Thanks for opening up a discussion about this. My thoughts on a couple things including using the renderings…Not Legal Advice. This is arguably a case of “renders/charts” being determined as pixelated copies because of them being SO CLOSE to the original art (or even cross stitch charts that preceded them, and with the colors, formatting, sizes, and processes being so close between manufacturers), or if the charts would qualify for derivative status (I don’t believe they will)-but either way, in the case of a pixelated copy, the protection and ownership simply falls under my ORIGINAL copyright, but if they are determined as derivatives…that copyright is also still mine as per the agreement as I retain all rights to my work, including derivatives. “Licensee agrees it will not claim any intellectual ownership rights to the Artwork, or any derivative, or compilation thereof, unless such rights are granted to Licensee by Licensor.” I did not send them my work so they could copy it and then immediately OWN it upon “creation of a copy”, claiming that I can’t copy “their” copy forevermore!?! It’s too slippery of a slope. Because the process of charting is so similar in the industry, if I sent the same original artwork to 10 different Diamond painting manufacturers, even if they blindly created a chart without looking at any previous renderings, the chances of a couple of them coming “too close” or even exact are VERY HIGH and we’d be in court every other month fighting over each pixel, which would dissuade any Diamond painting company from ever working with my portfolio as they’d be afraid they’d “accidentally” be infringing on someone else’s renderings just in regular course of business. This is why the laws say in order for a derivative to qualify for its own protection it has to be more than “trivial” changes because no judge is going to rule pixel by pixel, and that ownership is ultimately determined by the original owner of the copyright. It’s just too close to the original. In fact, the closer the chart is to the original, the better the overall result with cross stitch and diamond painting. Just like how if someone referenced my art (by looking at it) and tried to paint it exactly the way I did (or like when someone paints a portrait that started as a photograph), it would obviously be “different” because a different hand did it and it’s in a different medium, but it’s still a copy by definition. You can get up on it closely and say “oh this line is wobbly and the original line is straighter”, but when you look at it from a regular viewing distance, it is recognizable as a copy of the original artwork. Even a paper or canvas print from a printer is created using pixels from a computer and tiny droplets of ink, and the colors and size will definitely be different-it’s still a copy. When it comes to copies, they can be blurry, crappy, amazing, or even adjusted for contrast, cropped, painted by hand…still a copy of my artwork which can only be owned and copyrighted by me unless I have sold someone the rights, which I DID NOT. This was a limited licensing agreement that is now expired. The amount of “work” someone puts into something doesn’t change ownership either. If it did, then your building contractor would own your house and be able to tell you what paint colors to use, or your vehicle manufacturer or mechanic would own your car. 2. They are also claiming that somehow the term of exclusivity extends beyond the agreement and that I’m still exclusive with them (for how long!?!) for all of my artworks in the entire field of Diamond painting, which would mean that includes artwork they had, artwork they didn’t have, and maybe artwork that wasn't even created yet!?? It was a 3 year contract, but somehow I’m to understand it’s exclusive FOREVER for Diamond paintings now?!? If this was their position, why didn’t they say that when we were negotiating either upfront or when we were talking about separating? 3. The owner of anything ultimately has the power over it. They can change it, license it, trash it, and stop others from using it, even if they don’t want to use it themselves. This cannot be them, per the contract, and I never would have signed a licensing agreement that didn’t state I own all the rights to my work, and they never would have received my work or the authorization to create the charts for the compensation we discussed. They didn’t buy the rights to my work, they borrowed them, and that's the cost difference between renting a car for a weekend vs. buying it. If a Diamond painting company truly owns it, then I lose my rights, as if I sold them, period. There can be no in-between here where I shouldn’t be allowed to “copy” “their” rendering; it’s not their rendering by legal definition, it’s mine and I'll explain why it matters so much. That’s just how ownership in almost everything works. As the legal owner I can use it, license it, sell it, reference it, copy it, or stop people from using it without special permission. If THEY own it, that means they can do all those things now without paying me, consulting me, asking me….because they OWN it? So if they take the original artwork off the packaging and replace it with the “rendering” (copy of my work) they can now sell it forever without paying me anything and also stop anyone else from doing so including ME!?! Mmmm, no. I hope you all can see how this CANNOT STAND in a court of law and I have to deal with it. I MUST maintain clear ownership over my copyrights and there has to be a DEFINED line in that ownership. It cannot be unclear or confusing in any way. I aim to get to a place where there can be no more confusion or questions about if I can or cannot legally or ethically “copy” or “reference” these renderings, which are a direct copy of my work and owned by me. The answer is emphatically YES. They were not created "from scratch" they were created from MY ARTWORK. Also if they are claiming they own them because “they created” them, who exactly in their company owns them-is it the executives…or the graphic artist they paid that actually DID the work? The contract is clear-I own all rights to my original artwork AND derivatives (if applicable). I’m not being mean, picky, difficult, shady, or unethical. I am protecting my business assets and other companies that I work with. I will not, as some have mentioned, “change a few colors” here and there or the size to avoid conflict with a company who has zero ownership or say over my art AND is trying to take my rights away, as a matter of principle; and because it sends the confusing message that somehow I have to yield to or “respect their copyrights", which don't exist in relation to my artwork. Ultimately it’s up to the companies I work with to use whatever process they want, but if I’ve legally licensed my artwork to them, then that would simply by default INCLUDE these copies or derivatives for them to reference or use if they so choose, and because it’s a process based on copying my original art as closely as possible, I simply CAN’T promise that their competitors WON’T produce a copy or near copy of those renderings through normal course of production, even if I wanted to!)-and if that’s what DAC really wanted, then they should have offered to BUY the rights, more like a film contract, in which case--yes, I would not have been able to contract elsewhere for the same product, which would have better protected them from the possibility of it being "accidentally" infringed upon. Which is why I’ve said publicly many times that I’ll use any renderings that have been done in the past if I like them without apology or moral dilemma, because I have nothing to be ethically or legally concerned about and absolutely nothing to hide-and their arguments on this subject cannot stand in a court of law (but they can still sue me and waste my time and money defending myself). They cannot tell me what to do with my art. I’m standing on my rights and I’m not moving, and I’m not just doing it for me-I’m doing it for all artists. We are done being exploited and manipulated! Thanks for the support! Hannah Lynn
“Licensee agrees it will not claim any intellectual ownership rights to the Artwork, or any derivative, or compilation thereof, unless such rights are granted to Licensee by Licensor.” That is ambiguous legal language (or mumbo jumbo) that might be the heart of what's being challenged. The words "will not claim any intellectual ownership rights or any derivative or compilation thereof" is pretty straight forward until you get the the word "unless." And then the words "such rights are granted ..." Basically by virtue of this agreement for them to render the work to sell as diamond paintings, they are claiming you have granted that right, so they claim ownership. But all that is for the lawyers to fight over and I hope they settle in your favor and you can put this whole thing behind you without ever having to go to court.
Hannah - on point no 2, the agreement is not granted “in perpetuity”, therefore once the agreement ends, the licence of use also ends. Ask your lawyer about thar specific language. Also, ambiguity in a contract favours the party who didn’t write the contract, in this case you, because DAC wrote the contract. Good luck with it all, I think you have a strong case.
