 30. "Sam I Am" is a very well-known Seussism. I would be willing to bet that if you asked 100 people on the street about the first thing they think of when they hear "Sam I Am", 99 would say something about Dr. Seuss. The 100th person would be a baby or a senile older person. It wouldn't be as bad if they hadn't also included other very well-known Seussian (your word not mine) items like the Cat in the Hat's red & white striped hat, etc.
It's bad enough for any designer to do this, but for a shop collaboration kit? My oh my.
And you look like you must be a Stuff That's Crap designer. --
Yeah, I look one, huh? Having never heard of the store until the link was posted and having no clue who any of the designers are, as I didn't like at the list, I highly doubt it.
I'm not really sure why poster #15 felt the need to target one store, when there are several kits in there using Seuss items. In one kit, there's even a cat in a hat! Another kit has actual traced Seuss illustrations. Total given that the Etsy items are a violation.
This is why I said that #15 was being a pot stirrer.
There is copyright and there is trademark - and BOTH apply to Dr Seuss' work. With trademark, anything that can confuse people into thinking it's been created by Seuss is a trademark violation ... so using his colors, characters that look like his, and words like 'Thing 1' and 'Thing 2' most definitely treads on Seuss' trademark.
I don't see why the thread at DST is relevant. It's like a little kid getting caught stealing cookies pointing to his brother saying 'he stole more!'.
I always have to look at what OTBS (formerly COLS) is offering up. Morbid curiousity. I do NOT like this - whatever it is that she is offering up. But I direct your attention to the WONDERFUL extractions on the elements in her example layouts. The globe..the spring. Um. and she is allowed to sell somewhere?
OMG - WTF??! http://www.godigitalscrapbooking.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_dnld_info&cPath=29_180&products_id=10820 Bottom left - that skull!? Who the F would buy this crap?
I don't see why the thread at DST is relevant. . -------
The thread at DST is relevant because it's full of copyright violation. Why pick on one particular store and not the others? It has nothing to do with 'he stole more' and diverting attention.
GDS sucks. Crappy products, really crappy customer service. ------- Did they just lose a lot of designers? I remember their design list used to be huge.
as the OP on the OTBS (COLS) comment....I'm laughing that you think anyone could possibly "derail" the so very important Stuff to Scrap discussion. I didn't mean to step on your toes in your Dr. Suess thread. Please, by all means, go right back at it. My eyes bleed when I see OTBS new releases, and yet I can't help but look at the new atrocity she has created, and just love to share my awe of it here. Again - please accept my apology for derailing your discussion. and, I state for the record that I do not now, nor have I EVER had anything to do with STS. Not that it matters.
I make 2k+ a month, don't ever participate in hideous blog trains, and don't sell at a shop that anyone here talks/smacks about. I think ya'll are barking up the wrong trees.
#50? I do believe you are just full of crap this evening dear. If you made 2K+ per month, your shop would be smacked here. I can smell the stench eminating from your corner, hon.
There was voting? The only thing I ever saw was the thread to nominate color palettes...and few chimed in that they like the one picked. I don't remember ever seeing anyplace to vote on the nominated palettes, though. They just went from that nomination thread to the contest to design the logo with the palette picked out.
As far as what I would have picked...not the one that was picked, that's for sure. It's too loud. I'm with poster 59, I hope a lot of neutrals are used with it.
Does this seem well...wrong...to anyone else - http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/showthread.php?t=290604
This photographer is posting photos he/she took and then giving permission for people to use them in their scrap pages. (There are other similar threads the same photographer has started) I don't see anywhere where the parents of the child/children are giving permission for their child's image to be used. I understand the photographer owns the copyright on the photos and maybe part of the photography contract extends to him/her posting the photos for pr but I can't see any parent saying it's ok for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to take their baby's photo and use it in their scrap pages.
as a parent I would not be pleased that my baby's photos were being freely given out on a site. I understand the photographer owns the copyright to the photo but darn it I own the child. I know when I sign a contract I always read the fine print, most just say they have the right to use the photo for promotional/advertising, never seen this before.
About that photographer, I think they were told they had to allow the photos for scrap use or stop posting blatant advertising at DST.
Change of topic - I guess Happy Tits couldn't handle shop ownership? With Love Studio was just listed as for sale in the DCR. The "managers" are handling the sale?
"With Love Studio has been operating successfully since it's opening and we already we have a loyal customer base and hardworking site staff. Due to the original owner's family life commitments, she has given the Managers the OK to go through with a sale since she no longer has the time to run a store and the Managers can no longer do it on their own. "
I'm sorry but, WOW, Jennifer's comment is just a wee bit condescending, no? http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/showthread.php?t=298049 - I think DST is going to take a bit of flack for this one, just adding the buttons like that ...
There was voting? The only thing I ever saw was the thread to nominate color palettes...and few chimed in that they like the one picked. I don't remember ever seeing anyplace to vote on the nominated palettes, though. They just went from that nomination thread to the contest to design the logo with the palette picked out.
As far as what I would have picked...not the one that was picked, that's for sure. It's too loud. I'm with poster 59, I hope a lot of neutrals are used with it.
-----------------
Did you nominate anything in the original thread? I did nominate a color, which wasn't picked. I was surprised at the number that liked the end choice. I don't think any of them were thinking about what it would like as a website, but rather as a kit.
I disagree. If you post to a public gallery, you'd have to be off your rocker to expect those layouts to be anything but PUBLIC. It was always possible to pin them / save them to your own computer / whatever. The OP way overreacted.
Considering how the "legality" of Pinterest has been discussed for a few days in the Scrap Talk, I am just surprised that DST didn't take that discussion into consideration before implementing something that MIGHT be controversial in the first place. Those buttons are also under the products of the Product Gallery. I think that would make sense, but under the layouts?
I didn't find her response condescending at all. I thought it was pretty straightforward. While I will agree that perhaps "buttons" to share images in the gallery wasn't the brightest idea, the thought that someone might take what you post on a PUBLIC gallery and repost or reference it elsewhere on the net shouldn't be unexpected.
And can't she just remove her own images instead of demanding someone else do it for her?
I am the person who posted about Zoe. It was stupid and as soon as I posted, I realized just how stupid it was. But being anonymous, I couldn't edit or remove it. I have gone through my Facebook and removed everyone that I'm not true friends (real life) with.
Jennifer is completely correct. If you're posting your images in a public gallery - they've always been available to pin, to save to someone's computer, to hotlink to other forums, and to post on facebook, etc. This is the way social media has begun to function, and Lynn would be good to go ahead and just close her gallery or make it private if it's an issue.
I'm sorry but, WOW, Jennifer's comment is just a wee bit condescending, no? http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/showthread.php?t=298049 - I think DST is going to take a bit of flack for this one, just adding the buttons like that ...
not condescending at all. It's an open gallery. If you don't like it don't post.
Sigh. What some of you don't get is that people taking it without permission is stealing but by putting a button there saying you can take it, it's not stealing. I accept that people will steal images, I don't like it, but I accept it, KWIM? I do not accept that I'm giving unauthorized permission for them to take it. Do you see the difference? It means that legally I have no rights as I gave permission for them to 'pin' it.
Considering how the "legality" of Pinterest has been discussed for a few days in the Scrap Talk, I am just surprised that DST didn't take that discussion into consideration before implementing something that MIGHT be controversial in the first place. -------
Sharing a kit without permission is piracy, right? Even if it is a freebie. Isn't sharing "any digital material without permission" just the same? Who would put a "share me" button under their kit or freebie? Why would one want to have it under their LAYOUT. I agree with #73: it is different if the designer WANTS the preview of their product shared. But I am not sure that most scrappers WANT their layout shared in that manner, where they totally loose control of where they are posted.
- Digital is defined as anything “available in electronic form, readable and manipulable by computer.” - Piracy is defined as “the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product,etc.”
Are those social media buttons encouraging something pretty close to "digital piracy"?
^^^^^ That is great, and I am sure you would like those buttons. But what about those who do NOT feel the same. They should have the option of NOT having those buttons.
From #82: "- Digital is defined as anything “available in electronic form, readable and manipulable by computer.” - Piracy is defined as “the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product,etc.”
Are those social media buttons encouraging something pretty close to "digital piracy"?"
Agreed. However, DST's terms of service give them permission to slap those buttons there. Their terms also give them royalty free rights to redistribute any uploaded user content. If you upload your stuff to a site and don't want it redistributed, make sure to read their terms before you do.
It's going to be interesting to see how this "social media sharing" plays out (everywhere not just at DST).
I, for one, see pinterest much like a search engine between people. After all, you don't just get the image, or the download, you get the link to the site it's on. How is that unlike google?
Yep the key point those who are upset about this are missing is this: you gave DST permission to do whatever they want with those layouts when you uploaded them. They can publish them in their newsletters, share them on their facebook page, and put sharing buttons under them and there is nothing illegal about that. It's not stealing because you gave them permission.
I'm willing to guess many people don't read the terms at sites like DST - but you are still agreeing to them.
I'm reading DST's legalese and I can't find where it says that they have the right to allow others to redistribute my layouts.
http://www.crowdgather.com/legal.cgs
As a condition of using this Site, you hereby license to Crowdgather Inc., a non-exclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free right and license to display or remove the User Generated Content on its Site. Your access and use of this Site shall be construed as sufficient consideration for such license. The foregoing license rights shall not apply to User Generated Content posted to this Site by you, which violates or infringes upon third party intellectual property, trade secrets or privacy rights and such license shall be void as a matter of law.
With Love Studio is already for sale! Sorry, it is in the DCR: http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/showthread.php?p=3131329 Mar 2, 2012 1:15:00 PM --------------------------------- If someone buys that store, they'd be as dumb as the designers who stay on there.
3. Ownership. You acknowledge that you are solely responsible for all materials, text, entries, communications, content, information, forum contributions, materials, pictures and any video links or other materials provided by or contributed by you on this Site (collectively, the “User Generated Content”).
You further agree that you either own all User Generated Content provided by you or is properly obtained from the appropriate owner with full permissions to post such User Generated Content on the Site.
[b]The Content is protected by copyright, trade dress and other laws and may not be copied or imitated in whole or in part. [/b]
OK, so if the content that you're uploading to them is protected, how can they turn around and allow others to pin it?
Pinning, FB sharing, Twitter, bookmarking, or whatever - all links back to where YOU put the image on the DST site. It's just another way DST displays the images. It doesn't put a copy of the image on your hard drive or someone else's site.
Someone said would designers want share buttons under their kits - I'm a designer and I most definitely want share buttons under my kits - it shares the image and links back to where they can get the kit. It doesn't put a copy of my kit on someone's computer.
ugh! We're NOT talking about KITS at all. It's the LAYOUTS that are being discussed here! Everyone knows you want to sell your kits!
True, pinners are gonna pin anyway with or without the button under the layouts. Some who use it regularly use the "Pin It" button that are permanently attached to the browser to make it even easier to pin. They don't need the button on the site at all. *BUT* like many posters said before me, the fact that it's there signals PERMISSION, which is a no-no.
