rubygirl & tinytreesboutique AGAIN
10:37 PM Monday, April 26, 2010
rubygirl has no regard that this is someone else's company name on the jewelry she is selling. But not gutsy enough to put Lego in the title but "building block". Hmmm, a little nervous since Google crawls the listings maybe?
LEGO® is a trademark of the LEGO Group of companies which does not sponsor, authorize or endorse this product.
Copyright Shannon Conrad 2010
_________________________________________________
tinytreesboutique with almost 2800 salesOn each photo in her shop the watermark says "all images are property of tinytreesboutique"
Take a look tinytreesboutique's Taylor Swift & Twilight property *smirk*
http://www.etsy.com/listing/41339522/sale-recycled-scrabble-tile-pendant
http://www.etsy.com/listing/41218051/sale-recycled-scrabble-tile-pendant
http://www.etsy.com/listing/41370268/sale-recycled-scrabble-tile-sterling
Do people just not understand copyright??!
____________________________________________________________________
ECO really enjoys using Wordpress but they can be so infuriating sometimes. They removed this post from the blog and now need to contact me before I can post again. As before, posts will be here until resolved. However, if the above thought they were going to hide the callout by contacting Wordpress they were WRONG. I decided to repost this here because censorship is UNCOOL WORDPRESS. Esp. when we did nothing but report the truth.
And for good measure, here are the comments left about the post- (sorry this will be long) CLICK READ MORE BELOW THIS POST TO CONTINUE READING
rubygirl 2010/04/23 at 3:27 pm
Well, I tried to do this privately, but your email seems to be down. I guess I will post my letter here instead.
Hello,
Imagine my surprise when my google alert let me know I was featured on your blog today. Normally I am thrilled to get a feature, but in this case I was mortified. I am asking you to remove this post about me. Here is why:
When I started selling the line of jewelry using Legos, I did hours of research to try to avoid violating Lego’s copyright. I did not use Lego in the title because of this (not to avoid Google crawls as you suggested). I was trying to respect the brand. I also followed Lego’s requirements (as found on their site) by adding the ® every time I mention the brand name in my description. I changed my wording because Lego requires that you not call them “legos” but “lego bricks” instead. I also added Lego’s own legal disclaimer (which they also require). Lastly, on the advice of a friend who works for a copyright attorney, I wrote to Lego’s legal department and told them about my line. As of today, I have not heard back from them.
As you can see, I really have done due diligence and it was not my intent to violate copyright. I think it would be appropriate for you to remove me from your site before my hard-earned reputation is further damaged.
Thank you,
– Shannon
*****************************
Christine 2010/04/23 at 5:01 pm
Frankly I like the Lego jewelry. I find this a lot better than sweatshop item resellers. I also think it’s a lot better than slapping yet another Twilight image on something and selling it as a unique, original piece of jewelry.
*******************************
iona 2010/04/23 at 7:43 pm
Oh please. Just take the word LEGO off of your rings.
*******************************
Amane 2010/04/23 at 8:18 pm
People are buying your ring because if it’s association with the lego brand, not necessarily your craftsmanship, I believe you are imposing on the Lego company’s copyright, “they haven’t gotten back to me” isn’t going to hold up in court.
*******************************
Funbear 2010/04/23 at 9:11 pm
I agree with Amane If you haven’t heard back from them, then you should wait to list it. You are using their brand to make money, that’s exactly what a copyright is for.
*******************************
Inbar 2010/04/23 at 11:38 pm
“LEGO® is a trademark of the LEGO Group of companies which does not sponsor, authorize or endorse this product.”
Shannon in her listing, gave all the way credit to LEGO®
I think that you should delete this entry ASAP !!!
*******************************
WTFISAPDF 2010/04/24 at 5:09 am
Lego only allows non-comercial use. I recall a few years ago someone on Etsy was forced to remove all their Lego (R) jewelry. Rubygirl must have read the info in this link, but missed the repeated notations that it is for “non-commercial” use. I am sure you would have to acquire and pay for rights when selling Lego (R) or any other trademaked, as well as pay a royalty fee.
Lego (R) is as aggressive with trademark/copyright offenders as Disney. And Nina, the blog master of this site can use the photograph under the Fair Use Agreement because she linked to the original photograph. Even though the seller has a copyright listed on her page, she is copyrighting something that infringes on someone else’s copyright, so it would never hold water in court, just as a disclaimer would never hold water in court. I don’t think Lego (R) could be more clear on their terms as being for non-commercial use.
http://www.lego.com/eng/info/fairplay.asp
******************************
JohnCocktoasten 2010/04/24 at 5:16 am
Ooooooo…Lego gonna get you.