I'm just...my jaw is on the floor now. Hannah Lynn's paintings are some of my most fun ones that I completed. First of all, I agree with Hannah Lynn 100%. I would have thought if she did have a problem it would be with another company, but this Diamond Art Club. DAC is my home & family. It is my happy place. How was I so unaware of this?!?!? This is blatant disregard for the artists. But I would have thought they would have WANTED to keep her as an artist because Hannah's paintings are so popular. How is this happening? I simply had no idea of the stress this poor artist been made to endure. I'm just speechless atm. I just cannot believe this is happening.🤯
This absolutely does NOT surprise me with the other things I’ve heard about them abusing artists while pretending to be doing them a favor by only using licensed art. They are shady af with their behavior towards the artists AND their customers, which I have experienced myself. I lost over $50 worth of rewards after posting a comment on a video about how I disliked their business practices. DAC are spiteful and vicious and Hannah, I hope you can find some damn good lawyers.
I am on Hannah's side. This is not the first time DAC behaves like this with artists and customers. It's time they learn a lesson, so if this goes to court, hope DAC will lose.
I think more artists need to come out if its ever going to be fully addressed or ever changed. But this may be the start of that. People are allowed to talk their minds but it seems no one is really willing to. I know I was terrified of posting this video.
@@nephtys1959 It still her art work. She made it and gave the company the chance to use what she made. They don't own her artwork. Sounds like DAC is on a power trip thinking they can control people and the diamond market. For instance, the FOMO to me is ridiculous .They cause this on purpose so they can sell more. I had many of situations where I felt they are holding back on the paintings to cause panic upon buyers. It not a good way to do business. I can see a lot of people not buying from them any more, "this includes me." No artist who they gave the privilege to use their artwork should be treated in such a manner. At the end of the day, it still her artwork. .....peroid.
@@imissnj2any company has the right to render her art if she gives permission to, they hold no copyright on any of her artwork she retains that even if they have sold her art before
Personally, Im going to boycott DAC. This isn't the first I've heard about bullying tactics from DAC. The whole mess in the Canadian Facebook group and people getting booted out of the group when it changed to only DAC being permitted, instead of all licensed kits. I love their quality, but they have lost my business.
OMG that just happened to me! I just made a very respectful comment in PRIVATE to the admin about the Hannah Lynn situation. She had deleted my post, I just told her I thought justice and freedom of speech was important and... she banned me! I That's it...
what mess in the Canadian group? I miss everything lol was it recent? I'm sad that their actions are the reason people are so unhappy because the quality is there.
It is not an accident no one is hearing anything. When posts of substantive value are removed from public forums to manipulate the appearance of customer satisfaction, that’s fraud. Not sure how much I can say without bashing, but there are a lot of people who feel very hurt, both financially and personally by DAC. I commend your courage for speaking out, and I hope that you aren’t banned and blocked for asking questions.
information and opinions are not bashing in my opinion. I really just want no disrespect or threats. I love what your bringing up because I didn't even think of the fraud angle. I wonder if that will ever be more openly talked about. There are other companies that do this too I think and it's more of a hidden dark secret that I think is really hard to prove ya know. So it's almost like people dont think its not worth it to talk about. It's all just allegations forever like now. I am so saddened that there are so many people hurt from the actions that seem to be coming to light recently. Like I said I hope they can make things right with their audience and customers. But I also think that sometimes business practices and morals do not always align.
I’ve noticed a lot of the bigger RUclipsrs have stated in 2024 they want to “branch out to other companies”. I’ve really noticed this shift of late and reckon they’ve had additional insights which have caused this shift. A monopoly is never good for a brand.
I'm not a part if the HL fanbase or anything but 2 things are clear to me: 1. I will never stand to watch a massive multi-million (maybe even billion at some point soon) institution do a witch hunt and pursue causing damage and inflicting revenge aginst a single artist EVEN IF that person caused them some kind of trouble. The imbalance of power and pain is just not fair. 2. I will not support a company who makes me scared of just talking about a product, especially when it is just a hobby and its supposed to relieve our stress and anxiety. It now appears predatory and terrifies it's customer base. I have become very well practiced in boycotts over the last few months and it is a very easy decision to conisder growing that list. Yes it is the industry leader, but there are endless alternatives still. Also, F*ck capitalism ❤
1. yeah don't pick on the little guys. They are just trying to survive. 2. I get that. I am hoping they make a statement. I also know we arent getting the full story. I am just going to go with the flow. I just wanted to react to the statement and give some unprofessional opinions.
It's not just single artists they do it with other businesses too. They think they have the monopoly on the diamond painting market but there's so many great quality companies out there. I still like their kits but have seen a major change in style and artists this year.
@@Christine__D Listen, You sound like you have not a single idea what capitalism is. Or how the economy runs to begin with. You only know that "capitalism goooood" because that's what they tell you on TV. You need to live in other countries, in different continents, with people who don't look like you, speak like you, or like you. People who don't parrot what you say, and be comfortable listening to things that you oppose. You need to have studied economy for more than a week, know more than grade 12 math, been in capitalistic hellholes that are experiencing the end stages of Capitalism, to know what the hell you're talking about.
Notice how they were telling her how other companies drills are not resin like theirs and making it seem as if she will get crappy results when she goes to another company lol 😂 😅. It’s like a divorced spouse saying you’ll never find another me. 😅
I will not support DAC. She is the sweetest person. She is not the first artist they have done something like this to. I am team Hannah. They are bullying her…. I loved them but this is not ok…
I feel like a lot of people have this opinion too. It is sad she is being backed into a corner. I dont have enough information yet to make a full judgment. But I will keep an eye on it. I am disappointed with their communication style and the way they talk about their competitors
Dac did not send Hannah off with their original rendered programs. However, dac paintings are in the wild and easily copied. The contract ends, Dac tried to scare her into staying, and due to poor treatment Hannah left. Now they have regrets and are going to tie her up in court. Dac hates Bella Art and has banned them and threatened them by litigious means. Bella picked up Hannah and now Hannah is in court. Dac specifically states in the email they still have the charts and could start right back up if Hannah would just come back. Hannah is finding new companies to work with and I would say Dac is burning a bridge when they only meant to threaten her to sign a contract more beneficial to dac. Shameful. Hannah's work is original, all DAC and every other company is just using a pixelating program and then gone over by hand. Without the artwork no chart!
@@diamondsandthoughts I go to the same retreat as the owners of Bella Art and was told last year of their difficulties with DAC. This year we were told to expect many Hannah Lynn paintings in the coming months and days later I see DAC emails were sent to Hannah. Seems suspicious to me.
The simple fact that you were so afraid to make this video & many others are afraid to say anything other than "All Hail DAC. They are the DP Gods" speaks volumes and only confirms what MANY others have said for awhile now regarding them silencing people and not allowing honest feedback. It is a shame. I have bought from this company from the very very beginning. All Hannah Lynn legal things aside, the silencing of any feedback that does not fit their "ideal" is concerning.