I myself don't mind being pinned *with proper credits* but if there's an option to op out, I definitely would. I would much rather people pin it from MY blog rather than create even more traffic to DST. But knowing DST, they probably won't remove the button but will change their Terms and Conditions yet again. Or you'll soon see another box to tick to allow those buttons when uploading to the gallery.
Someone said would designers want share buttons under their kits - I'm a designer and I most definitely want share buttons under my kits - it shares the image and links back to where they can get the kit. It doesn't put a copy of my kit on someone's computer. ^^^^^^ That is because, for now, the KIT itself cannot be pinned but only the preview. What if there was a way to pin the actual kit? Would you still want that? If a layout is pinned somewhere, it is actually duplicated somewhere else now, even with a link back. The layout is the "end product" so to speak. Would you want your kit (as the end product) to be pinned too? Maybe it is not possible now, but with the "progress" of technology and social media, who says it won't be possible next year? How will you feel then?
Why would anyone pin/share someone's layout? And how is having the strangers at DST look at your layout any different than having strangers at pinterest look at your layout? If creeps are checking out your layouts, I'm sure they'll find some way to do with even without pinterest.
But I will say that I think the buttons are a bad idea. If people are going to pin/share it, they will anyway, but having the buttons there is in some respects "suggesting" they share it.
I just went through many pinboards - they all link to the original site they were posted on so I'm not following that argument.
I just don't see the big deal here. Having Facebook Share buttons on posts in forums and stuff hasn't actually shown much increase in people sharing them ... people who Pin are going to Pin regardless of those buttons.
I keep shaking my head wondering why people have expectations of privacy with a pubic gallery.
I keep shaking my head wondering why people have expectations of privacy with a pubic gallery. -----
I think you are shaking your head too much. There's a big difference between inviting someone to share my layouts via the Pin button and having someone look at it and then decide to take it. The fact that you don't understand that, amazes me.
I think you are shaking your head too much. There's a big difference between inviting someone to share my layouts via the Pin button and having someone look at it and then decide to take it. The fact that you don't understand that, amazes me.
^^^
Do you Pin? And if you do, do you have the button on your browser? Because that's as much permission as the button in the gallery. Your issue is with Pinterest - and you aren't along, there are lots of conversations online about if it's ethical and legal. Your issue is not with DST. They couldn't block Pinterest if they tried.
"Your issue is not with DST. They couldn't block Pinterest if they tried."
No one is asking DST to block Pinterest. They are asking them to not automatically put the pin button on every page in the gallery.
The point is not whether Pinterest is right or wrong. It's about everyone submitting layouts to DST appearing as if they give permission to pin without being asked.
"putting a layout on the web ANYWHERE is 'permission to pin without being asked.'"
How????? Putting an image on a website does NOT equal to PERMISSION for anyone to do anything with that image at all. This is no difference from a pirate's argument. "It's on the web, I can use/share it." :P
I think we have a different understanding of Pinterest. It isn't 'stealing' or 'sharing' or 'taking' or anything like that. It's just a way to collect links you like to find them again. It's like bookmarking them in a folder in your browser.
It's not the same as pirates using or sharing it because those people claim it as their own, maybe alter it a bit, and re-distribute it.
Pinterest isn't re-distribution in any way. It's just collecting links to things you like.
That being said, I think Pinterest made a mistake allowing user uplaoded content - because that does allow people to save images to their computer and uploaded them as 'user added' which means there is no link to the actual image owner.
How????? Putting an image on a website does NOT equal to PERMISSION for anyone to do anything with that image at all. This is no difference from a pirate's argument. "It's on the web, I can use/share it." :P
----
Exactly, but clearly some people are too damn stupid to understand this.
None of us are saying that people can't take or even pin right now, but it's not the same as having the damn button right there saying - please, take it with our blessing.
because that does allow people to save images to their computer and uploaded them as 'user added' which means there is no link to the actual image owner. ----
Sigh, it's not just uploaded by user issue. Like I've said and pointed out, there are lots of images that link to places like Tumbler and Imgfave, which have no link to the original uploader, none at all.
The only ones with no link are 'uploaded by user' ----
Wrong! I've been taken to places like tumblr and imgfave, which are not the original uploaders of the images. Try again.
^^^
I didn't say they are all linked to the original owner. I just said they are all linked to the original site where they were pinned from unless they are user uploaded. The ones that link to Tumblr were pinned from Tumblr.
Is it wrong that someone uploaded an image they don't own to Tumblr? Yes. Is it anything to do with Pinterest that someone found that image on Tumblr? No.
Maybe Pinterest could better monitor images to be sure they don't violate copyright - Photobucket does a better job of that, removing images that are obviously stolen (like images of stars and stuff) or are obviously offensive. I think Pinterest is trying to be neutral about it - so they don't get complaints about content they delete. Kind of the way twitter is - they are just a sharing platform, they don't monitor content (Unlike Facebook that does monitor content but is under constant criticism for how they do it.)
Sigh, it's not just uploaded by user issue. Like I've said and pointed out, there are lots of images that link to places like Tumbler and Imgfave, which have no link to the original uploader, none at all.
^^^
And that's different than Google exactly how? I've found the same image on a Google search 4 or 5 times - one is the original one and the others are copies people posted to Tumblr or their own blog or something like that.
Exactly, but clearly some people are too damn stupid to understand this.
None of us are saying that people can't take or even pin right now, but it's not the same as having the damn button right there saying - please, take it with our blessing.
^^^
I understand you. I just don't AGREE with you. I'm not stupid because I had a different opinion. I don't see having that button under an image as a big deal at all. People who Pin are going to Pin, button or not.
All of you who are upset about a pinterest button under your layouts should NOT be posting them in a gallery. By all means, just stop posting them if this is such an issue for you. Because, in truth, if you share your layouts in a public gallery, you have ZERO right to bitch about how those images are used/shared/reposted/linked to, etc etc by anyone at all. You are the dumbass who made the image public by freely sharing it in a gallery in the first place! And now you want to take exception to just ONE small way in which that image can be shared with others?
God, enough already. All this whining is ridiculous.
If I steal something digital, it means I have a copy of it. Things that are Pinned with that button are not copied, they are linked to the gallery. If you delete that image from your gallery, its gone from the Pinterest board too. How ca you define that as stealing?
"If I steal something digital, it means I have a copy of it. Things that are Pinned with that button are not copied, they are linked to the gallery. If you delete that image from your gallery, its gone from the Pinterest board too. How ca you define that as stealing?"
Totally wrong. The images on Pinterest have their own URLs. They are uploaded to Pinterest's server, stripped of any meta/exif data. That is a part of why photographers are all pissed about.
"The point is not whether Pinterest is right or wrong. It's about everyone submitting layouts to DST appearing as if they give permission to pin without being asked."
If you don't want something shared on the internet DON'T post it anywhere. Social media sites are changing the way everyone looks at things. If I have something I don't want posted for all to see, I don't post it period. If I want to share with family and friends I send it in an email. If I don't like FaceBook or Google then I don't have to have them on my computer. There are lots of other browsers besides Google. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. If you want to maintain your privacy then don't put it out there on the internet for anyone to use or abuse. Just that simple!!
God, enough already. All this whining is ridiculous.
________________________________________
And when one of your kits is pirated because it's on the internet don't you fucking whine either because I'm sick of this double standard people have here. You reasoning is that I don't have any reasonable right to expect that what I upload to one site will not be shared without my permission. Yet designers think that what they upload should be protected - sorry but pirates make the argument.
"There is copyright and there is trademark - and BOTH apply to Dr Seuss' work. With trademark, anything that can confuse people into thinking it's been created by Seuss is a trademark violation ... so using his colors, characters that look like his, and words like 'Thing 1' and 'Thing 2' most definitely treads on Seuss' trademark." *******************
Dr. Seuss: You'll see it everywhere! All products released today at The Lilypad are inspired by Dr. Seuss! Sketches, word art, alphas, quotes, and elements...
It's bad for any designer to do this, but for a shop?????
As far as images on tumblr etc. Obviously someone STOLE your layout (or whatever) and then reposted it elsewhere and then it got pinned from there.
Totally NOT DST's fault. Anyone can do that. And yes, it's the chance you take when you upload to a public gallery. Is it right? No, but how can it be stopped? Even if you close down the pinterest site, it's not like your layout/picture/whatever wasn't already "stolen" and uploaded somewhere else if the pinterest link sends you to some other site. (or no where in the case of user content). And chances are you would've never even known about it.
Pinterest isn't different from any other search engine (Yahoo, Bing, Google,etc) They all do the same thing. Bring up several sites and references to your search topic. This includes several copies of images. Some the original. Some are copies.
And a court already ruled in Google's favor, so I don't think pinterest will be any different unless they are made to take out the "user content" option. They don't have control over where someone posted an image, they can only show you the image and link to it. Why not bitch at tumblr or wherever the site is that your layouts are being "re-uploaded" to? It's obviously THOSE people that are actually STEALING the image.
I think you need to realize what stealing an image actually means. Now, if I Pin your LO (which I wouldn't, because I think Pinterest and sites like it are stupid wastes of time) and use it as inspiration to make my OWN LO, I have stolen nothing. If I use the Pinned LO, erase out your kid, and put in a picture of my kid, then I've stolen something.
Digital kits aren't the same thing as digital LOs. A designer does not post a flower, a paper, a ribbon, etc in galleries. They post a preview. That preview is a proper comparison to your LO.
Comparing kit contents to your LO is like comparing apples and oranges.
And the woman bitching at DST about her IP address being published really needs to buy a clue. And get off her computer ASAP.
And when one of your kits is pirated because it's on the internet don't you fucking whine either because I'm sick of this double standard people have here.
First of all, I'm not even a designer. I'm just a scrapbooker. And yes, I do think you're whining and I do think it's RIDICULOUS. No one is forcing you to post your layouts online, are they? NO. Then DON'T! Plain and simple. If you have this much of a problem with people pinning your layouts, then you definitely should not be sharing anything online at all.
But, to the rest of your point(?) if it can be called that, I wholeheartedly agree with #127. The individual contents of a kit are not the same as a flattened scrapbook layout, shared at web quality in an online gallery. Not even close. There is no double-standard here. Just a lot of paranoid hens squawking and making much to-do about nothing.
I repeat: YOU HAVE THE OPTION NOT TO POST YOUR LAYOUTS ONLINE. Get a clue and quit bitching.
#122 is absolutely correct though. And if the designers products' TOU requires credits, pinning and sharing without posting those credits violates their terms as well.
I have already said that I'M FULLY AWARE THAT PEOPLE TAKE MY STUFF ALREADY,
BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM GIVING THEM PERMISSION, WHICH I DIDN'T AUTHORIZE.
That means, that if someone takes it and I see it, they can say - but you had the pin button there. Before the pin button, if I saw it, I could ask for them to remove it and have recourse if they didn't. Now I don't. Do you see the difference? Do you?
I understand you. I just don't AGREE with you. I'm not stupid because I had a different opinion. I don't see having that button under an image as a big deal at all. People who Pin are going to Pin, button or not. ---
No, you clearly don't understand me. You aren't stupid because of a difference of opinion, you're stupid because you don't understand what I and others are trying to say.