*******************************
Etsy Person 2010/04/24 at 6:18 am
On each photo in her shop the watermark says “all images are property of tinytreesboutique”
Tiny trees probably understands copyright quite well. But she seems to think the rest of the world is ignorant.
*******************************
WTFISAPDF 2010/04/24 at 6:48 am
@rubygirl
There’s a big difference between non-commercial and commercial use. The link I provided (which appears to be the information you are citing) refers to non-commercial use only. No where is commercial use mentioned.
I sent an email to the company, with a link to your shop, for clarrification. We’ll see if I hear back.
******************************
John Rose 2010/04/24 at 7:07 am
All you self-anointed defenders other people’s copyright don’t seem to have a clue as to what your talking about or what the law really says. Apparently lack of any factual information doesn’t stop the owner(s) of this site in freely engaging in anonymous character assassination. Considering that Leggo has a big legal department of real experts who’s job it is to defend its copyrights, have you idiots ever wondered why they don’t put out a cease and desist to Ruby-Girl and the hundreds of other people utilizing Leggos in artistic ways?
Get off your high horse and get off Rubygirl’s back.
******************************
JohnCocktoasten 2010/04/24 at 7:08 am
Leggo my Eggo, John Rose.
********************************
WTFISAPDF 2010/04/24 at 7:37 am
@John Rose
I would imagine Lego can’t find every single violator and must rely, in part, on reports brought to their attention.
Lego sells it’s products for NON-COMMERCIAL use. Read the trademark and copyright laws CAREFULLY.
I do remember an Etsy seller who received a C&D letter, and a request for royalties.
Rubygirl is hand casting Lego’s and using their logo. How the hell is that not trademark infringement?
But then again, Sanro has requested no “Hello Kitty” be sold and Etsy had sellers remove them, yet the place is still flooded with Hello Kitty. Because ignorance is bliss for some.
******************************
it stinks 2010/04/24 at 8:26 am
From the Lego site:
How LEGO® Enthusiasts May Refer to LEGO Products on the Internet
The LEGO Group has become aware that many LEGO enthusiasts around the world are using the Internet to share information and ideas about our products. Several unofficial homepages have been established and there appears to be a great deal of activity and interest in these sites. Unfortunately, some of these sites use the LEGO logo and LEGO trademarks in a manner which may lead to confusion about whether these sites are sponsored or authorized by the LEGO Group.
Therefore, we have developed these guidelines to assist Internet users who wish to refer to LEGO products for non-commercial purposes as to the appropriate way to refer to our LEGO trademarks. However, you should be aware that it is impossible to set hard and fast rules about the proper use of our trademarks. This is because our objective is to prevent a use which, when viewed in the overall context, is likely to lead to a blurring or loss of distinctiveness of our trademarks or cause consumers to believe mistakenly that there is an affiliation with or sponsorship by the LEGO Group. Since use in different contexts may produce different impressions (or misimpressions) on the viewer, generalizations do not always apply to a particular case. Nevertheless, we offer these guidelines and ask for your help in order to keep our trademarks strong and distinctive.
What is a Trademark?
A trademark is a word, symbol or design, including a logo or the shape of goods or of their packaging, that distinguishes the goods of one company from those of another company. In some countries, the LEGO Basic Brick is protected by a trademark registration. A trademark also can be used to show the endorsement or approval of the trademark owner for materials bearing the trademark.
A Trademark must be Protected
A trademark must be able to distinguish the goods of one company from those of another. If a trademark loses this ability, the owner may find that it can no longer prevent others from using the trademark. An owner must prevent the improper use of its trademarks to prevent the public from being deceived. This is why the LEGO Group is very active around the world in making sure that its trademarks are not misused.
************************************
It clearly says “for non-commercial purposes”. And all the “rules” stated above by rubygirl that she says she is following are clearly meant for Lego fans who start websites/blogs etc to discuss their obsession with Lego.
She knows she’s violating their trademark, she just doesn’t care and doesn’t want bad press because of it. Bless her heart.
*****************************
it stinks 2010/04/24 at 8:30 am
Also, I’m assuming that all she’d have to do is take the word “lego” off of her items and she could still make building block rings etc. You can buy building blocks that are a generic brand and I know of at least 1 seller on etsy who sells building block soap (it doesn’t say lego).