This. Silencing a whole fanbace and platform is weird. I really thought there would be more videos on it and I think mine is the only one. It's not bad to report on the goings on and open a conversation.
You know I'm seriously disappointed in DAC. Why did they let their head get swollen. Seems to me that since her artwork was pretty popular under DAC, DAC wants to ensure it doesn't loose this income opportunity for it's business any time soon. That falls under GREED. How in the world does DAC now figure, "it's mine it's all mine" and proceed with measures to secure that mindset over this artist's work. Have there been other artist who went through this in silence because they've been strong armed whether an artist was naive or in fear? Oh Man! This is just so messed up for me as I looked up to DAC as a new diamond painter and hoped one day to obtain a lux canvas from them. Well, safe to say that isn't on my list any more. I hope the attorney's for these two parties settle this in a MORAL DIRECTION and that DAC especially learns valuable lessons. The owner/s of DAC have made an awful mistake and needs now to atone. HUMILITY DAC, will keep you intact.
They had already stopped producing her works before the contract ended. I think they had one last hurrah with a single restock but that's it. They have the capability to keep things in stock or at least pre order but choose not to so they can feed into that FOMO marketing tactic. I agreed greed is showing. But that is also business. I am not sure if there are other artists who went through this and were silenced. There are rumors that there is. Maybe now they will speak out. or DAC will clear things up. But who knows at this point. I hope they do come to a moral decision too but sometime morals and business as well as the law don't align.
@@sparklinbudgets Wow! It is such a shame that growing businesses that have created a name for themselves based on GOOD QUALITIES then become corrupted/tarnished by GREED. This is plain and simply what it is. Have a Blessed weekend.
@@diamondsandthoughts I do agree that this behavior is considered or rides under the term business but this type is UGLY BUSINESS, BAD BUSINESS, IMMORAL BUSINESS etc. Have a Blessed weekend.
I wonder if DAC is meant don't use that painting because we have handcharted it & someone else may handchart it too & it may come too close to the DAC's rendering style, because you can only change it so much before it may look similar to DAC's & cost less. Maybe, that's why the owner of DAC was asking for not the kits that they rendered be used. But she can work with other companies using other paintings that DAC hasn't used. This way DAC keeps their secret way their way of rendering & HL can create new art & work with other companies. It's a win-win for both. Neither of them has to even go to court. I don't know how to feel. Tbh, I am still in shock after this video showed in my feed. I love DAC & I love Hannah Lynn's artwork & her spirit. What am I supposed to do now? I'm torn between my fav company & one of my beloved artists🥺💔. I feel numb. Are DAC truly doing this to other artists too? But they want to compensate all artists & do right by them, right? right?!?😢
I’m new to DP and was looking to my buy a premium painting from DAC. But something told me not to… and then I discovered Dreamers Design and like them better. Then DAC VIP denied my post because I answered that I don’t have a favorite artist yet. That made me not want to buy at all from them and then this!!! I am definitely not buying from them at all, regardless if she’s trying to use their rendering or not. I had a feeling DAC was not a very good company. I will not buy from them. They lost a customer that likes to spend money 💴 oh well moving on to the billion other companies that sell DP.
Letters from lawyers like that are supposed to sound scary. They are like a dog barking at the gate. It’s supposed to make you think twice about proceeding down the path, not because it will cost you money, but because it will cost THEM money to defend their house. Lawyers like fights imho and they are arguing about whether something means a or b. Usually it could mean either and the one who blinks first will pay. If no-one blinks a judge decides. But for everyone else it’s like watching a someone on a high wire. You just want them to stop being so stupid and act like rational human beings. Like most humans though, once they’ve started a fight, they don’t want to back down, which just hurts whoever is paying the lawyers 😔
Okay, so I'm fairly new to the diamond art scene. So while researching companies to pick canvases from D*C very often esp in like the youtube videos came off very ummm cult like. Quite a few of the content creators feel like they're reading off a script they've memorized while singing their praises. It felt really weird, so I ended up going over to reddit to see what people said. Not about them but in general to get a feel for the different companies. Down the rabbit hole I went, including the truth one you mentioned earlier in the video. I'm not saying I wouldn't order from them again but I'm definitely looking into smaller shops first before going with them.
I have seen many many times DAC accused of being cult like or having a cult like following. As well as them trying to control the information their fan base is allowed to retain as well as controlling the narrative and keeping everything super positive. I understand not wanting bad things said about your company but you also have to let the public spea of their opinions and experiences.
So basically what I got from this information because I’m pretty good at reading between the lines is that DAC was upset that she didn’t renew her contract with them because even though you or I may not personally care for her art style, she does have a very large fan base who does and her kits sell well which brings a lot of business to DAC. Therefore they are retaliating against her for deciding to move on to competing companies and trying to keep her from working or gaining income by seeing it as betrayal because for some reason they act like she owes them more than what is displayed in that now dissolved contract. This is very in line with all the complaints I have read from disgruntled customers they have treated the same way but this is much worse because they are trying to destroy this woman’s brand and reputation. May they get everything they have coming to them and more because you reap what you sow. I do commend you for posting this. Most wouldn’t have the guts to do so.
It's almost like she was baited and led to believe she would be able to move on. That is whats twisting up my guts. I couldn't imagine the stress and I feel so bad her health is taking a hit. I hope they come to some resolution so she can move on and keep doing what she obviously loves. They don't own her and shouldn't monopolize someone like that. I am seeing more of those complaints now that I have actively looked which I think shouldn't be so hard to come by. They really do filter everything I am noticing. I hope that changes too because some of it seems so trivial or petty. You literally can NOT make every one happy. Imagine if they were transparent and treated everyone right. There wouldn't be dedicated groups to expose them. Ya know?
@@diamondsandthoughts They can't keep her from licensing her art to other companies, and unless she signed an agreement that said the images she released through them were exclusive to them, they can't keep her from releasing the same images to the other companies. Personally, I wouldn't want to release an image that had already been released elsewhere, but I'm just an artist wannabe. I guess I can see where they wouldn't want their version exactly duplicated, but I don't think another company WOULD make an exact copy.
So I love Diamond Art club products but I’ve already been on a no buy because I don’t like how they create FOMO by unpredictably discontinuing items without warning. I was spending way too much money and I had to pull back. This situation is disappointing as deceived by Hannah Lynn but we haven’t seen the full contracts and terms and we don’t know what exactly Hannah signed and agreed to.
@@diamondsandthoughts my guess is that they had a tail around the last release date for each painting - she couldn’t release those paintings for a certain period of time after Diamond Art club released them that was separate from the end date of the contract. I am not entirely certain of that having not seen the contract, but that is my suspicion.