It's not the taking of the images, we get that already, it's having that damn button there, saying - go ahead take it. I do not want to give that permission. It means I have given up the rights to that image. Now, I haven't.
And that's different than Google exactly how? I've found the same image on a Google search 4 or 5 times - one is the original one and the others are copies people posted to Tumblr or their own blog or something like that. ---
So because Google does, that makes it okay? I don't agree with Google either.
If you bookmark it with delicious or some social bookmarking site it's no different.
And not agreeing with Google either? Are you serious? So let's just not have any search engines at all, no way to find any content, just word of mouth... you want to find a site about hamsters? Tough luck! Yeah ok. Maybe you need less time on the internet and more time with your tinfoil hat.
And by posting the image on DST, didn't you give them permission to do whatever they wanted with the image anyways? Well maybe not whatever they want, but surely you gave them permission to put the pin under their own gallery. It's frankly your own choice to post your layouts or not, if you're so freaked out about strangers seeing them then don't post them.
#127 It's you who need to get a clue. The lady at DST clearly didn't mean IP address. IP = Intellectual Properties = the issue being discussed. Mar 3, 2012 1:24:00 PM
I thought the lady at DST was talking about her IP address, too. Until she later said IP rights. I don't think it was that obvious and I agree with the rest of what #127 said anyway - including that lady needing to get off the internet.
The Pin It button actually helps you get credit for your image. If someone uses the Pin It button at DST, the link will take them straight back to your gallery image. If I download your photo to my computer and upload it to a tumblr or straight to Pinterest, then you won't get proper credit. If I Pin your layout to my Pinterest, you still get credit for it. It goes on a Scrap Inspiration or Layouts I Love board, pinners are in no way taking credit for your page. The only way your page could be considered "stolen" is if I erased your pictures, added my own, and then uploaded it as my own page. I have a folder full of pages that I've saved that I look to for inspiration when I'm stumped on how to scrap my folder. Those images have absolutely no way of getting proper credit when I scraplift them, because I have no idea where or when I saved them. If I pin your page, I can go find it on my pinboard and credit the original artist for my scraplift. I would much rather someone pin my page than download it to their computer.
I think the problem at DST at the moment is not "just" whether or not one wants their layout pinned or not. This can be a personal choice. Nobody will find a way to make everyone agree. The problem is that it was put there, and nobody was even asked, AND there is no way out if one does not like it. There is an option to make an album private or public. Why not have a "shareable or not shareable" option too? That will help the members feel like they still have some control over what they post there. I think it is up to everyone to put a sharing button below their images, if they want, on their blog or wherever, but a lot of people are not happy that it is IMPOSED on them. Give the members the option and most will be happy to choose what they want.
#146 that is exactly the point from the start. I don't know why can't people see it. I'm not arguing the merit of pinterest at all. It's about how dst does their business. They can give members options like flickr does for theirs.
DST is a free service, that you use completely voluntarily. They have every single right to do with their business what they want to do, within the bounds of the law. If you don't like it, simply don't post there. Lots of people have already left that community due to things like too many ads.
I understand you. I just don't AGREE with you. I'm not stupid because I had a different opinion. I don't see having that button under an image as a big deal at all. People who Pin are going to Pin, button or not. ---
No, you clearly don't understand me. You aren't stupid because of a difference of opinion, you're stupid because you don't understand what I and others are trying to say.
It's not the taking of the images, we get that already, it's having that damn button there, saying - go ahead take it. I do not want to give that permission. It means I have given up the rights to that image. Now, I haven't.
^^^^
Well, since you don't seem to no how to be nice, I won't bother. YOU are incredibly stupid if you think that having a Pinterest button on a public gallery image means you've given up your rights to your image. You are also stupid if you think you have ANY rights to ask people to un-pin your layout, no matter how they came across it. You are angry about buttons because your stupid brain imagines that they mean you DST has given up your rights to that intellectual property. They don't mean that, they don't change the Pinterest game with regard to your layout in ANY way. They don't mean anyone has given anyone permission to steal your layout. Those buttons being there change NOTHING. Really. So take some deep breaths and relax.
#149... read the TOS at DST... you give up your rights to whatever content you post at DST the moment you hit the button. Not only do you give the rights to Crowd Gather to use the images for whatever they want (like advertising) but you also give permission to users to download as they please and use however they please for personal, non-commercial, use. I would think designers would be upset with those terms, that things made with their products could be used by DST/Crowd Gather however they want.
Yep - crowd gather sucks. That's why DST is nothing like it used to be. I'm a designer and a long time ago I stopped asking my CT to upload layouts to DST.
#149... read the TOS at DST... you give up your rights to whatever content you post at DST the moment you hit the button. Not only do you give the rights to Crowd Gather to use the images for whatever they want (like advertising) but you also give permission to users to download as they please and use however they please for personal, non-commercial, use. I would think designers would be upset with those terms, that things made with their products could be used by DST/Crowd Gather however they want.
^^^^
Yes you've kind of made my point for me ... putting a LO on DST means you give up rights to control how your image is shared or used by DST ... having the Pin button there doesn't change a thing.
I should add that you give up your rights to control how those images are shared ... but you don't give up your rights to the image. Adding the Pin button doesn't change that, either.
Honestly, I think people can debate this without getting bitchy.
I'm thinking that the person on here who's such a bitch about loving the pins must be Big Scrap Kitty - she's really acting like a condescending jerk on that DST thread too.
She said: I'm sorry you did not understand what was happening when you were posting in a public gallery like DST. Your images have always been available for sharing, and you can't blame the technology for making it easier. If you object to being shared, you object to being shared. You can't just say I don't mind if you share this way but not that way. That's splitting hairs, and doesn't go to the IP rights issue at all. I'm sorry if you removed your gallery, but you didn't solve the problem. Publish in any other gallery, it will still end up on Pinterest. Personally, I don't post anything I'm not willing to have passed around.
OK well, I hope that she doesn't 'blame the technology' when one of her copyrighted photos is passed around and used without permission.
#155, there's a HUGE difference between a copyrighted photo being shared around to view, and being used commercially. Posting to Pinterest isn't giving the world license to use it however they wish. Neither was posting it to StumbleUpon before, or Delicious, or Visualizeus, or Facebook... Just like if you find a nice image online you can't automatically assume you can use it for a scrapbook kit (or to scrap a layout), the same applies for anything put on Pinterest.
People don't like change, I don't like it either in many ways but with technology you have to assume it'll change. Right now the web is ALL about social media so expect sharing to become MORE prevalent, not less... at least until something like SOPA goes through to muzzle everyone and kill the social trend.
Overall, if you're pressed for time and like doodles, Profile Couture and Laura Banasiak's are the best in the train. I also liked Sugar Kissed and Dawn by Design the best for non-doodles.
The color palette as a whole isn't anything I would buy, but I did like the blue and purple. Overall, this is the worst train I can remember in quite some time.
What I downloaded: Ocean Wide Designs Wishing Well Creations Eyeinspire Sugar Kissed Trixie Scraps Studio 68 Profile Couture Blue Umbrella Dawn by Design Aimee Harrison Laura Banasiak
Of that, what I kept: Ocean Wide Designs - kept a couple elements and 2 papers. Would have kept the frame, but it's very jagged. Wishing Well Creations - kept all of it. There is also a nice coupon inside. Eyeinspire - kept all but 2 of the papers. Sugar Kissed - kept most of the elements and all the patterned papers. Also has a nice coupon inside. Trixie Scraps - kept most of the elements and a couple papers. Studio 68 - kept both alphas. Deleted the sheets and Euros. Profile Couture - kept all of it. Will go nicely with Laura's kit. Blue Umbrella - kept all of it. Dawn by Design - kept all of it. There is also a nice coupon inside. Aimee Harrison - Kept most of the elements except for that scary bunny. Kept a couple of the papers. Laura Banasiak - kept all of it. It's nice to see no jaggies on her doodles. There is also a nice coupon inside.
I can guess a few designers who definitely applied at SSD because they're suddenly active in the forums there. I seriously hope Stolen Moments was not accepted. She is a two-faced bitch and I wouldn't hang-out anywhere near her. I don't get the big deal with her anyway.
I'm also guessing Tracie Stroud applied. I hope she gets it so I can stop shopping at SO.
I see Sherri Tierney is also suddenly there. I doubt she applied, though, as she states on her blog she's not really designing much.
I saw Fee's newsletter and hope she is coming back to SSD, too.
That makes no sense to me. It seems like they'd see right through that. Personally if I was making the decision, I'd rather see that they are active in the forums where they sell rather than at a store they don't.
That makes no sense to me. It seems like they'd see right through that. Personally if I was making the decision, I'd rather see that they are active in the forums where they sell rather than at a store they don't. Mar 4, 2012 4:32:00 PM
I agree with this.
Tracie Stroud has been active at SSD for a long time, though. The others are all new.
I can guess a few designers who definitely applied at SSD because they're suddenly active in the forums there. I seriously hope Stolen Moments was not accepted. She is a two-faced bitch and I wouldn't hang-out anywhere near her. I don't get the big deal with her anyway.
Sounds like there is a story here. Care to share? It's not cool to tease.
^^ We all made them several years ago as intro videos....so people could put faces/voices with screen names. It was fun. They're all really really old though.
And no....SSD invites have not gone out yet or are going out tonight. I'm a designer there and we didn't make final decisions until today so whoever said they went out two days ago is lying.
Regarding the blog train: 4mybabies scrap has music on her blog that you can't turn off - I hate that. Why do people think you want your computer to start playing music when you visit their blogs? I closed the blog without even looking at her mini nor would I stay to look at anything she has to sell.
I think #180 has a good question in that starting off you will never get into a big store...so where on earth do you start? What is a good named starter store?
@181 Ohh I didn't know you couldn't get into a big store straight away. I assumed that if you had good products and were likely to attract customers because of them, you could kinda 'have your pick' so to speak. I realize it's different when you have a long way to go with your products (i.e. not being able to alter H&S lol or being crap at extractions and needing to buy CU swatches) but I did think that if the products were enticing, consistent and good quality, the store owner would want you, no matter how well established they are?
I'd have guessed places like Oscraps, Scrapbook Graphics, After Five Designs, Cat Scraps etc. Not necessarily the longest standing, but fairly popular??
I want to start selling, I'm not your typical scrapbooker-turned-designer and I have a background working in design so I think I could offer decent products to use. What I am worried about is selling in a store that has a bad reputation and being tarred with the same brush.
I think you will find that almost every store has drama and pros and cons. I also think it's foolish to mislead a new designer into thinking they stand a chance at getting into a top shop their first go around. Does it happen? sure. Someone also wins the lottery on occasion, too, but what are the odds?
I think it doesn't hurt to apply where you feel your designs will sell, but your focus should be on amassing a client base. Big stores want designers with big followings who don't need to be hand-held.
If you have a background in design, that may or may not help you here. Depends on if you're actually any good and make things people want to buy.
The first thing you need to learn about this industry is that it is 20% talent and 80% who you know. This is not bitterness in any way (I'm a successful designer). It's just the reality of this industry.