So, wouldn’t her items be legal if she took the lego name off of them and stopped sending them with real Lego bricks?
Of course, that would probably decrease her sales.
*****************************
WTFISAPDF 2010/04/24 at 8:43 am
@it stinks
Well, I suppose one of us could cast a metal Lego looking block and stamp “Rubygirl” on it. Maybe she wouldn’t have a problem with that?
******************************
Wendy 2010/04/24 at 9:03 am
@WTFISAPDF
Lego sells its products for NON-COMMERCIAL use. Read the trademark and copyright laws CAREFULLY. (No apostrophe in “its”)
******************************
ECO 2010/04/24 at 9:23 am | In reply to John Rose.
Hey John Rose-
If you are gonna talk trash to us at least check to make that you’ve spelled LEGO correctly so it doesn’t make you look like you are talking about a waffle. Idiot.
******************************
Iona 2010/04/24 at 9:24 am
“She knows she’s violating their trademark, she just doesn’t care and doesn’t want bad press because of it. Bless her heart.”
Quoted for truth.
You cannot make money off of someone else’s brand. It’s ridiculous that anyone would try to defend this kind of thing, regardless of how nice or sincere the seller may be.
******************************
mostfolksonetsysucks 2010/04/24 at 9:42 am
I think rubygirl can simply remove the lego mark from the jewelry and be safe. But there are a TON of etsy sellers using lego blocks. To be fair, re you going to call out all of them? http://www.etsy.com/search_results.php?search_query=lego&filter%5B0%5D=handmade&filter%5B1%5D=jewelry
******************************
readread 2010/04/24 at 10:18 am
“But there are a TON of etsy sellers using lego blocks. To be fair, re you going to call out all of them?”
Using Lego blocks as a component in something is one thing, this seller is MAKING new Lego blocks with the word Lego right on them! She is using a Lego piece as a mold, and casting MORE Lego pieces in silver. What she is doing is copyright infringement. Yes, the pieces are adorable. But that doesn’t make it ok to sell them. OF COURSE Lego will not allow this. Saying that somehow this is ok because she hasn’t heard back from Lego is ridiculous.
*****************************
pullllllllleeeze 2010/04/24 at 10:33 am
I do remember an Etsy seller who received a C&D letter, and a request for royalties. >>
I know someone whose sisters ex-boyfriends friend was in a band with this chick who knew someone whose girlfriend might have been this seller…
in other words, name it or dont use it as some sort of example…links to threads or other blogs will suffice.
****************************
WTFISAPDF 2010/04/24 at 10:59 am
Thanks for pointing that out Wendy. The key to my apostrophe is off (along with shift and cap lock) so I’m not always good at hitting the little rubbery things.
But I can spell Lego. Do I get points for that??
*******************************
detroit 2010/04/24 at 11:01 am
To the maker of the Lego rings:
They are very cute! Clever idea.
You should keep making them – but please, for your own sake – take the brand name “Lego” off the rings. This is primarily a TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT matter.
A trademark’s main purpose is to allow a customer to know where the goods they are buying originate from. By your unauthorized use of “Lego” on the rings, you are in effect saying ‘these rings are made by Lego’. Which, of course, they weren’t.
Just because you haven’t heard back from Lego doesn’t mean a thing. Legal departments are very busy. Who knows if the right people even got your letter?
Trust me – they CAN ask you to desist. Worse, they can also request damages! (As in – money you owe them for inappropriately making money off their trademark.)
I don’t think you understand intellectual property law. It’s really complicated. Trust me – I worked as a trademark manager for many years. And sent many a cease and desist letter and requests for damages for far less blatant trademark infringement than yours.
Don’t get mad about this callout. It’s bringing views to your items (and possibly sales), and it may very well save you legal costs!
Good luck!
***************************
WTFISAPDF 2010/04/24 at 11:02 am
Honestly, this seller is hand casting the Lego name into her product. How can any of you think this is proper and/or legal?
Lego is a trademarked name. That means only they can use it. What part of that don’t you understand?
*******************************
detroit 2010/04/24 at 11:18 am
Oh – PS. Copyright, trademark and patent are all different. (I don’t know much about patent or copyright law.)
The name “Lego” is the trademark. As long as Lego is using it – they enjoy monopoly rights forever. (As in – YOU can’t put it on your goods.)