A quick thought about the whole charting thing from someone who renders and charts herself: HL allegedly said that DAC sent her the chartings of her art for approval. And that's where a lot of the confusion in this discussion seems to come from. I get the feeling they didn't sent her the actual charts, but rather mockups of each one. The difference being that the charts are exactly what you see on the canvas before you start placing, while the mockups show what the finished DP would look like based on the charting. Charts can include negative image effects for symbol clarity or other artifacts that don't necessarily represent the image correctly. So what at least I would send to an artist for review and approval would definitely be mockups. By the way, to try and reverse engineer the charting from a mockup would be a fool's errand (believe me, I tried after accidentally deleting a chart I was working on for almost a month). That being said, I have never bought anything from DAC simply because their output and my taste in art just don't align, including HL. I just happen to work at an arts academy and it kind of comes with the territory to have an interest in art/business relationships. Far too often artists are somewhat naïve about contracts and intellectual property. That's why we offer classes about these topics to try and keep them from signing away their firstborn by accident. Thank you for starting the discussion on this and representing it fairly. You earned another subscriber today.
I am loving your point of view. They do sound really challenging and hard to copy. I emailed photos of DAC renderings versus Art & Souls, and they are different. So I'm not sure why they are so upset. But we also don't have the full story. I just know an artists is really unhappy and brought it to public attention. I hope they figure it out.
@@diamondsandthoughts I agree, we do not have the full story and likely never will. So I just try to look at this from different angles, point out things that stand out to me and reserve judgement until more comes to light or there's a resolution. I know quite a bit about contract law in my country, US contract law not so much. So I won't even try to comment on that.
Here is the thing, as a content creator, you should never feel afraid to speak your mind, or be silenced. That is showing right there how damning this is to anyone who is in the content creation field for this community. Just talking about it, offering opinions whatever they may be, well they are worried of losing thteir affliate status, their kits, or even their club points because DAC has banned for less things before. This is not alright. A company should never have the ability to silence others, and make people afraid to talk about things. They should not have this mentality of being better than anyone. Above all else, Hannah is a person, someone trying to make her career as an artist, and being held in exclusive contracts, or harrassing her because she is looking to put her art with others as well to be able to maximize her own income to support her family is just... disgusting. You do not need to like her artwork to see that this has some damning implications , and if they were to do this to younger or naieve artists who do not know better? All around there is better options. I hope the best for Hannah and what challenges come.
I am afraid which is the huge problem and really does show the power they hold over creators and I am not even affiliated with them. I also know that this means I never will be able to. But I am 100% okay with that. This is a hobby that I do. Maybe one day it can turn into something but as of now I love what I am doing. I am hoping they don't ban me but if they do it was my choice to speak on this even through the fear. They can't sue me over it. It's all allegations and opinion as well as entertainment. I am confident in that. I didn't do anything wrong. I do love their quality and the art so I hope things get better. But there are so many companies I will be fine if they do ban me. I want to try all the placed but that will take time and my wallet would hate me haha. Hannah's bravery for her post has gained my respect. She deserves to continue doing what she loves and be able to continue her career. That contract seems to be very restrictive and makes me sad that she was unhappy for 3 years and then not releasing her work and discontinuing them just feeds into that FOMO. They have the capability to not have a marketing structure for that not to happen. But that wont happen because that works as well as controlling the narrative and making it so only positives are seen in their group. But that reach isn't only in their groups. It seems they have control of private groups and forums. which sucks and shouldn't even be a thing in my opinion.
@@diamondsandthoughts it is very unfortunate that they do try to silence people and their opinions by holding such things over them. It is why I will never purchase there even though I appreciate the quality of the product. They should not have to do these tactics to be able to ensure they stay relevant- the contracts that restrict an artists ability to earn is just unfortunate, tying her down to one company and using words like dilute ?! It is a product and having other venues to sell her product is part of business. It is beyond sad :(. But thank you for even posting this and being one of the brave creators to do so. I hope the best for you as well the whole situation too
@@jennybeansGames the quality of their stuff isn’t that great. So you’re not missing out. So many wonderful diamond painting companies out there, which is what DAC doesn’t like. They want to be the only company.
@@grammaknits02 Yea, I have avoided them with the way they have treated and tried to silence people. I absolutely refuse to support business practices as such. I do the hobby for my own enjoyment, and mental healtth. The craft started in China long before them, and for them to try to monopolize is just sad. Especially controlling Artists income as they do? That is unfortunate.
So basically they want the exclusivity of ALL Hannah's work to remain theirs and theirs alone in perpetuity so they can keep the market for her work (past present and future) wrapped up in their hands only. Irrespective of whether they own it or not. They are manipulating the contract after expiration because they just realised how badly they screwed up by ending her contract leaving her free to go elsewhere taking her fanbase with her and now they are scared of how much business they are about to loose to a rival company. They are retrospectivelt trying to gag her with an nda that doesnt exist because the contract ended by their own hands and trying to frighten HL into silence whilst bullying her to keep the art licences for new work from being produced by a new company. Thats what all this sounds and reads like. I have no idea if thats right it sounds like someone at dac made a decision to letHL go and someone else is trying to roll it back some how. What an awful mess. Some of that dac legal stuff reads like a word salad produced by ai rather than a lawyer. I am glad she has a decent legal team. This doesnt sound like its got anything to do with rendered work being used elsewhere, it does sound like a botched red herring to stop her work being produced elsewhere. Am l a fan of HL? No,Am i a fan of Dac? No. Dac have lost the plot if they think they control the market by coercion and bullying of artist and customers. I have witnessed both and have stopped buying dac kits since December last because of the pressure of the FOMO thing and insisting that fb groups are only dac. It kind of makes it hard to enjoy da when conversation is shut down instantly and you are called a troll. ( I havent,but i have seen a perfectly reasonable question treated as such and the person asking villified)
Love their quality but them treating her this way is not right. The problem is there have been other small businesses that have been bullied and black listed by them.Example is Bella art de Nicole.
@@diamondsandthoughts I remember hearing that they banned from the FB group and shut down store accounts of creators who showed Bella Art products on their channels. Not sure if that's 100% accurate, but... It was after Nicole and Jamie bought Mary's Diamonds.
I definitely don't like DAC throwing shade at their strongest competitors. I'm totally re-thinking my entire diamond painting life. Its sad that they seem to be bullying Hannah like this.