The first thing you need to learn about this industry is that it is 20% talent and 80% who you know. This is not bitterness in any way (I'm a successful designer). It's just the reality of this industry. Mar 5, 2012 8:26:00 AM
This is probably the one thing new designers need to learn and understand the most.
Those new designers who get into "top shops" didn't get there on their talent alone. They got there because they were store CTMs or on designer teams, etc. I can't think of a new designer who got into a big store who didn't already have the connection.
And I'm not complaining, either. I got into my stores because of who I know, too.
180, it depends on the type of product you design. You're not going to see the same style of designs and the same types of designers in Sweet Shoppe that you're going to see in Catscrap. Your style will dictate which places are the best for you, personally, to sell your designs.
Regarding bitchy store owners? I've always heard horror stories about Maya at SBG, and even though I have colleagues who aspire to sell there I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Similarly, I've heard horrible things about Divine Digital's owner, and horrible things about Gotta Pixel's owner. I've also heard that Katie Pertiet at Designer Digitals is awful to work with. None of these places sound like fun places to sell, IMO.
On the flip side, I've only ever heard good things about working with or for Kami at SO, Robin at SSD, Nicole at TDC, and the owner at TLP (cannot remember name right now). I've heard lukewarm (not bad, but not great) things about Vicky at OS.
And how much of selling depends on your own marketing? Could you be at a mid-range kind of store and sell awesomely based on your designs and your own self-promotion? Or is there really a ceiling for how far you can go before you have to search a bigger store?
Your designs and your marketing can carry you far above what a store's marketing will bring you, definitely. But like everything else, it's rare to find a designer who sells like one in a top shop who is in a mid-range shop. Those people either 1. move up to top shops, or 2. burn out on all of the marketing/promotion required. In other words, yes, it happens but it doesn't usually last long. Just IMO.
I know people allude to it being talked about ALL the time, but I've never seen it. So please, help a girl out.
I've only sold at one shop. It's never listed as a "top tier" here, but I consistently make anywhere between 1-2K/month, and I don't do any marketing on my own.
How much are you people really making? Should I be researching other places?
If you're making 1-2k consistently every month, there isn't much more room to grow. You're already in the top 5-7% of designer earnings anyway. I would advise not switching stores, but to do more marketing to see if you can raise your sales to the 2-3k range. Any designer making 3k/month consistently is definitely in the top 1-2% earnings.
Well, as long as we're talking about this, I would love to know what a typical designer makes in a store like SSD or SBG. I am making about $2500 a month right now, but that is between two different stores. I've thought about the benefits of going exclusive and sometimes I think I'd love to do it. But, I always worry it would be like cutting my income in half to have just one store.
I almost applied for SSD's call, but changed my mind. I've heard (mostly here) that you need to be active in their forum or be friends with their designers for them to take you. I am only active in the forums where I sell my kits and I believe that's the way it should be. They had something in their call advertisement also about telling them your average monthly sales so they could make sure that moving you into their store would be a good move for both parties involved. That seemed like an admission it might not be a good move for the designer, as well as for the store. So, are they saying that designers who aren't exclusive could be making more than their designers are?
It's anonymous, so can some of the exclusive designers give us an idea of your average monthly sales in your store? I know you tend to get more respect in this business if you are exclusive. But, I wouldn't want to make less than I do right now.
The first thing you need to learn about this industry is that it is 20% talent and 80% who you know. This is not bitterness in any way (I'm a successful designer). It's just the reality of this industry. ______________________________________________
My income cut in half when I went exclusive. I was making $1600-2000/month between 2 stores. For the very little extra time it took to load products into another store, the loss of income was definitely not worth going exclusive. A good amount of customers are store loyal, they do not follow designers as store owners are always paranoid to believe. You might see people say that, but what people say they do and what they actually do doesn't add up.
If you're happy at $2500, why change anything? Unless SSD can add another $1000 to your income every month...
#197, good for you. I don't mind having two places to focus on if it means I'm going to make twice as much as I would if I was in just one place. Plus, I can handle both stores just as well as if I was exclusive. Three stores would get tough, but two is do-able, at least for me. Thanks for your input, 196 ;) I think I made the right decision, considering what you said.
692 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 692 Newer› Newest»But, for me at least, I see an increase in sales and increase in new customers during and for a period after the train. I wouldn't discount them altogether. You really need to look at the whole picture as annoying as I find the freebie hunters.
***
Really? Because it seems like freebie hunters only hunt freebies, and never buy. If you don't mind sharing, how much of an increase are you talking about?
You should quote the whole message, not just this part. I think the OP already gave a sound argument about high page ranking for search engine.
"I take part in these trains too for the most part, I don't have time for all of them but you also need to consider that the high web hits also mean higher page rankings which translate into more traffic from searches. It's not just about the higher sales. But, for me at least, I see an increase in sales and increase in new customers during and for a period after the train. I wouldn't discount them altogether. You really need to look at the whole picture as annoying as I find the freebie hunters."
True, freebie hunters drive the page views. But page views translate to higher ranking and that means potential customers can find you easier.
Really? Because it seems like freebie hunters only hunt freebies, and never buy. If you don't mind sharing, how much of an increase are you talking about?
--------------------------
It's not about the freebie hunters, they are just collateral to the effect of a rounded marketing plan. It's not all about the blog train. It's not all about the sales the blog train brings. The increase I get is not huge but it's there. The steady growth of customers, page hits from people adding your blog to their reader, the freebie hunter website picking it up and advertising for you. Really, don't be in it for the comments, or the "love" and appreciation you get. Be in it to make it work for you as part of a marketing plan. The blog train is just a part of it and an easy and cheap tool. But you need other marketing tools otherwise all you'll ever be is a blog train participant.
That makes sense, but I don't really rely on my blog for marketing. Not sure it would be beneficial to me.
Head, brick wall, head, brick wall.... No wonder so many of you barely make $50 a month from sales.
To #4... She never said she was relying on her blog for her marketing. She clearly said "you need other marketing tools" as well. FGS, sometimes it's like talking to monkeys when you post here. Can you please employ some reading comprehension skills before you continue to argue about a topic which, clearly, you have nothing to offer?! Why are you even debating the merits of participating in the blog train if you DON'T? You have no bloody clue what you're talking about.
Head, brick wall, head, brick wall.... No wonder so many of you barely make $50 a month from sales.
LOL, exactly what I was thinking!
Hmm, muck up, is that an expression used in the US? I know it's used in Australia and also I believe in the UK.
I'm not really sure how ONE person not getting it translates into SO MANY.
You pick up page hits, a few sales. I almost always try to be marketing a new product alongside the blogtrain. I also push newsletter subscription and see a fairly good number of new subscribers during the first few days.
So designers at new stores:
Karen Lewis - Scrapbookgraphics
Trish H. - Divine Digital
Fee Jardine - coming back (my guess back at Sweet Shoppe since they are having a call)
Go!
LOL I was tickled when I pulled up this blog this morning and saw my comment from yesterday has become the header-title for the March space! Simple minds, simple pleasures, I know.
Karen Lewis: I'm honestly surprised she left TDC for SBG. I would have understood if she had left for SSD, but SBG doesn't seem that great a match for her style and I do wonder if it will truly equate to more sales & customers.
Trish H: I've not ever followed her before, and would know nothing about her if it weren't for her involvement (?) in the blog train. So don't much care where she'll be selling.
Fee: My bet is SSD, too, as I believe she left last year just to have a break and b/c she wasn't going to be putting out regular product again. Earlier this week I read on her blog (or Facebook? can't recall) that she's bursting w/ new ideas and inspiration, so my guess is she'll just go home to SSD. Makes sense.
Well, FFS. I said *I* don't rely on my blog for marketing. I certainly understood what she was saying, but since I actually make a decent income (not $50/month) my time output has to be worth it.
To make it easy to understand for the dumbasses: Too much work for too little money = Not good business sense.
I wondered if I was missing out on a goldmine, but clearly I'm not.
The blog train is craptastic this month.
The blog train is craptastic every month. I'd be surprised if these designers make $50 a month, and the color palette is the least of their problems.
Wow. You think they'd know better than to use Seuss names in their kit.
http://stufftoscrap.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=29&products_id=6863
Charlize at Oscraps? There's a new low!
There are several designers on this blogtrain that I'm willing to bet make more than $50 per month.
But in general - maybe 2-3 contributions that don't look awful. Not worth my time.
I thought Trish H quit designing to spend time with her kids?
Well, here are my takes on what's good with the blog train:
Bon Scrapatit
Trixie Scraps
Blue Umbrella
Wishing Well Creations
Delicious Scraps
Dawn by Design
Profile Couture
Digiridoo Scraps - alpha
Profile Couture?
Wow.
When I click on the link to go to Profile Couture's site (from the blog train site) it takes me to a site that hasn't been updated since last week. How/where are you all seeing her contribution?
The blog train is craptastic every month. I'd be surprised if these designers make $50 a month, and the color palette is the least of their problems.
------------
I can name multiple designers from the blog train list who I know make at least 10-20x that much money in a month. Just because the palette's godawful and many (ok most) of the kits are disasters doesn't mean that a notable few aren't using it for marketing reasons and benefitting.
Either 19 is Happy Tits or totally high. It's not listed on the PC blog, but the preview is in the PB album. It's not all that great, but I wouldn't download it on principle alone.
I have to admit that I did take part of the blog train and to be honest, I know my part is nowhere near as good as I could have made it. I lost interest and really should have just pulled out.
But I didn't, because it does bring traffic and that's been talked to death above.
I'm one of the (I'm sure many) designers who make more than $50 a month. I average about 3-450 a month and I'm happy with that.
Out of all the alphas I prefer Studio 68's alpha. It's simple and clean, but that's the style I like.
She is listed - but under yet another name
31. DeMoraes: http://profile-couture.me/
Yes, we know. But this morning when someone had already chosen her minikit as one of their favorites, the most recent post on her blog was the 2/26 post about Best Buds. The point being made was - how did that person know they liked hers so much, if it wasn't even posted on her blog yet?
I'm #19. I made that list from the Photobucket album. The drama with that designer is before my time and I think her contribution is alright.
*shrug*
I also noticed the "new name". HA! She has more personalities than Sybil.
Wow. You think they'd know better than to use Seuss names in their kit.
http://stufftoscrap.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=29&products_id=6863
-----
What? Thing 1 and Thing 2? You'd have a hard time making that a copyright volition. Or even Sam I Am. Now, if it had been Lorax or something very Seusssian, yeah, but now you just look either silly or like a pot stirrer.
You're kidding right? Thing 1 and Thing 2 is TOTALLY Seuss. No one else has used those characters. Ever.
And you look like you must be a Stuff That's Crap designer. Or maybe Nicole, the owner known to allow copyright violations because 'chances are you won't get sued.'
Totally disagree, post 30. "Sam I Am" is a very well-known Seussism. I would be willing to bet that if you asked 100 people on the street about the first thing they think of when they hear "Sam I Am", 99 would say something about Dr. Seuss. The 100th person would be a baby or a senile older person. It wouldn't be as bad if they hadn't also included other very well-known Seussian (your word not mine) items like the Cat in the Hat's red & white striped hat, etc.