The click together bricks design WAS patented. But patents generally only last 20 years. Their design patent expired in 88. So I THINK you can use it. Especially since you’re using it for jewelry.
They did try to stop another toy maker from making similar bricks. Since the patent was expired, they tried to make a supreme court said “”Trademark law should not be used to perpetuate monopoly rights enjoyed under now-expired patents.” and held that Mega Bloks can continue to manufacture their bricks.
Intellectual property law is, like I said, confusing as hell. I don’t even begin to understand patent law.
So, you can see, you really don’t want to tangle with their lawyers.
Did go to the TM office’s website to get the correct address of their US TM lawyers? I found these guys listed, is that who you wrote to?
DAVID EHRLICH
FROSS ZELNICK LEHRMAN & ZISSU, P.C.
866 UNITED NATIONS PLZ
NEW YORK, NY 10017-1822
Phone Number: (212) 813-5900
If you’re going to keep trying to use LEGO on your rings, you really should make sure you have some sort of permission (in writing), in case you do get a damages request.
Though I doubt you’d get it.
********************************
Girly 2010/04/24 at 11:20 am
@WTFISAPDF – For fuck’s sake. I was dealing with children and mistyped. I’m not ignorant and there was no need for a call out.
Shannon, I love your stuff, but like some people said above – now that I’ve seen the actual quote from Lego it looks like you’d be covering your bases better if you removed the logo.
****************************
detroit 2010/04/24 at 11:21 am
Oops – correction from above – should read:
“They did try to stop another toy maker from making similar bricks. Since the patent was expired, they tried to make a trademark claim, but the supreme court said “”Trademark law should not be used to perpetuate monopoly rights enjoyed under now-expired patents.” and held that Mega Bloks can continue to manufacture their bricks.”
******************************
Life During Wartime 2010/04/24 at 12:24 pm
If a seller crafts with pop culture references (celebs, toys, media characters for examples), there are issues of legality.
Sellers use these references because the name or image recognition gives their work visiblity. They are exploiting the work and expense the entity who owns the rights has put into the brand. Do sellers really think corporations will react like Etsy does and say “your work is cute, so go ahead and rip off, little girl”?
***************************
JajieBo 2010/04/24 at 2:14 pm
Rubygirl, your works are definitely cute- it can’t be very hard to remove the “Lego” name when casting, though.
You’re the one hand-casting the silver blocks, not them… so while you’re commiting a trademark infringement, you’re also giving them credit for something you’re making.
Give yourself the credit, and take their name off your pieces!
****************************
Thud 2010/04/24 at 2:55 pm
“If a seller crafts with pop culture references (celebs, toys, media characters for examples), there are issues of legality.
Sellers use these references because the name or image recognition gives their work visiblity. They are exploiting the work and expense the entity who owns the rights has put into the brand. Do sellers really think corporations will react like Etsy does and say “your work is cute, so go ahead and rip off, little girl”?”
Exactly, LDWT.
It is the ‘oh but the are cute’ attitude even demonstrated here on this thread that keeps it going.
Like the first post with the links I made (#1).
As long as people buy it and think the ‘corporations have enough $$’ (WTH? it is their design,t hey have the right to earn from it, not you!) it will go on and DEFEAT true original handmade work.
Why buy your kid an alternative Waldorf style doll when you can buy them a Dora ripoff? Ugh.
****************************
CerealRapist 2010/04/25 at 10:23 am
Hey guys, the cops haven’t personally told me to stop raping and murdering people, so it must be ok!
*****************************
WTFSIAPDF I wrote to Lego’s legal department Saturday and just received a response. If I recall correctly, Rubygirl said she wrote to them and never heard back.
The response I got back thanked me for reporting it to the company. I was told that they take their trademark very serious and are “looking deeper” into Rubygirl’s Etsy shop.
There was a phone number included in case I could offer more information. They got back to me very quickly and I take it from the reply, they don’t fool around.
*****************************
MadebyM***** 2010/04/26 at 10:26 am
Good job, WTFISAPDF!
****************************
Life During Wartime 2010/04/26 at 11:03 am
WTFISAPPDF, wow! I thought that might be a load of BS about the company not bothering to get back to her, and now we know.
The issue with calling out, with links and documentation is that it connects us with a wider world than just the Etsy community. Some of the callouts involve more violations than just the Etsy TOU. Like the issue with Lego.