@@AislinElizabeth agreed. I don’t get going after competitors. Diamond painting is such a cool community and being able to buy from different places is so cool. This behavior has me questioning purchasing from them and I’ve been a customer for years
So, I have seen TOWTDA use what looked like the EXACT same rendering for the discontinued Esmeralda kit, but I haven’t heard DAC say anything… I feel like using the exact rendering may be an issue if that is what the company who picked up Hannah Lynn did. HOWEVER: I’ve seen so many small businesses lose images because DAC buys out the artist from small businesses. Treasure Art studios used to have Maria Abagnale, Distracted by Diamonds still has Puffy Gator, but Diamond Art Club literally came out with the same Halloween Cat with SLIGHT changes and I barely see any Puffy Gator images on Distracted By Diamonds anymore. IK Craftibly had the preorder issue, but DAC had taken a big artist from them too months before they shut down. There are others I can’t think of atm. Also, there was a time before Hannah Lynn that it was brought up they were buying artist exclusivity. DAC deleted all the posts and kicked people. I’m pretty sure removing people from VIP status because of an opinion is illegal 😬 I don’t know what has been happening in the background, cause I could be wrong and things were done amicably, this has just been my noticings. Of course they also picked up artists when DIYmoonshop closed down, which I liked. I like the quality, but holy crap has DAC done some shady things. I still buy from other shops because DAC has a very cartoony style sometimes and you can find similar quality with nicer images at other shops. I think people need to stop being DAC snobs because it incentivizes this behavior. They’re monopolizing (common in the crafting industry), but getting away with it cause of the niche shops still around. Are there shops with crappy drills? Absolutely, those are the shops I avoid because that usually means there are other issues. Are there shops with OK drills? Yes, I buy from those and alter the images a little, dumping trash. I think Jaded Gem Shop is one of the shops closest to DAC quality, but Jade genuinely loves her customers and what she does and has recently started doing hand-rendering. There are other shops out there, people! EDIT: Affiliates are responsible for supporting this negative behavior too by keeping quiet! They’ve stopped supporting certain small businesses because of this too. Also now that this is public, I can’t see DAC moving forward with any suits. It’s going to look REALLY bad, and it ALREADY looks REALLY bad. If they’re going to attack anyone, they need to attack the businesses copying their renderings ONLY IF THEY’RE THE EXACT SAME. There are laws that protect youtuber’s from just posting videos so long as they react (transform) the original video, and again you have bigger channels that abuse the copyright system. This is the exact same thing! As well, makeup companies take artist images as well, but they do not own the art itself and the artist continues to sell their work. DAC has people like Margaret Morales, Aria Illustrations, and others who sell on Etsy or personal websites. If DAC was correct (which they’re not) these artists wouldn’t be able to sell their art as they have been for years 😂 This is comedy at this point the way DAC is threatening her. As i finish listening to this video all I can say is DAC is literallly trying to monopolize a market they did not create by saying they created it. Others walked so you can run DAC.
It still her art work. She made it and gave the company the chance to use what she made. They don't own her artwork. Sounds like DAC is on a power trip thinking they can control people and the diamond market. For instance, the FOMO to me is ridiculous .They cause this on purpose so they can sell more. I had many of situations where I felt they are holding back on the paintings to cause panic upon buyers. It not a good way to do business. I can see a lot of people not buying from them any more, "this includes me." No artist who they gave the privilege to use their artwork should be treated in such a manner. At the end of the day, it still her artwork. .....peroid.
I agree it is still her art work. But I also agree that she shouldn't use the renderings DAC made from her work for their company. I do think that they have the power in this community to bully and scare people and I hope they don't do that in this case and that there was simply a misunderstanding between them. I do hate the FOMO marketing tactic. Especailly because they have the capability to make enough for the demand. They can even do a preorder option for when it does sell out so people can not freak out. I hope they come to an understanding and are able to move on
Simple fact - licence was not granted in perpetuity, therefore, upon termination, IP vested back to artist. Additionally, artwork has moral rights associated with it, which cannot be relinquished.
I feel like this is another language. I'm half asleep, so I may re read in the morning 😄 🤣 Is this meaning that she can use the same pictures that were already produced by DAC? I'm sorry I'm not very fluent in law.
@diamondsandthoughts probably not the reproduced work, but the original work is still, and always will be, hers. You can't sell moral rights (I work on the periphery of IP at a University in Australia, but deal with domestic and international contracts).
@diamondsandthoughts for the licence to continue after termination, they would need a licence in perpetuity. It didn't state that on the contract aspects Hannah has disclosed. Honestly, this is just poor form by DAC and unlikely to hold up in court.
I will no longer be using DAC.. I stand By Hannah Lynn. This is not the first time I have heard bad about this company. I also dont like that you cant have an opinion on their page without it getting deleted. They are bullies and I hope everyone stands up to them.
I've seen what they do to people that give them bad reviews. This being said, the majority of paintings I have, have been purchased from them . The questionable things they have done is why I have been consciously trying to buy paintings from smaller sellers. They should NOT have the sole rights to her work once her contract with them expired/was terminated by them. I only have a few Hannah Lynn paintings, but that is not the point. I wonder how many other artists they have done this to.
I agree they shouldn't have rights to her work. But their rendering shouldn't be sold by competitors either. If the new company/companies make their own renderings DAC should be happy for her and move on. I hope they don't make other artist jump through hoops like this. When someone completes their contract they should be able to move on.
There are so many reputable companies out there that don’t have such underhanded and shady business practice. DAC instigates so much drama. They are not worth it when there are so many much better companies out there.
I boycotted DAC 2 years ago this is not the first time they’ve had issues with artists and secondly they like to pick and choose which customers have value to them. Not only that but I hate how they constantly trash other companies and insinuate that their quality is the best and that they are the only company worth money. Personally I dislike that kind of business practices. A company that cannot take constructive criticism without accountability or bashing other companies is not a company I want to spend my money on
@@diamondsandthoughts I got blocked on facebook and had my account terminated (also lost my $10 gift card that was on my account) because they were publicly bashing Dreamer Designs in a group (not theirs) and I commented that they went above and beyond for me when I had an issue. Then...bam! banned and blocked! But they are doing this so much that I think it's all starting to catch up with them.
I really appreciate that you made a video about this. I'm really sad to see that people have felt uncomfortable speaking openly for fear of losing their relationship with the company, though I understand why someone may not want to risk having their account closed/lose affiliate compensation. I'm also sad to see how the company spoke about their competitors, I thought it was quite distasteful. As the party launching the (hypothetical) lawsuit it's DAC's responsibility to prove the allegations in the suit based on the requisite law. I think they'll have a difficult time doing so for several reasons - ex. the contract not being in perpetuity, Hannah retaining the right to her work including derivatives, the difficulty of proving the company used the exact render AND that such use is against the terms of the contract. I wouldn't be surprised if DAC's lawyers have told DAC this and DAC is prepared to go ahead anyways, knowing that they have the money (or ability to borrow money) to pay lawyers for a whole trial while Hannah may not. It's also possible this is an empty threat and DAC won't really want to move forward for several reasons, ex. if they identify information they don't want becoming public through discovery, which is where both sides are required to exchange information about the evidence they'll present at trial.
Agree with most of these posts. I quit buying from them a couple of years ago. Their customer service was terrible. I won’t go into to details here but it was bad enough to drop them completely. Still have a huge stash, their kits are great but can’t support their business ethics.
This is not the first, second or third time, and definitely not the last, that this has/will happen to their artists by DAC. DAC is so unprofessional and try to sue everyone! HL art isn’t my taste, but I feel for her and other artists that DAC has done this to.
I’m also going to throw this out there…didn’t they promise last year when they announced all the “changes” happening that they “were not going to raise the prices of the kits and products because they made cuts elsewhere” or something like that? Then BAM all of a sudden all of the kits are $10-$15 more. When I bought kits last year they were $45-$55 and now on average they are $65-$75.
@@diamondsandthoughts the canvases on average feel about the same size as they have been (there have been some really huge ones which I totally get the price increase on) which is why it’s so irritating. They specifically told everybody not to worry about the price because they were committed to making sure we didn’t have to pay more for the things they were improving because they were going to substitute some things. I completely understand prices needing to change but if that’s the case don’t make a whole post and big deal out of ensuring we know you won’t do that only for you to turn around and do exactly that!