It's bad enough for any designer to do this, but for a shop collaboration kit? My oh my.
Wow, just wow, the ignorance of some of you is overwhelming.
You really need to learn a bit more about copyright and what does and does not constitute a violation.
You're kidding right? Thing 1 and Thing 2 is TOTALLY Seuss. No one else has used those characters. Ever.
----
You're kidding right? Those characters aren't in that kit! Only the words are and you'd have a hard time convincing anyone of anything else.
And you look like you must be a Stuff That's Crap designer.
--
Yeah, I look one, huh? Having never heard of the store until the link was posted and having no clue who any of the designers are, as I didn't like at the list, I highly doubt it.
Taking a look at this thread:
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/showthread.php?t=297789
I'm not really sure why poster #15 felt the need to target one store, when there are several kits in there using Seuss items. In one kit, there's even a cat in a hat! Another kit has actual traced Seuss illustrations. Total given that the Etsy items are a violation.
This is why I said that #15 was being a pot stirrer.
There is copyright and there is trademark - and BOTH apply to Dr Seuss' work. With trademark, anything that can confuse people into thinking it's been created by Seuss is a trademark violation ... so using his colors, characters that look like his, and words like 'Thing 1' and 'Thing 2' most definitely treads on Seuss' trademark.
I don't see why the thread at DST is relevant. It's like a little kid getting caught stealing cookies pointing to his brother saying 'he stole more!'.
**sorry to interrupt**
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/showthread.php?t=297970
I always have to look at what OTBS (formerly COLS) is offering up. Morbid curiousity. I do NOT like this - whatever it is that she is offering up. But I direct your attention to the WONDERFUL extractions on the elements in her example layouts. The globe..the spring. Um. and she is allowed to sell somewhere?
OMG - WTF??!
http://www.godigitalscrapbooking.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_dnld_info&cPath=29_180&products_id=10820
Bottom left - that skull!? Who the F would buy this crap?
GDS is crazy to allow her in their store!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
GDS sucks. Crappy products, really crappy customer service.
I don't see why the thread at DST is relevant. .
-------
The thread at DST is relevant because it's full of copyright violation. Why pick on one particular store and not the others? It has nothing to do with 'he stole more' and diverting attention.
With Amanda, COLS, whatever, her products are either overly blurry or overly sharpened and she doesn't appear to have an original idea in her head.
I've never liked OTBS, her products just look like trash.
GDS sucks. Crappy products, really crappy customer service.
-------
Did they just lose a lot of designers? I remember their design list used to be huge.
COLS/OTB should probably do far MORE listening to her "inner critic". God that's awful shit!
I think Stuff That's Crap designers are trying to take attention off their site (I know they read here)
Not that Amanda doesn't suck, but that's nothing new.
^^^
What a childish notion.
To the person that asked about other blog trains there's one that runs at digiscrap forum, http://www.digiscrapforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44
as the OP on the OTBS (COLS) comment....I'm laughing that you think anyone could possibly "derail" the so very important Stuff to Scrap discussion. I didn't mean to step on your toes in your Dr. Suess thread. Please, by all means, go right back at it. My eyes bleed when I see OTBS new releases, and yet I can't help but look at the new atrocity she has created, and just love to share my awe of it here. Again - please accept my apology for derailing your discussion. and, I state for the record that I do not now, nor have I EVER had anything to do with STS. Not that it matters.
Off you go - - on with your discusion.
I make 2k+ a month, don't ever participate in hideous blog trains, and don't sell at a shop that anyone here talks/smacks about. I think ya'll are barking up the wrong trees.
^^^^
What trees are you talking about? Your comment is completely pointless.
#50? I do believe you are just full of crap this evening dear. If you made 2K+ per month, your shop would be smacked here. I can smell the stench eminating from your corner, hon.
Agreed. Her shite doeth stinketh.
I think very few designers make that much in a month. And I doubt very much that those that do make that much come and waste time on a smack blog.
Happy Tits scrapped herself in her "teen years" for her new gig at SMJ. Looks like she has always been ....happy....LOL
http://www.shabbymissjenndesignsgallery.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=4566
Your thoughts people:
http://www.digishoptalk.com/index.php?categoryid=23
I don't like the color palette. It is better than the current one, but I still don't like it.
here's the original thread for those of you who missed it:
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/showthread.php?t=296907
What would you have picked?
stinks of pickleberrypop's original colours
Except PBP had green in there and this color palette doesn't.
I can't believe so many voted for that palette. I sure hope the winning design uses a lot of neutrals to tone it down.
There was voting? The only thing I ever saw was the thread to nominate color palettes...and few chimed in that they like the one picked. I don't remember ever seeing anyplace to vote on the nominated palettes, though. They just went from that nomination thread to the contest to design the logo with the palette picked out.
As far as what I would have picked...not the one that was picked, that's for sure. It's too loud. I'm with poster 59, I hope a lot of neutrals are used with it.
Trish H., their fearless leader and color palette p[icker, is celebrating her new store @ Divine. Nuff said.
Does this seem well...wrong...to anyone else -
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/showthread.php?t=290604
This photographer is posting photos he/she took and then giving permission for people to use them in their scrap pages. (There are other similar threads the same photographer has started) I don't see anywhere where the parents of the child/children are giving permission for their child's image to be used. I understand the photographer owns the copyright on the photos and maybe part of the photography contract extends to him/her posting the photos for pr but I can't see any parent saying it's ok for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to take their baby's photo and use it in their scrap pages.
as a parent I would not be pleased that my baby's photos were being freely given out on a site. I understand the photographer owns the copyright to the photo but darn it I own the child. I know when I sign a contract I always read the fine print, most just say they have the right to use the photo for promotional/advertising, never seen this before.
I would think people posting them in galleries IS promotional/advertising (provided they give credit where it's due).
http://www.oscraps.com/shop/product.php?productid=29712&cat=289&page=3
It's sad when designers don't know the difference between "your" and "you're".
With Love Studio is already for sale! Sorry, it is in the DCR:
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/showthread.php?p=3131329
About that photographer, I think they were told they had to allow the photos for scrap use or stop posting blatant advertising at DST.
Change of topic - I guess Happy Tits couldn't handle shop ownership? With Love Studio was just listed as for sale in the DCR. The "managers" are handling the sale?
"With Love Studio has been operating successfully since it's opening and we already we have a loyal customer base and hardworking site staff. Due to the original owner's family life commitments, she has given the Managers the OK to go through with a sale since she no longer has the time to run a store and the Managers can no longer do it on their own. "
I'm sorry but, WOW, Jennifer's comment is just a wee bit condescending, no? http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/showthread.php?t=298049 - I think DST is going to take a bit of flack for this one, just adding the buttons like that ...
There was voting? The only thing I ever saw was the thread to nominate color palettes...and few chimed in that they like the one picked. I don't remember ever seeing anyplace to vote on the nominated palettes, though. They just went from that nomination thread to the contest to design the logo with the palette picked out.
As far as what I would have picked...not the one that was picked, that's for sure. It's too loud. I'm with poster 59, I hope a lot of neutrals are used with it.
-----------------
Did you nominate anything in the original thread? I did nominate a color, which wasn't picked. I was surprised at the number that liked the end choice. I don't think any of them were thinking about what it would like as a website, but rather as a kit.
I disagree. If you post to a public gallery, you'd have to be off your rocker to expect those layouts to be anything but PUBLIC. It was always possible to pin them / save them to your own computer / whatever. The OP way overreacted.
^^^^^
True, but before they would have just been taking them without permission, now, with the addition of the buttons, they are giving permission.
Considering how the "legality" of Pinterest has been discussed for a few days in the Scrap Talk, I am just surprised that DST didn't take that discussion into consideration before implementing something that MIGHT be controversial in the first place. Those buttons are also under the products of the Product Gallery. I think that would make sense, but under the layouts?
I didn't find her response condescending at all. I thought it was pretty straightforward. While I will agree that perhaps "buttons" to share images in the gallery wasn't the brightest idea, the thought that someone might take what you post on a PUBLIC gallery and repost or reference it elsewhere on the net shouldn't be unexpected.
And can't she just remove her own images instead of demanding someone else do it for her?
I am the person who posted about Zoe. It was stupid and as soon as I posted, I realized just how stupid it was. But being anonymous, I couldn't edit or remove it. I have gone through my Facebook and removed everyone that I'm
not true friends (real life) with.
I truly apologize for the pain this has caused.
#75, What post are you talking about?
Jennifer is completely correct. If you're posting your images in a public gallery - they've always been available to pin, to save to someone's computer, to hotlink to other forums, and to post on facebook, etc. This is the way social media has begun to function, and Lynn would be good to go ahead and just close her gallery or make it private if it's an issue.
I'm sorry but, WOW, Jennifer's comment is just a wee bit condescending, no? http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/showthread.php?t=298049 - I think DST is going to take a bit of flack for this one, just adding the buttons like that ...
not condescending at all. It's an open gallery. If you don't like it don't post.
Sigh. What some of you don't get is that people taking it without permission is stealing but by putting a button there saying you can take it, it's not stealing. I accept that people will steal images, I don't like it, but I accept it, KWIM? I do not accept that I'm giving unauthorized permission for them to take it. Do you see the difference? It means that legally I have no rights as I gave permission for them to 'pin' it.
Considering how the "legality" of Pinterest has been discussed for a few days in the Scrap Talk, I am just surprised that DST didn't take that discussion into consideration before implementing something that MIGHT be controversial in the first place.
-------
Yep, surprised me too.
And can't she just remove her own images instead of demanding someone else do it for her?
-------
They can remove an entire gallery with a single click, she would have to go through her whole gallery and remove every image individually.
Sharing a kit without permission is piracy, right? Even if it is a freebie. Isn't sharing "any digital material without permission" just the same? Who would put a "share me" button under their kit or freebie? Why would one want to have it under their LAYOUT. I agree with #73: it is different if the designer WANTS the preview of their product shared. But I am not sure that most scrappers WANT their layout shared in that manner, where they totally loose control of where they are posted.
- Digital is defined as anything “available in electronic form, readable and manipulable by computer.”
- Piracy is defined as “the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product,etc.”
Are those social media buttons encouraging something pretty close to "digital piracy"?
I get so excited when I stumble across a layout of mine on Pinterest!
^^^^^
That is great, and I am sure you would like those buttons. But what about those who do NOT feel the same. They should have the option of NOT having those buttons.
From #82: "- Digital is defined as anything “available in electronic form, readable and manipulable by computer.”
- Piracy is defined as “the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product,etc.”
Are those social media buttons encouraging something pretty close to "digital piracy"?"
Agreed. However, DST's terms of service give them permission to slap those buttons there. Their terms also give them royalty free rights to redistribute any uploaded user content. If you upload your stuff to a site and don't want it redistributed, make sure to read their terms before you do.
It's going to be interesting to see how this "social media sharing" plays out (everywhere not just at DST).
