|
Post by anonrefugee on Sept 4, 2017 15:29:21 GMT
That's all good if that's what happened and the designer is happy and fully paid up with the licensing arrangement, however, Stampers Anonymous claim: "All of our stamp designs and stencils are original artwork owned and copyrighted by Stampers Anonymous and are protected under United States and international copyright laws and treaties." so something is not right and my art has been made into cards before and I got nothing as I could not afford the legal fess. I'm sorry yours was stolen. If you notice they don't say "originally created for SA" or any verbiage implying the work was designed specifically for them. They say they own the original art and copyright. They (SA and the artist) could have negotiated a deal allowing it to be used for other purposes through contract with the artist or later with another agency, which is actually a smart move. There's no need to limit its purpose solely to SA's product line if it can generate income elsewhere. 😀😀😀 and once again y'all are enablers. I might need to make holiday cards with those deer! Love the hatched look.
|
|
|
Post by peachiceteas on Sept 5, 2017 10:17:53 GMT
Tim Holtz is a brand. Amy Tangerine is a brand. Shimelle is a brand. They have designers who design and source artwork under their names. It's normal and happens a lot but unfortunately because these brands carry the names of the faces of the brand, it gives this sense that they personally design the artwork and products but in most cases, they don't.
I can't speak specifically about this situation but how it works in many situations is that once a brand has purchased the artwork, they're free to do what they want with it. They don't need to declare that they didn't originally draw the artwork. SA saying they own the original artwork isn't a lie really. It's misleading to the customer but they're within their rights to say that.
There are however exceptions to the rule as each purchased piece of artwork will have different agreements. Generally if you pay for the artwork; you're free to do what you want with it.
|
|
|
Post by peachiceteas on Sept 5, 2017 12:00:16 GMT
I did delete that, you are right. I felt it was unfair to share the email I got from the designer without his permission. But I did contact him to let him know and the impression I got is that he was unaware and presumably he has not sold a commercial license for thise two designs. Now he has the informarion he can choose what to do with it. Not out to get Tim, just that Stampers Anonymous who say they own designs and coyright might not like paying proper fees to designers they think might never know their designs are being used this way. This designer is a young man from Kazagstan. What are the chances he would find out? Anyway like I said, its up to him to follow it up if he wants to. Nothing to stop anyone buying this graphic and making their own stamp and selling it as long as they sell less than 500. What are Stampers A and TH going to do then?? To play devils advocate... I believe when buying through CreativeMarket - you have no idea who the artist is. So I don't think it's a case of ripping off designs based on them being a young man from Kazakstan who would never find out because the TH design team probably didn't have access to that kind of information. Equally, you say the designer didn't know that the artwork was purchased by TH/SA. It's likely that he has no idea who buys his artwork - he just receives a fee, minus whatever he has to pay to CreativeMarket. I can't imagine it would have names attached to it. When you sign up to these kinds of websites and sell your work through it, you lose pretty much all ownership of the artwork anyway. Look into it, I am sure the small print says about how the artwork becomes property of CreativeMarket when you upload it to their site. Same way that if you upload any pictures to Facebook, they become property of Facebook. If you read up on the licensing FAQ's: creativemarket.com/licenses There a few types of licenses available. If they purchased the 'end product for sale' extended license, they are free to do what they want with it. They don't have to credit the original artist or the source they found it in. crazy4scraps further up the thread likened it to purchasing stock photography - that's exactly what it's like. Once you've purchased a stock image with a commercial license you can use it however you please and not have to declare that you didn't take the photo. Or I could be talking out of my ass and they stole the illustrations. I highly doubt it though. Companies like this have big budgets and dropping $500 on illustrations is nothing, they'll make that money back in no time, especially as they can reuse the stock art in the future and use it on other products. I think the most shocking thing, or why you might feel outraged, is that this really highlights that Tim Holtz is a brand name. Yes it's the name of a person but the Tim Holtz you see in Michaels is not a person, it's a brand. Teams of designers will be designing product for him, sourcing imagery and it's likely that Tim doesn't even know where the artwork came from. He likes the aesthetic and signs it off to production.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Sept 5, 2017 13:47:12 GMT
To play devils advocate... I believe when buying through CreativeMarket - you have no idea who the artist is. So I don't think it's a case of ripping off designs based on them being a young man from Kazakstan who would never find out because the TH design team probably didn't have access to that kind of information. Equally, you say the designer didn't know that the artwork was purchased by TH/SA. It's likely that he has no idea who buys his artwork - he just receives a fee, minus whatever he has to pay to CreativeMarket. I can't imagine it would have names attached to it. Not only this but even if it did, odds are that if/when SA /TH purchased the rights for the art through Creative Market, it wouldn't be anybody with a recognizable name paying for it. It would be someone in purchasing or some random graphic designer who was tasked with the job of acquiring it. So artist dude on the other side of the world wouldn't be saying, "Woohoo! Some famous guy bought my artwork!"
|
|
|
Post by peachiceteas on Sept 5, 2017 13:49:04 GMT
To play devils advocate... I believe when buying through CreativeMarket - you have no idea who the artist is. So I don't think it's a case of ripping off designs based on them being a young man from Kazakstan who would never find out because the TH design team probably didn't have access to that kind of information. Equally, you say the designer didn't know that the artwork was purchased by TH/SA. It's likely that he has no idea who buys his artwork - he just receives a fee, minus whatever he has to pay to CreativeMarket. I can't imagine it would have names attached to it. Not only this but even if it did, odds are that if/when SA /TH purchased the rights for the art through Creative Market, it wouldn't be anybody with a recognizable name paying for it. It would be someone in purchasing or some random graphic designer who was tasked with the job of acquiring it. So artist dude on the other side of the world wouldn't be saying, "Woohoo! Some famous guy bought my artwork!" Yes! I forgot to make that point in my post but you're totally right!
|
|