Thanks for doing this video. I didn't know any of this so I'm pleased you made it public. Unfortunately DAC won't be happy about it, as they have their spies always trawling thru youtube so you may find you do get banned and blocked which will be why no other channel (as far as I'm aware) have done a video about it all. I have watched videos in the past of creators that have had their accounts with DAC terminated. One in particular had bought about 100 kits from them so she was an avid supporter but when she received a canvas that wasn't cut properly around the edges and looked like it had been mangled by the machine during the making process, she obviously asked DAC for a new canvas. Well...they refused and terminated her account along with blocking her from their facebook group. This is someone who had spent thousands of dollars with them so they don't care how good a customer you are! If they had replaced it, she would not have done a video about the appalling treatment she had experienced from DAC. It would have only cost them a few dollars to rectify the situation but nope. I honestly feel like they get a kick out of banning people.
I really hope they don't do that because then that would be proof of exactly what the public thinks of them. Especially because I didn't do anything wrong. It shouldn't be feared to talk about your experience and opinions on a company or a product. It is their fault that this fear is there.
@@diamondsandthoughts Exactly. Time will tell. They are the most insecure and unprofessional company I've ever encountered. And more and more people are becoming aware of how awful they are. I hope they don't do the same to you, if you want to keep buying from them.
Shouldn’t DAC be taking this up with the other diamond painting companies if said diamond painting companies are using DAC’s renderings? Not Hannah Lynn.
Idk maybe. They might be doing that too but I don't think we will ever know. But it's the fact that there's a chance they are trying to put a stop to this part of an artists career.
DAC renders their art in-house, and produces in-house, so I don't believe another company couldn't use their rendering even if they wanted to unless an employee leaked it. Art & Soul once used a picture from DAC to give an idea of what one of the images would look like rendered, since they use hand rendering as well. Hannah asked them to take it down as it wasn't their own rendering and they did so immediately.
Thank you for talking about this topic! I haven't seen anyone else on youtube talking about this situation until now. I stopped buying DAC kits due to the price of them ($100+ before shipping is too expensive for me), and these shenanigans don't make me want to buy from them in the future. I hope this situation won't scare artists away from working with other companies, and I hope things work out well for Hannah in the long run.
I have not either and it is weird. They are really expensive but so are a couple other places I want to try too. I personally have had to slow down a little bit because I was getting to excited and it made my wallet sad lol. I hope everything works out.
It's practically impossible for another company to use the exact same renders as DAC. It would most likely require that they obtain the printing file of the render from DAC which I don't believe would be possible. The only other way I can think of that it could be done is for someone to take a DAC canvas and chart a new one pixel by pixel, extremely time consuming.....there doesn't seem to have been enough time for that to be done between when HL signed with new companies and when their kits were released for purchase. Although I admittedly do not know if the kits that have been released so far are all brand new ones or former DAC releases. Just my 2 cents on that.
This is good to know. I trust your judgment and words on this because you guys sell art too and know the process more than I ever would lol. (totally fangirling over here that you commented. My July box gets here today.)
Hannah has stated multiple times on facebook that she was using the DAC renders at the new company. When a commenter said it would be the render that makes or breaks their decision on wether to buy she replied to their comment saying its the same render. There were multiple discussions on public forms where Hannah defended using the DAC renders. (She also mentioned she had to approve the renders when she was with DAC which I think would be how she has access to them) She believes she owns the renders but DAC believes THEY own them and that other companies would need to make their own. If you read the lawyer emails between her and DAC that she posted that seems to be the big thing DAC is legally mad about (That and her disclosing confidential financial contract info to a person she met on reddit who then leaked the info, the redditor deleted the leaked financial info at this time after stating they recieved a cease and desist).
@@diamondsandthoughts I by no means know all of the inner workings, these are just my thoughts from my experiences. We will most likely never know 100% of the details either way. I'm saddened to see such a divide in a community that is used by many for their mental health (including myself, I'm struggling to come out of a clincally diagnosed severe depression). I just hope that both parties involved as well as the diamond painters themselves can find some peace about this or any other negative situation 🥰 (Thank you for your support of our small business & the others that are represented in the box, I honestly can say I have no idea who you are by name, but I hope you enjoy the box contents!)
I didn't know all that info. I don't think they should be able to use DACs rendering. That is not okay and I stated that many times. I have been working through depression for years and understand that. I hope that they come to some sort of agreement and are able to keep it civil. I dont like the divide either. Makes me sad. Hahaha My names Marissa. I hope I'm able to record the unboxing tomorrow but we shall see if the home life permits it. But there will be an unboxing. It will also be my first small shop pen.
Bonus points for quoting C.C. Suarez! Seriously, this is a sad situation, and I hope Hannah Lynn and her legal representation are able to resolve it quickly. Thank you for shedding light on this. I think you presented it fairly.
I stand behind Hannah Lynn. I've been diamond painting for three years and have bought many paintings from DAC. After learning about this situation and some others from customers, I've decided to no longer be a DAC costumer. I'm not going to stand behind a company that bullies artists or customers. I'm praying hard that Hannah wins and shows other artists not be scared & stand up for themselves.
I have not made a choice yet because I don't know both sides just what she is posting. I do know it isn't a good look and I just wanted to be part of the conversation. But it seems no one else is talking about it.
Nothing about this company surprises me. The only reason they have such a "good" reputation is because they have very shiny drills and they bury any and all comments bearing any passing resemblance to a complaint under a dogpile of internet vitriol. I love their kits. I will never EVER purchase from them again. Their "VIP" group makes reddit and 4chan look like a peaceful stroll on the beach. Also, no they are *not* trying to use d A C's rendering. They are trying to make their OWN rendering of HER artwork that D A C licenced for X amount of years. It's *her* artwork to sell or license as she sees fit once the license period is passed. She's also far from the first artist to have these kinds of overhanded tactics from d a c.
I am so new to reddit. Like a month ago I finally went on there. I have some arguments there so far. But I have also seen some really amazing comments and posts too. But I also don't fully understand how it works.
The number of people that preface their feedback with "I'm not complaining..." or "I love dac..." or "I'm grateful for..." I've never seen anything like it. I avoided the group for nearly a year because I was on a no buy and didn't want to break it. When I came back it was chaos. Or maybe it always was and only noticed when I returned earlier this year. Like damn it's only diamond painting. It's not that serious.
@@tinalvlls Absolutely this. I think a lot of it is the manufactured scarcity that's very deliberately cultivated by the company (FOMO marketing) and perpetuated by the loudest of the customer base. People spend SO much time, effort and money to obtain these "limited" kits, and if they admit - even just for a second - that the whole company is corrupt, they suddenly realise how much of that time and effort and money was for something completely dishonest and revolting. It's the same mentality that keeps people devoutly sticking up for companies like TEMU (and I'm saying this as someone who occasionally buys from TEMU because they are accessible). Like.. people on the outside KNOW it's a horrible, horrible company, but if you're "in the club" you go so far down the rabbit hole. It *hurts* to admit that you have supported and been REALLY mean to other people for nothing. There's also a LOT of 'moral currency' and 'moral high ground' that's been embedded in DAC marketing and reviewing, because they "only use licensed art". Nobody has bothered to drill down and see how ethical their licensing actually is. If their licensing practices are dodgy, how is that better than stealing the art?! In this case it's worse, because they are not just using art without consent they are literally stopping the artist from making a future income! I truly don't care what company people buy from, but if they're going to buy from a company that is blatantly corrupt I get very cranky when they then claim morality points and flame at people who point out it's corrupt.