I, for one, see pinterest much like a search engine between people. After all, you don't just get the image, or the download, you get the link to the site it's on. How is that unlike google?
Yep the key point those who are upset about this are missing is this: you gave DST permission to do whatever they want with those layouts when you uploaded them. They can publish them in their newsletters, share them on their facebook page, and put sharing buttons under them and there is nothing illegal about that. It's not stealing because you gave them permission.
I'm willing to guess many people don't read the terms at sites like DST - but you are still agreeing to them.
Yes, THEY can do that, but can they give permission to others? Is that permission transferable?
Yes - its theirs to do what they want with - including allowing other people to share it.
I'm reading DST's legalese and I can't find where it says that they have the right to allow others to redistribute my layouts.
http://www.crowdgather.com/legal.cgs
As a condition of using this Site, you hereby license to Crowdgather Inc., a non-exclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free right and license to display or remove the User Generated Content on its Site. Your access and use of this Site shall be construed as sufficient consideration for such license. The foregoing license rights shall not apply to User Generated Content posted to this Site by you, which violates or infringes upon third party intellectual property, trade secrets or privacy rights and such license shall be void as a matter of law.
Anonymous said... 67
With Love Studio is already for sale! Sorry, it is in the DCR:
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/showthread.php?p=3131329
Mar 2, 2012 1:15:00 PM
---------------------------------
If someone buys that store, they'd be as dumb as the designers who stay on there.
3. Ownership. You acknowledge that you are solely responsible for all materials, text, entries, communications, content, information, forum contributions, materials, pictures and any video links or other materials provided by or contributed by you on this Site (collectively, the “User Generated Content”).
You further agree that you either own all User Generated Content provided by you or is properly obtained from the appropriate owner with full permissions to post such User Generated Content on the Site.
[b]The Content is protected by copyright, trade dress and other laws and may not be copied or imitated in whole or in part. [/b]
OK, so if the content that you're uploading to them is protected, how can they turn around and allow others to pin it?
Pinning, FB sharing, Twitter, bookmarking, or whatever - all links back to where YOU put the image on the DST site. It's just another way DST displays the images. It doesn't put a copy of the image on your hard drive or someone else's site.
Someone said would designers want share buttons under their kits - I'm a designer and I most definitely want share buttons under my kits - it shares the image and links back to where they can get the kit. It doesn't put a copy of my kit on someone's computer.
Under your kits is one thing, under my personal layouts is another.
ugh! We're NOT talking about KITS at all. It's the LAYOUTS that are being discussed here! Everyone knows you want to sell your kits!
True, pinners are gonna pin anyway with or without the button under the layouts. Some who use it regularly use the "Pin It" button that are permanently attached to the browser to make it even easier to pin. They don't need the button on the site at all. *BUT* like many posters said before me, the fact that it's there signals PERMISSION, which is a no-no.
I myself don't mind being pinned *with proper credits* but if there's an option to op out, I definitely would. I would much rather people pin it from MY blog rather than create even more traffic to DST. But knowing DST, they probably won't remove the button but will change their Terms and Conditions yet again. Or you'll soon see another box to tick to allow those buttons when uploading to the gallery.
This is not nice.
Someone said would designers want share buttons under their kits - I'm a designer and I most definitely want share buttons under my kits - it shares the image and links back to where they can get the kit. It doesn't put a copy of my kit on someone's computer.
^^^^^^
That is because, for now, the KIT itself cannot be pinned but only the preview. What if there was a way to pin the actual kit? Would you still want that? If a layout is pinned somewhere, it is actually duplicated somewhere else now, even with a link back. The layout is the "end product" so to speak. Would you want your kit (as the end product) to be pinned too? Maybe it is not possible now, but with the "progress" of technology and social media, who says it won't be possible next year? How will you feel then?
Why would anyone pin/share someone's layout? And how is having the strangers at DST look at your layout any different than having strangers at pinterest look at your layout? If creeps are checking out your layouts, I'm sure they'll find some way to do with even without pinterest.
But I will say that I think the buttons are a bad idea. If people are going to pin/share it, they will anyway, but having the buttons there is in some respects "suggesting" they share it.
After all, you don't just get the image, or the download, you get the link to the site it's on. How is that unlike google?
-----
Because a lot of pins do not link to the site that the original content came from. That's how it's different from google.
I just went through many pinboards - they all link to the original site they were posted on so I'm not following that argument.
I just don't see the big deal here. Having Facebook Share buttons on posts in forums and stuff hasn't actually shown much increase in people sharing them ... people who Pin are going to Pin regardless of those buttons.
I keep shaking my head wondering why people have expectations of privacy with a pubic gallery.
Why would anyone pin/share someone's layout?
------
For inspiration, that's why Pinterest is supposed to be, right? Like an inspiration pin board. I've seen lots of layouts pinned.
I just went through many pinboards - they all link to the original site they were posted on so I'm not following that argument.
------
I've looked at lots and lots of pins that don't link to the original site. In fact, they don't seem to link to anywhere at all.
I keep shaking my head wondering why people have expectations of privacy with a pubic gallery.
-----
I think you are shaking your head too much. There's a big difference between inviting someone to share my layouts via the Pin button and having someone look at it and then decide to take it. The fact that you don't understand that, amazes me.
The only ones with no link are 'uploaded by user' ... that won't happen with Pin buttons.
I think you are shaking your head too much. There's a big difference between inviting someone to share my layouts via the Pin button and having someone look at it and then decide to take it. The fact that you don't understand that, amazes me.
^^^
Do you Pin? And if you do, do you have the button on your browser? Because that's as much permission as the button in the gallery. Your issue is with Pinterest - and you aren't along, there are lots of conversations online about if it's ethical and legal. Your issue is not with DST. They couldn't block Pinterest if they tried.
...nd having someone look at it and then decide to take it...
^^^
How are they taking it? Its no different than bookmarking them.
"Your issue is not with DST. They couldn't block Pinterest if they tried."
No one is asking DST to block Pinterest. They are asking them to not automatically put the pin button on every page in the gallery.
The point is not whether Pinterest is right or wrong. It's about everyone submitting layouts to DST appearing as if they give permission to pin without being asked.
That's what I am saying, though ... putting a layout on the web ANYWHERE is 'permission to pin without being asked.'
It's nothing to do with those buttons, or DST.
"putting a layout on the web ANYWHERE is 'permission to pin without being asked.'"
How????? Putting an image on a website does NOT equal to PERMISSION for anyone to do anything with that image at all. This is no difference from a pirate's argument. "It's on the web, I can use/share it." :P
The only ones with no link are 'uploaded by user'
----
Wrong! I've been taken to places like tumblr and imgfave, which are not the original uploaders of the images. Try again.
I think we have a different understanding of Pinterest. It isn't 'stealing' or 'sharing' or 'taking' or anything like that. It's just a way to collect links you like to find them again. It's like bookmarking them in a folder in your browser.
It's not the same as pirates using or sharing it because those people claim it as their own, maybe alter it a bit, and re-distribute it.
Pinterest isn't re-distribution in any way. It's just collecting links to things you like.
That being said, I think Pinterest made a mistake allowing user uplaoded content - because that does allow people to save images to their computer and uploaded them as 'user added' which means there is no link to the actual image owner.
How????? Putting an image on a website does NOT equal to PERMISSION for anyone to do anything with that image at all. This is no difference from a pirate's argument. "It's on the web, I can use/share it." :P
----
Exactly, but clearly some people are too damn stupid to understand this.
None of us are saying that people can't take or even pin right now, but it's not the same as having the damn button right there saying - please, take it with our blessing.
because that does allow people to save images to their computer and uploaded them as 'user added' which means there is no link to the actual image owner.
----
Sigh, it's not just uploaded by user issue. Like I've said and pointed out, there are lots of images that link to places like Tumbler and Imgfave, which have no link to the original uploader, none at all.
I agree about the user uploaded content.
The only ones with no link are 'uploaded by user'
----
Wrong! I've been taken to places like tumblr and imgfave, which are not the original uploaders of the images. Try again.
^^^
I didn't say they are all linked to the original owner. I just said they are all linked to the original site where they were pinned from unless they are user uploaded. The ones that link to Tumblr were pinned from Tumblr.
Is it wrong that someone uploaded an image they don't own to Tumblr? Yes. Is it anything to do with Pinterest that someone found that image on Tumblr? No.
Maybe Pinterest could better monitor images to be sure they don't violate copyright - Photobucket does a better job of that, removing images that are obviously stolen (like images of stars and stuff) or are obviously offensive. I think Pinterest is trying to be neutral about it - so they don't get complaints about content they delete. Kind of the way twitter is - they are just a sharing platform, they don't monitor content (Unlike Facebook that does monitor content but is under constant criticism for how they do it.)
Sigh, it's not just uploaded by user issue. Like I've said and pointed out, there are lots of images that link to places like Tumbler and Imgfave, which have no link to the original uploader, none at all.
^^^
And that's different than Google exactly how? I've found the same image on a Google search 4 or 5 times - one is the original one and the others are copies people posted to Tumblr or their own blog or something like that.
Exactly, but clearly some people are too damn stupid to understand this.
None of us are saying that people can't take or even pin right now, but it's not the same as having the damn button right there saying - please, take it with our blessing.
^^^
I understand you. I just don't AGREE with you. I'm not stupid because I had a different opinion. I don't see having that button under an image as a big deal at all. People who Pin are going to Pin, button or not.
All of you who are upset about a pinterest button under your layouts should NOT be posting them in a gallery. By all means, just stop posting them if this is such an issue for you. Because, in truth, if you share your layouts in a public gallery, you have ZERO right to bitch about how those images are used/shared/reposted/linked to, etc etc by anyone at all. You are the dumbass who made the image public by freely sharing it in a gallery in the first place! And now you want to take exception to just ONE small way in which that image can be shared with others?
God, enough already. All this whining is ridiculous.
If I steal something digital, it means I have a copy of it. Things that are Pinned with that button are not copied, they are linked to the gallery. If you delete that image from your gallery, its gone from the Pinterest board too. How ca you define that as stealing?
"If I steal something digital, it means I have a copy of it. Things that are Pinned with that button are not copied, they are linked to the gallery. If you delete that image from your gallery, its gone from the Pinterest board too. How ca you define that as stealing?"
Totally wrong. The images on Pinterest have their own URLs. They are uploaded to Pinterest's server, stripped of any meta/exif data. That is a part of why photographers are all pissed about.
This -->
"The point is not whether Pinterest is right or wrong. It's about everyone submitting layouts to DST appearing as if they give permission to pin without being asked."
If you don't want something shared on the internet DON'T post it anywhere. Social media sites are changing the way everyone looks at things. If I have something I don't want posted for all to see, I don't post it period. If I want to share with family and friends I send it in an email. If I don't like FaceBook or Google then I don't have to have them on my computer. There are lots of other browsers besides Google. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. If you want to maintain your privacy then don't put it out there on the internet for anyone to use or abuse. Just that simple!!
God, enough already. All this whining is ridiculous.