*************************
WTFSIAPDF 2010/04/26 at 12:02 pm
@madebym
I think the difference with Rubygirl is that she is copying their trademarked name on her own work, while the others are making jewelry and things like that from actual Lego’s. What Rubygirl is doing is probably considered much more serious because of that.
I was pleased to get an actual personal message and not a generated reply. It was very clear that they are going to investigate Rubygirl’s shop. I was provided with phone numbers to call if I could provide more information and an email address where I could send any other information I might have.
They were very grateful that I contacted them and made them aware of this.
What I find odd is that she said she contacted them and never heard back. I heard back in less than two days.
*****************************
detroit 2010/04/26 at 12:43 pm
What WTF said – you can use whatever materials you want to make something and sell it. This particular ring is branded lego – as if lego made it. That’s infringement. The whole point of trademarks is so that consumers can distinguish the origin of the things they buy.
Since the previous thread was deleted – WTF – not sure who you wrote to. I got this as the address of Lego’s US legal representation for their trademarks. These people should know the deal:
DAVID EHRLICH
FROSS ZELNICK LEHRMAN & ZISSU, P.C.
866 UNITED NATIONS PLZ
NEW YORK, NY 10017-1822
Phone Number: (212) 813-5900
And yes – I’ve worked in TMs before. TM departments cannot possibly monitor the whole internet, or world, and most certainly do rely on reports from consumers.
The lego rings are truly cute – I wish her no ill will. I’m sure Lego doesn’t want to shut down her business either. She just needs to recast them without the ‘lego’ on the rings.
**************************
MadebyM**** 2010/04/26 at 12:59 pm
WTFISAPDF and Detroit………yes, that’s definitely worse! And she thinks by adding her “waiver” that she’s protected!
“LEGO® is a trademark of the LEGO Group of companies which does not sponsor, authorize or endorse this product.”
She’s making money off of their brand name!
tinytreesboutique is just ridiculous. Not only does she have the image watermark, but she also says that "all of my designs are copyright protected". I've gone through and reported a few, but I can't imagine they'll disappear unless the copyright owners themselves find the shop.
Peta April 27, 2010 at 1:36 AM
Thank you for sticking to your guns on this, there was so much proof in the ECO comments and for Wordpress to censor that is ridiculous.
Anonymous April 27, 2010 at 1:40 AM
This thread about someone and their LEGO photographs is interesting. Maybe rubygirl should read it.
http://www.etsy.com/forums_thread.php?thread_id=6504308&page=1
Anonymous April 27, 2010 at 2:29 AM
I knew something was going on over at your WordPress blog.....it would be interesting to find who contacted them to complain.
If Etsy would police their own site and stick to and enforce their own TOU's AND not allow copyright infringement AND narrow down what falls under the handcrafted definition, then there wouldn't have to be a "call out" blog!
MadebyM**** April 27, 2010 at 9:21 AM
@MadebyM****
Who do you think contacted Wordpress to complain? The person you wrote about, of course!!
Anonymous April 27, 2010 at 10:20 AM
...Well not YOU personally, I mean Etsy Call Out. Sorry :-)
Anonymous April 27, 2010 at 10:21 AM
I wasn't sure which one it was because there was the original post and then a couple of others brought up in the post.........and then maybe I'm confusing the letters that were written to Regretsy.......
LOL!
MadebyM**** April 27, 2010 at 11:48 AM
Isn't that nice. Front page item from seller with 96% feedback (26 negatives/51 neutrals).
Anonymous April 27, 2010 at 1:46 PM
I think the complainer was Monkeys.
As far as I know, no one said anything about Lego or pop star pendants on Regretsy.
Monkeys could have been ticked off because the Regretsy post was titled Taiwan instead of Thailand, so it was too confusing to be good advertising for her company.
Life During Wartime April 27, 2010 at 1:46 PM
96% positive feedback isn't great. But practicing medicine without a license is darn scary. Seeing an item title like that would warn me away from this shop because it suggests the owner's head isn't screwed on right.
I see Etsy has stopped curating front pages. So they got their fix by whiting out today's Etsy Finds.
Life During Wartime April 27, 2010 at 2:28 PM
Why is there a seller with NO feedback on the front page selling a $1,500 item?!
Jen April 27, 2010 at 7:34 PM
Talking about his - http://www.etsy.com/listing/17176539/no-1?ref=fp_feat_3
Jen April 27, 2010 at 7:35 PM
I'm a little blown away by all of the anger and presumption in this post and the comments. Has anyone *asked* the sellers about their intentions or what homework they may have done *before* posting *their* copyrighted photos and text on this blog???