All I can say in way of opinion is that it is a strong one against what DAC practices are and hers is not the first report of DAC acting in the way that this report is stating . Because of this and out of respect for your channel and your request this is all I can say on this subject.
Didn’t Taylor swift go through something similar, all about copyright and intellectual property… this is for the lawyers. Thanks for posting as this helps viewers make informed decisions about their future purchases.
I literally thought of this too! Huge Taylor fan 😂 seems like businesses get intimidated by big fan bases. And I’m not endorsing anything with this and definitely don’t act out being a fan of either artist, but just something I’ve noticed.
I don't know anything about that. But it seems like DAC and Chuck figured it out. I hope he made the choice that felt right to him and he wasn't bullied into it. But we will never know.
The losers in this scenario are going to be the diamond painting community. DAC simply cannot afford to allow an artist to take their renderings with them and have them produced by other companies. This is a precedent that would completely destroy their business if other artists followed suit. Other than their canvas, the rendering style is what DAC is known for and sets them apart from other companies. A quick quote from Legalzoom regarding derivative works: "The creator of the derivative work owns the copyright to the derivative work. This can either be the creator of the original work, or someone else who has obtained a derivative work license from the holder of the original copyright. The copyright of a derivative work is separate from the copyright to the original work. Therefore, if the copyright holder gives someone a license to create a derivative work, the holder retains the copyright to the original work. In other words, only the derivative rights are being licensed." DAC has a right to be upset that another company is now selling the work they created. Hannah has the right to take her original artwork to a different company. The question will be what they actually contracted for. If it is deemed that DAC does indeed own the copyright to the renderings, they have the right to exclude anyone else from making those renderings for 95 to 120 years. They have no right to the original work, so they could not sell the derivative renderings themselves; but they do have the right to prevent others from selling them. This case will come down to a contracts dispute and the interpretation of what each side contracted for. It is simply not a matter that should, or truly will, be played out in public. The big problem now is that this will come down to lawyers. The attorney fees for a case like this can quickly rise to the 6+ figure level. If HL seriously does want to die on that hill and go down penniless, she probably will...and she'll most likely take the new company with her. A fledgling diamond painting company struggles to survive in the best of circumstances, much less facing a huge law suit right off the bat. We don't know if the new company is also being threatened with litigation, but I'm pretty sure they soon will be. Additionally, DAC will have to shell out huge sums of money to their own attorneys. Where will this money come from? It will surely be reflected in rising costs of products or eventual bankruptcy/collapse of DAC. The diamond painting community will surely lose out by picking sides and drawing battle lines. I love HL's art. I have tons of her kits, purchased from several different companies. I also love DAC's DP kits. I have way too many of their kits to mention. All of this controversy could be avoided if the new company just creates their own renderings and doesn't try to take short cuts for an easy way to quickly make money. Even if legitimate, it seems a bit shady and will cost them long term. Just rechart the original artwork. Make it a different size/drill shape/color count, etc. from DAC's.
That's why I don't think it would be right for her to use DACs renderings. New companies need to do their own renderings. There isn't enough information for me to make a choice. I think HL should be able to move on as long as the renderings are all new and I hope DAC can move on too.
Hannah Lynn will own and retain the copyright she is allowed to have other companies render it, I’m very familiar with copyright law, because she is the Original artist the courts will work in her favour
Hannah's legal team communicating with DAC references contractual language stating that all derivatives are also retained by the artist. Because if DAC retained the derivatives, then they could continue to reproduce the designs. So it makes perfect sense that all forms of reproduction of the original artwork should be the property of the original artist. Furthermore, I've seen close ups of sections of renderings of both DAC's version and Art & Soul's version showing that they are not identical. Since both are based on the same original pure e, of course they are going to look very similar. It will be very interesting to watch how this whole affair plays out, in or out of court. Until then, everyone is really just armchair quarterbacking. But whether they win or lose legally, DAC is already taking big hits in the court if public opinion. And that's a shame. 🤷♂️
@@gabriellepacker7921 I didn’t actually get that from her post, what she was trying to say is that they’re trying to tell her that their contract states the are the only company with exclusive rights to render her artwork into a pattern/chart so to speak which is also another problem because a lot of people also cross stitch her art, or convert patterns into cross stitch conversions
Thank you for this video. I've been off social media and hadn't heard about this. 95% of my stash is currently DAC, but I don't think I want to continue buying from them. I've been on a no buy for a couple years now but any future "slip ups" will be with a different company.
I used to have a pretty good sized channel in the adult coloring RUclips world. I worked directly with Hannah Lynn a few times, and every time I spoke with her, she was nothing but upfront, sweet, and honest. If I was forced to take sides, I'd have to be on Hannah's. She is so generous, gracious, and fair about how we (the coloring community) were allowed to share her work online, and I've never met another artist who is that willing to bend to make her community happy.
In this same vein... I just read a reddit thread on how "Under the Stairs and Kiki's Delivery Service" are not legally licensed. Does anyone know of this? I admit that I do not know the ins and outs of licensing. I am just repeating what I read. From what I understand.... Yumei made the Ghibli fan art but did not get permission from Ghibli studios when allowing DAC to make DP'S. DAC is using Yumei designs without permission from Ghibli Studios. DAC is violating licensing laws by not getting permission from Ghibli... but may have a fall gal to blame in Yumei. I don't understand all this. Can anyone clear this up? Thx
I think they would be discontinued and pulled like the elusive Maleficent canvas a long time ago was. It is the artists responsibility from what I understand to do. But I could be 100% wrong. I mean they have been restocked I believe multiple times and it's big enough that the company would probably claim rights and sue as well have them pulled from the market. It was shady enough as is with the Maleficent one though. So who knows.
My understanding is the same as yours. It's both the responsibility of the fan artist and company selling their work to get permission from the intellectual property holder to sell fan art items. And it's not legal for a company to sell fan art without licensing. Under the Stairs is very clearly Ghibli fan art to me. If DAC had a Ghibli license, I think they'd list it as they do with other kits like anything Harry Potter, yet none is listed on the site...
First i just want to say how brave you are for putting this information out there. I am so sad this needs to be said, but without artist and the community you can not have a buisness. People and the artist should be able to have an open and honest talk about whats going on all to often i see things hushed leading to a fearful community. I love how respectful you were and i live by MAKE THE COMMUNITY WHAT YOU WANT AND BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE MOVING FOWARD. I respect you so much for this you have no clue.
I mean, I absolutely love their kits. They are just stunning, and the best range of quality fantasy and whimsical work on the market. But this...there's no reason to handle it this way. The competition is virtually non existent, and if you treat the artists well, they won't really want to go elsewhere. If the allegations are true, they created their own problem. I'm down for a boycott, too. I can't afford many of their kits anyway, lol.