________________________________________
And when one of your kits is pirated because it's on the internet don't you fucking whine either because I'm sick of this double standard people have here. You reasoning is that I don't have any reasonable right to expect that what I upload to one site will not be shared without my permission. Yet designers think that what they upload should be protected - sorry but pirates make the argument.
The Lilypad is "tributing" Dr. Seuss
http://www.the-lilypad.com/store/product.php?productid=7410&cat=264&page=1 - Looks a bit too similar
Wow! Talk about trademark violations!
"There is copyright and there is trademark - and BOTH apply to Dr Seuss' work. With trademark, anything that can confuse people into thinking it's been created by Seuss is a trademark violation ... so using his colors, characters that look like his, and words like 'Thing 1' and 'Thing 2' most definitely treads on Seuss' trademark."
*******************
Dr. Seuss:
You'll see it everywhere! All products released today at The Lilypad are inspired by Dr. Seuss! Sketches, word art, alphas, quotes, and elements...
It's bad for any designer to do this, but for a shop?????
WAY too similar for it to sit well with me.
As far as images on tumblr etc. Obviously someone STOLE your layout (or whatever) and then reposted it elsewhere and then it got pinned from there.
Totally NOT DST's fault. Anyone can do that. And yes, it's the chance you take when you upload to a public gallery. Is it right? No, but how can it be stopped? Even if you close down the pinterest site, it's not like your layout/picture/whatever wasn't already "stolen" and uploaded somewhere else if the pinterest link sends you to some other site. (or no where in the case of user content). And chances are you would've never even known about it.
Pinterest isn't different from any other search engine (Yahoo, Bing, Google,etc) They all do the same thing. Bring up several sites and references to your search topic. This includes several copies of images. Some the original. Some are copies.
And a court already ruled in Google's favor, so I don't think pinterest will be any different unless they are made to take out the "user content" option. They don't have control over where someone posted an image, they can only show you the image and link to it. Why not bitch at tumblr or wherever the site is that your layouts are being "re-uploaded" to? It's obviously THOSE people that are actually STEALING the image.
I think you need to realize what stealing an image actually means. Now, if I Pin your LO (which I wouldn't, because I think Pinterest and sites like it are stupid wastes of time) and use it as inspiration to make my OWN LO, I have stolen nothing. If I use the Pinned LO, erase out your kid, and put in a picture of my kid, then I've stolen something.
Digital kits aren't the same thing as digital LOs. A designer does not post a flower, a paper, a ribbon, etc in galleries. They post a preview. That preview is a proper comparison to your LO.
Comparing kit contents to your LO is like comparing apples and oranges.
And the woman bitching at DST about her IP address being published really needs to buy a clue. And get off her computer ASAP.
Looks like the Lilypad kit is gone
And when one of your kits is pirated because it's on the internet don't you fucking whine either because I'm sick of this double standard people have here.
First of all, I'm not even a designer. I'm just a scrapbooker. And yes, I do think you're whining and I do think it's RIDICULOUS. No one is forcing you to post your layouts online, are they? NO. Then DON'T! Plain and simple. If you have this much of a problem with people pinning your layouts, then you definitely should not be sharing anything online at all.
But, to the rest of your point(?) if it can be called that, I wholeheartedly agree with #127. The individual contents of a kit are not the same as a flattened scrapbook layout, shared at web quality in an online gallery. Not even close. There is no double-standard here. Just a lot of paranoid hens squawking and making much to-do about nothing.
I repeat: YOU HAVE THE OPTION NOT TO POST YOUR LAYOUTS ONLINE. Get a clue and quit bitching.
#127
It's you who need to get a clue.
The lady at DST clearly didn't mean IP address.
IP = Intellectual Properties = the issue being discussed.
I'm with you, 129. People are too freakin' paranoid.
I'm with you, 129. People are too freakin' paranoid.
---------
I agree
#122 is absolutely correct though. And if the designers products' TOU requires credits, pinning and sharing without posting those credits violates their terms as well.
Sigh, it's not paranoia.
I have already said that I'M FULLY AWARE THAT PEOPLE TAKE MY STUFF ALREADY,
BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM GIVING THEM PERMISSION, WHICH I DIDN'T AUTHORIZE.
That means, that if someone takes it and I see it, they can say - but you had the pin button there. Before the pin button, if I saw it, I could ask for them to remove it and have recourse if they didn't. Now I don't. Do you see the difference? Do you?
I understand you. I just don't AGREE with you. I'm not stupid because I had a different opinion. I don't see having that button under an image as a big deal at all. People who Pin are going to Pin, button or not.
---
No, you clearly don't understand me. You aren't stupid because of a difference of opinion, you're stupid because you don't understand what I and others are trying to say.
It's not the taking of the images, we get that already, it's having that damn button there, saying - go ahead take it. I do not want to give that permission. It means I have given up the rights to that image. Now, I haven't.
And that's different than Google exactly how? I've found the same image on a Google search 4 or 5 times - one is the original one and the others are copies people posted to Tumblr or their own blog or something like that.
---
So because Google does, that makes it okay? I don't agree with Google either.
How are they taking it? Its no different than bookmarking them.
--
If you book mark something, it stays on your computer, if you pin it, it's shared with the web. That's a big difference.
#129
Looks like the Lilypad kit is gone
*******
CD Muckosky sketch kit is gone....
This one isn't gone...
http://www.the-lilypad.com/store/product.php?productid=7412&cat=25&page=1
If you bookmark it with delicious or some social bookmarking site it's no different.
And not agreeing with Google either? Are you serious? So let's just not have any search engines at all, no way to find any content, just word of mouth... you want to find a site about hamsters? Tough luck! Yeah ok. Maybe you need less time on the internet and more time with your tinfoil hat.
And by posting the image on DST, didn't you give them permission to do whatever they wanted with the image anyways? Well maybe not whatever they want, but surely you gave them permission to put the pin under their own gallery. It's frankly your own choice to post your layouts or not, if you're so freaked out about strangers seeing them then don't post them.
Maybe you need less time on the internet and more time with your tinfoil hat.
I wish I knew you so we could laugh together. This is hilarious :)
#127
It's you who need to get a clue.
The lady at DST clearly didn't mean IP address.
IP = Intellectual Properties = the issue being discussed.
Mar 3, 2012 1:24:00 PM
I thought the lady at DST was talking about her IP address, too. Until she later said IP rights. I don't think it was that obvious and I agree with the rest of what #127 said anyway - including that lady needing to get off the internet.
Maybe you need less time on the internet and more time with your tinfoil hat.
I wish I knew you so we could laugh together. This is hilarious :)
Mar 3, 2012 5:34:00 PM
This made me LOL so much!
lmao @ tin foil hat.
Thanks for the laugh!
The Pin It button actually helps you get credit for your image. If someone uses the Pin It button at DST, the link will take them straight back to your gallery image. If I download your photo to my computer and upload it to a tumblr or straight to Pinterest, then you won't get proper credit. If I Pin your layout to my Pinterest, you still get credit for it. It goes on a Scrap Inspiration or Layouts I Love board, pinners are in no way taking credit for your page. The only way your page could be considered "stolen" is if I erased your pictures, added my own, and then uploaded it as my own page. I have a folder full of pages that I've saved that I look to for inspiration when I'm stumped on how to scrap my folder. Those images have absolutely no way of getting proper credit when I scraplift them, because I have no idea where or when I saved them. If I pin your page, I can go find it on my pinboard and credit the original artist for my scraplift. I would much rather someone pin my page than download it to their computer.
I think the problem at DST at the moment is not "just" whether or not one wants their layout pinned or not. This can be a personal choice. Nobody will find a way to make everyone agree. The problem is that it was put there, and nobody was even asked, AND there is no way out if one does not like it. There is an option to make an album private or public. Why not have a "shareable or not shareable" option too? That will help the members feel like they still have some control over what they post there. I think it is up to everyone to put a sharing button below their images, if they want, on their blog or wherever, but a lot of people are not happy that it is IMPOSED on them. Give the members the option and most will be happy to choose what they want.
#146
that is exactly the point from the start. I don't know why can't people see it. I'm not arguing the merit of pinterest at all. It's about how dst does their business. They can give members options like flickr does for theirs.
DST is a free service, that you use completely voluntarily. They have every single right to do with their business what they want to do, within the bounds of the law. If you don't like it, simply don't post there. Lots of people have already left that community due to things like too many ads.
I understand you. I just don't AGREE with you. I'm not stupid because I had a different opinion. I don't see having that button under an image as a big deal at all. People who Pin are going to Pin, button or not.
---
No, you clearly don't understand me. You aren't stupid because of a difference of opinion, you're stupid because you don't understand what I and others are trying to say.
It's not the taking of the images, we get that already, it's having that damn button there, saying - go ahead take it. I do not want to give that permission. It means I have given up the rights to that image. Now, I haven't.
^^^^
Well, since you don't seem to no how to be nice, I won't bother. YOU are incredibly stupid if you think that having a Pinterest button on a public gallery image means you've given up your rights to your image. You are also stupid if you think you have ANY rights to ask people to un-pin your layout, no matter how they came across it. You are angry about buttons because your stupid brain imagines that they mean you DST has given up your rights to that intellectual property. They don't mean that, they don't change the Pinterest game with regard to your layout in ANY way. They don't mean anyone has given anyone permission to steal your layout. Those buttons being there change NOTHING. Really. So take some deep breaths and relax.
Anyone care to share if they downloaded and actually liked anything from the blog train?
#149... read the TOS at DST... you give up your rights to whatever content you post at DST the moment you hit the button. Not only do you give the rights to Crowd Gather to use the images for whatever they want (like advertising) but you also give permission to users to download as they please and use however they please for personal, non-commercial, use. I would think designers would be upset with those terms, that things made with their products could be used by DST/Crowd Gather however they want.
Yep - crowd gather sucks. That's why DST is nothing like it used to be. I'm a designer and a long time ago I stopped asking my CT to upload layouts to DST.
#149... read the TOS at DST... you give up your rights to whatever content you post at DST the moment you hit the button. Not only do you give the rights to Crowd Gather to use the images for whatever they want (like advertising) but you also give permission to users to download as they please and use however they please for personal, non-commercial, use. I would think designers would be upset with those terms, that things made with their products could be used by DST/Crowd Gather however they want.
^^^^
Yes you've kind of made my point for me ... putting a LO on DST means you give up rights to control how your image is shared or used by DST ... having the Pin button there doesn't change a thing.
I should add that you give up your rights to control how those images are shared ... but you don't give up your rights to the image. Adding the Pin button doesn't change that, either.
Honestly, I think people can debate this without getting bitchy.
I'm thinking that the person on here who's such a bitch about loving the pins must be Big Scrap Kitty - she's really acting like a condescending jerk on that DST thread too.
She said: I'm sorry you did not understand what was happening when you were posting in a public gallery like DST. Your images have always been available for sharing, and you can't blame the technology for making it easier. If you object to being shared, you object to being shared. You can't just say I don't mind if you share this way but not that way. That's splitting hairs, and doesn't go to the IP rights issue at all. I'm sorry if you removed your gallery, but you didn't solve the problem. Publish in any other gallery, it will still end up on Pinterest. Personally, I don't post anything I'm not willing to have passed around.