And how can you pretend to know what they were thinking or their reasons behind their actions???
Do YOUR homework before publicly accusing them of wrongdoing.
On an somewhat unrelated note, so what if a seller with no feedback is on the front page. It's up to the buyer whether they want to shop with them. Why penalize them?
Anonymous April 27, 2010 at 8:15 PM
WTF? We're not stupid. Anyone knows that Lego is a trademarked name and it's not legal to put a celebrity's picture on a pendant and sell it. Did you even read the comments before the original post got taken down? Their "thinking" and reasons behind their actions does not matter one bit because what they're doing is ILLEGAL. Maybe you should do YOUR homework before coming and making a fool of yourself. I don't normally flame people like this but your stupidity really blows me away. And I really don't care about posting with my name, I don't need to hide.
Amy April 27, 2010 at 8:40 PM
I think rubygirl is a liar liar pants.
That one photographer who actually cared (too bad all the sellers using trademarked items don't ask for permission) enough to question what she was doing regarding using Lego got a response in like, a day.
And Lego said they were flattered, but no, she couldn't sell anything with their items for profit.
http://www.etsy.com/forums_thread.php?thread_id=6506032
So rubygirl, what you have to say about that? I'm going to post this on the wordpress blog to so Miss I'm to Good to Contact Lego sees it.
ugh April 27, 2010 at 8:51 PM
Hahahaha!! Thank you for the laugh :-)
I forgot that you are omniscient! Thank you for the reminder.
While unlikely, it is not impossible to conceive that the sellers might have permission to use the celebrity photographs in question.
It's also conceivable that a company might respond to emails in varying lengths of time. Especially if one email deals with a simple report and another deals with legalities and royalties and permissions.
My point is that you shouldn't jump the gun and make assumptions. Things aren't always what they seem.
But you already knew all of that, right?
Anonymous April 27, 2010 at 8:53 PM
Okay, am a bit soured because while I care morally about resellers, I just don't care about copyright infringement that much.
However - right now the entire front page is copyright infringement! (I think).
Anonymous April 27, 2010 at 9:10 PM
So it is!!! Go Etsy.
Anonymous April 27, 2010 at 9:16 PM
To suggest that an Etsy seller might have permission to use Taylor Swift's image, some of the Twilight images or things like that is pretty absurd. As for using a sellers "copyrighted" images on this blog, study the concept of copyright fair use which says using something for a review is fine.
Anonymous April 28, 2010 at 12:27 AM
Anonymous said...
Hahahaha!! Thank you for the laugh :-)
I forgot that you are omniscient! Thank you for the reminder.
While unlikely, it is not impossible to conceive that the sellers might have permission to use the celebrity photographs in question.
It's also conceivable that a company might respond to emails in varying lengths of time. Especially if one email deals with a simple report and another deals with legalities and royalties and permissions.
My point is that you shouldn't jump the gun and make assumptions. Things aren't always what they seem.
But you already knew all of that, right?
---------------
If a seller has permission (license use agreement) to use a copyrighted or trademarked product, including photos of stars, Disney, LEGO, whatever... it has to be clearly written as such in order for the copyright/trademark holder to maintain their rights.
It would have to say "used with permission" followed by the copyright/trademark info of the actual holder. It would also have to state somewhere that it's a "licensed product".
If these sellers REALLY had a license agreement/permission, it would have to be made clear in each product listing, so I guess you could say it's inconceivable.
Anonymous April 28, 2010 at 8:03 AM
For the "Anonymous" that seems to be backing up the offender....
Ok, then if you don't see a problem with copyright infringement, can I go to your shop (that's if you have one) and copy your photos and make the same stuff you do and then put them up for sale, while claiming that I came up with the design? Or, what if I use your image on my creations without your permission and sell them........I'm guessing you'd be the first to complain and cry copyright infringement!
MadebyM**** April 29, 2010 at 2:58 PM
What astounds me most is that she has her copyright (!!!) printed at the bottom of each stupid design. That takes some big brass balls. I can't wait until someone steals her ugly designs and she goes crying to the forums.
Anonymous April 29, 2010 at 9:54 PM
have you guys seen this video on copying on ETSY?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whF_GmmUkBY
Anonymous October 4, 2010 at 12:24 PM