OK well, I hope that she doesn't 'blame the technology' when one of her copyrighted photos is passed around and used without permission.
Anyone know if the Sweet Shoppe invites have gone out yet?
#156 - I'm curious to know too!!
#155, there's a HUGE difference between a copyrighted photo being shared around to view, and being used commercially. Posting to Pinterest isn't giving the world license to use it however they wish. Neither was posting it to StumbleUpon before, or Delicious, or Visualizeus, or Facebook... Just like if you find a nice image online you can't automatically assume you can use it for a scrapbook kit (or to scrap a layout), the same applies for anything put on Pinterest.
People don't like change, I don't like it either in many ways but with technology you have to assume it'll change. Right now the web is ALL about social media so expect sharing to become MORE prevalent, not less... at least until something like SOPA goes through to muzzle everyone and kill the social trend.
156 and 157: Yes, they have. Two days ago. :)
I'm off to check out the Blog Train.
I hope you are full of shit.
^^^
What was that for?
159
Overall, if you're pressed for time and like doodles, Profile Couture and Laura Banasiak's are the best in the train. I also liked Sugar Kissed and Dawn by Design the best for non-doodles.
The color palette as a whole isn't anything I would buy, but I did like the blue and purple. Overall, this is the worst train I can remember in quite some time.
What I downloaded:
Ocean Wide Designs
Wishing Well Creations
Eyeinspire
Sugar Kissed
Trixie Scraps
Studio 68
Profile Couture
Blue Umbrella
Dawn by Design
Aimee Harrison
Laura Banasiak
Of that, what I kept:
Ocean Wide Designs - kept a couple elements and 2 papers. Would have kept the frame, but it's very jagged.
Wishing Well Creations - kept all of it. There is also a nice coupon inside.
Eyeinspire - kept all but 2 of the papers.
Sugar Kissed - kept most of the elements and all the patterned papers. Also has a nice coupon inside.
Trixie Scraps - kept most of the elements and a couple papers.
Studio 68 - kept both alphas. Deleted the sheets and Euros.
Profile Couture - kept all of it. Will go nicely with Laura's kit.
Blue Umbrella - kept all of it.
Dawn by Design - kept all of it. There is also a nice coupon inside.
Aimee Harrison - Kept most of the elements except for that scary bunny. Kept a couple of the papers.
Laura Banasiak - kept all of it. It's nice to see no jaggies on her doodles. There is also a nice coupon inside.
I can guess a few designers who definitely applied at SSD because they're suddenly active in the forums there. I seriously hope Stolen Moments was not accepted. She is a two-faced bitch and I wouldn't hang-out anywhere near her. I don't get the big deal with her anyway.
I'm also guessing Tracie Stroud applied. I hope she gets it so I can stop shopping at SO.
I see Sherri Tierney is also suddenly there. I doubt she applied, though, as she states on her blog she's not really designing much.
I saw Fee's newsletter and hope she is coming back to SSD, too.
Anyone see anyone else obvious?
Mari K from TDC. I saw her posting all of a sudden too.
That makes no sense to me. It seems like they'd see right through that. Personally if I was making the decision, I'd rather see that they are active in the forums where they sell rather than at a store they don't.
That makes no sense to me. It seems like they'd see right through that. Personally if I was making the decision, I'd rather see that they are active in the forums where they sell rather than at a store they don't.
Mar 4, 2012 4:32:00 PM
I agree with this.
Tracie Stroud has been active at SSD for a long time, though. The others are all new.
Further proof that Fizzy Lizzy is a f-ing MORON!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9ZlA_Ae960
Or she just likes to be silly and have fun, stalker.
Attack Of The Fatties!
Just nasty. That should come with a warning.
Let's see a photo of you, Miss Perfect ;)
I can guess a few designers who definitely applied at SSD because they're suddenly active in the forums there. I seriously hope Stolen Moments was not accepted. She is a two-faced bitch and I wouldn't hang-out anywhere near her. I don't get the big deal with her anyway.
Sounds like there is a story here. Care to share? It's not cool to tease.
ok - - WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE ALL THOSE SSD video's for?? Good grief.
^^ We all made them several years ago as intro videos....so people could put faces/voices with screen names. It was fun. They're all really really old though.
And no....SSD invites have not gone out yet or are going out tonight. I'm a designer there and we didn't make final decisions until today so whoever said they went out two days ago is lying.
I think those girls looked like they'd be a lot of fun to hang out with.
I feel really bad for anyone who can't sit around with a friend and have a good laugh and some fun. Jealous much?
Regarding the blog train: 4mybabies scrap has music on her blog that you can't turn off - I hate that. Why do people think you want your computer to start playing music when you visit their blogs? I closed the blog without even looking at her mini nor would I stay to look at anything she has to sell.
Maybe you need less time on the internet and more time with your tinfoil hat.
I wish I knew you so we could laugh together. This is hilarious :)
--------------
DITTO! :) TFS... HA HA
With the talk of certain stores going downhill, new stores destined for doom and store owners who are bitchy, where is a good place to sell? Thanks :D
I think #180 has a good question in that starting off you will never get into a big store...so where on earth do you start? What is a good named starter store?
@181
Ohh I didn't know you couldn't get into a big store straight away. I assumed that if you had good products and were likely to attract customers because of them, you could kinda 'have your pick' so to speak. I realize it's different when you have a long way to go with your products (i.e. not being able to alter H&S lol or being crap at extractions and needing to buy CU swatches) but I did think that if the products were enticing, consistent and good quality, the store owner would want you, no matter how well established they are?
For that matter, which ones are the big stores?
I'd have guessed places like Oscraps, Scrapbook Graphics, After Five Designs, Cat Scraps etc. Not necessarily the longest standing, but fairly popular??
I want to start selling, I'm not your typical scrapbooker-turned-designer and I have a background working in design so I think I could offer decent products to use. What I am worried about is selling in a store that has a bad reputation and being tarred with the same brush.
I think you will find that almost every store has drama and pros and cons. I also think it's foolish to mislead a new designer into thinking they stand a chance at getting into a top shop their first go around. Does it happen? sure. Someone also wins the lottery on occasion, too, but what are the odds?
I think it doesn't hurt to apply where you feel your designs will sell, but your focus should be on amassing a client base. Big stores want designers with big followings who don't need to be hand-held.
If you have a background in design, that may or may not help you here. Depends on if you're actually any good and make things people want to buy.
The first thing you need to learn about this industry is that it is 20% talent and 80% who you know. This is not bitterness in any way (I'm a successful designer). It's just the reality of this industry.
The first thing you need to learn about this industry is that it is 20% talent and 80% who you know. This is not bitterness in any way (I'm a successful designer). It's just the reality of this industry.
Mar 5, 2012 8:26:00 AM
This is probably the one thing new designers need to learn and understand the most.
Those new designers who get into "top shops" didn't get there on their talent alone. They got there because they were store CTMs or on designer teams, etc. I can't think of a new designer who got into a big store who didn't already have the connection.
And I'm not complaining, either. I got into my stores because of who I know, too.
180, it depends on the type of product you design. You're not going to see the same style of designs and the same types of designers in Sweet Shoppe that you're going to see in Catscrap. Your style will dictate which places are the best for you, personally, to sell your designs.
Regarding bitchy store owners? I've always heard horror stories about Maya at SBG, and even though I have colleagues who aspire to sell there I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Similarly, I've heard horrible things about Divine Digital's owner, and horrible things about Gotta Pixel's owner. I've also heard that Katie Pertiet at Designer Digitals is awful to work with. None of these places sound like fun places to sell, IMO.
On the flip side, I've only ever heard good things about working with or for Kami at SO, Robin at SSD, Nicole at TDC, and the owner at TLP (cannot remember name right now). I've heard lukewarm (not bad, but not great) things about Vicky at OS.
And how much of selling depends on your own marketing? Could you be at a mid-range kind of store and sell awesomely based on your designs and your own self-promotion? Or is there really a ceiling for how far you can go before you have to search a bigger store?
Your designs and your marketing can carry you far above what a store's marketing will bring you, definitely. But like everything else, it's rare to find a designer who sells like one in a top shop who is in a mid-range shop. Those people either 1. move up to top shops, or 2. burn out on all of the marketing/promotion required. In other words, yes, it happens but it doesn't usually last long. Just IMO.
I know people allude to it being talked about ALL the time, but I've never seen it. So please, help a girl out.
I've only sold at one shop. It's never listed as a "top tier" here, but I consistently make anywhere between 1-2K/month, and I don't do any marketing on my own.
How much are you people really making? Should I be researching other places?
^^^
I want to know where you are! :)
If you're making 1-2k consistently every month, there isn't much more room to grow. You're already in the top 5-7% of designer earnings anyway. I would advise not switching stores, but to do more marketing to see if you can raise your sales to the 2-3k range. Any designer making 3k/month consistently is definitely in the top 1-2% earnings.
Thanks, that was helpful. :)
Well, as long as we're talking about this, I would love to know what a typical designer makes in a store like SSD or SBG. I am making about $2500 a month right now, but that is between two different stores. I've thought about the benefits of going exclusive and sometimes I think I'd love to do it. But, I always worry it would be like cutting my income in half to have just one store.
I almost applied for SSD's call, but changed my mind. I've heard (mostly here) that you need to be active in their forum or be friends with their designers for them to take you. I am only active in the forums where I sell my kits and I believe that's the way it should be. They had something in their call advertisement also about telling them your average monthly sales so they could make sure that moving you into their store would be a good move for both parties involved. That seemed like an admission it might not be a good move for the designer, as well as for the store. So, are they saying that designers who aren't exclusive could be making more than their designers are?
It's anonymous, so can some of the exclusive designers give us an idea of your average monthly sales in your store? I know you tend to get more respect in this business if you are exclusive. But, I wouldn't want to make less than I do right now.
The first thing you need to learn about this industry is that it is 20% talent and 80% who you know. This is not bitterness in any way (I'm a successful designer). It's just the reality of this industry.
______________________________________________
That's kind of what I've learned the hard way.
My income cut in half when I went exclusive. I was making $1600-2000/month between 2 stores. For the very little extra time it took to load products into another store, the loss of income was definitely not worth going exclusive. A good amount of customers are store loyal, they do not follow designers as store owners are always paranoid to believe. You might see people say that, but what people say they do and what they actually do doesn't add up.
If you're happy at $2500, why change anything? Unless SSD can add another $1000 to your income every month...
The store I sell at requires exclusivity, but I'd rather focus my time and energy in one place, anyway.
JMHO.
Another one bites the dust: I just got a notice that Scrapbooks Etc. magazine is ceasing publication.
I've seen many people come up here and say they make 1-2K a month, but I've never seen one of them name their store(s).
#197, good for you.
I don't mind having two places to focus on if it means I'm going to make twice as much as I would if I was in just one place. Plus, I can handle both stores just as well as if I was exclusive. Three stores would get tough, but two is do-able, at least for me.
Thanks for your input, 196 ;) I think I made the right decision, considering what you said.
New comments are not allowed.