What about DAC throwing a fit about a community event over Drills and Chills last year? [2023]. They told the hosts they would not participate if Bella Art De Nicole and a couple other companies who had sponsored before was participating at the time. Also they like to delete people's DAC account with hundreds of points left on them from purchases. I have NEVER had an issue with DAC. Ever. They have gone above and beyond for me as a company. But a lot of people I personally know have had so so many issues with them. I don't know what to believe. But most of my stash is DAC. I adore their canvases and their products. But I will never buy a 200$+ on a kit thats discontinued. They did say That DAC [dac said] they are trying to crack down on scalpers and resellers
I have heard so much about this. I cant find any information about the conflict. I'm saddened they treat competitors this way. It's uncalled for especially when it's a small shop. I would never buy a canvas for that either and honestly the community shouldn't lett hat stand either in my opinion. Like an example is in destash FB groups. A price gouge like that isnt okay. They should allow a max of a certain price up percentage. But if it exceeds that not allow it. They can go to ebay or something. DAC should follow Munimades choices. They leave a note asking for people to do this exact thing and if they find out its you doing this then you are banned. There is options and I'm not seeing or hearing of them practicing. Just claiming that they make it so you cant predict when something will be archived. What about the people that already bought it for the just in case. ya know. There aren't any repercussions or telling the affiliated de stash groups to not allow it. This is something we can do as a community. But no I have a comment deleted because they don't allow price complaints be a thing.
This is a great post, I know you had some fear to post it, but having a dialog about stuff, whatever it is, is important. My understanding of how contracts work is this, under the exclusivity agreement that DAC claims is in the contract near the end of your video, any artwork she licensed to DAC during the term of the contract is still subject to those terms whether DAC archived it or not, meaning if she licensed it to them she can't license it elsewhere after the contract ended IF the exclusivity clause is there. Things that occurred while the contract was in force are STILL enforceable by BOTH parties. This enforcability likely extends to the nondisclosure aspect of the contract too. It stinks but unfortunately that's how I understand how contracts work. An example of this is when Taylor Swift was not able to use her recordings that were released under a label she formerly had a contract with, so to assert her rights to the music she re-recorded the music to license and release elsewhere. I don't have access to the actual contract so I can't really say if the exclusivity agreement is in there (or not) but my understanding of that would be it would only apply to work licensed to DAC. If I'm wrong, that would explain why she wouldn't want to renew the contract with DAC, because if all of her artwork was covered under the exclusivity clause she would be completely under their thumb and that would tie her hands. Work NOT licensed to DAC under the contract would be fair game to license elsewhere AFTER the contract ended 1) Because it wasn't licensed to DAC and 2) Because artwork NOT licensed to DAC isn't subject to the contract after the contract terminated... I am not a lawyer but I think she is well within her rights on this point, but not on artwork she licensed to DAC if the exclusivity clause was indeed in her contract. I'm not a diamond painter, but my wife is. I had no idea that this hobby even existed before January 2024 but do I know she's really enjoying it. Thanks for all you do and thank you so much for your support and advise to her.
Sorry it took a day to respond. I needed a day to let the anxiety settle. I had no idea this video would get a response this big. I knew it would get some conversation but this is a little overwhelming honestly. I seriously thought someone else would have posted and I would just be adding to the convo. Anyway. Thank you for clarifying some of this to the best of your ability. I think I understand better. But I am not fluent in law at all. It's almost another language. Tell your wife I said hello and that I said you're welcome
All I’m going to say is…if it’s listed under the agreement, all in the agreement expires with the agreement. If they wanted confidentiality in perpetuity, there should’ve been a separate NDA, imo.
With that being said I also understand why they would stay silent. It's okay for their customers to ask for a statement. But we don't have the right to demand one.
To be honest- I’m scared to say anything. I don’t want to be banned. I enjoy their diamond paintings a lot. They are beautiful. I’m scared to tag them in Instagram posts- bc what if I had a competitor’s tray or pen in that photo. Soo stressful and causes me incredible amount of fear.
All sooooo sad...It seems that said company misrepresents the caring & love that this entire community exudes 99.9% of the time! The Bible says "the "love" (of $$$!!!) is the root of all....what?! Think about it ❤
Hannah I love your Paintings. I will pray for you to have a good outcome with DAC. I’m a huge fan of your work. I’ll go where ever you go. I have purchased many of your coloring books as well.
We'll see what happens, but even though I love their product, I am prepared to boycott DAC as well. There are other good companies out there with really good quality. DAC should be careful so as not to completely alienate their fanbase.
Thank you for posting about this! I don’t have FB but had seen people mentioning that Hannah had posted about her experience with DAC and what has been happening. While I love the quality of DAC kits, seeing how they’re trying to stop Hannah from getting licensed with other diamond painting companies is giving me the ick!
Kudos to you for at least making the community aware of this. I don't believe a good company needs to spend their time, money, energy on attacking the competition. Instead just create the best product and niche in the industry you can and you will be successful. I feel for this artist who is trying to make a living. 😢
Thank you for talking about this! I was really hoping RUclipsrs would talk about this because like you said it feels like they are definitely sweeping this under the rug and it’s important to talk about!
I used to work as a graphic designer on an independent contractor basis back in the early 2000's. This was around the time when copyrights were being determined legally as it pertained to digital art. I know I had to buy a license from an artist for specific digital copies in order to use them in the making of any website layout or any digital manipulation of the images. The artwork itself was not sold. We only bought the rights to use the image. I can't imagine this changed. Imo Hannah Lynn should own the rights to her work. Based on what I am hearing, it sounds like Hannah Lynn could sue DAC for terminating her contract early, providing that I understand that correctly. In regard to her art being rendered, well DAC certainly does not own the rights to rendering an image into a diamond painting. That would be like saying because WalMart sells Kleenex, Target can't sell Kleenex. The process of creating a diamond painting is the same. The only gray area I see here is the human element. As I understand it, DAC hires people to remove the "noise" that occurs anytime you copy art into digital form. They also hire people to chart special drills. That is the work of those individuals. I'm not a corporate attorney. I would think that would fall on the other companies and not Hannah Lynn herself. I honestly don't understand why DAC would be suing her UNLESS she signed some sort of agreement to wait a specified period of time before releasing her work to another company. Just my 2 cents on this subject. It certainly is something to think about.
She def should own the rights to her art. It is pretty confusing and I am leaning more towards them trying to throw thier weight around and it makes me sad. I am also leaning more artist loyalty vs company too. I dont want to unintentionally punish artists because of what company they are contracted with.
I appreciate you posting this and going through the legal statements and everything. It sounds to ke like you're trying very hard to stick to the facts, and you are very clear when what you are voicing is solely your opinion. I have so much respect for that, it really shows integrity on your part. This sounds really complicated. I don't know anything about copyright law, so I don't know if DAC was granted rights to those specific images in perpetuity or just until the end of the contract. I also don't know if the images she is currently licensing are the same ones she had licensed to DAC or are new images. I feel like there should be no way DAC owns the rights to art she never licensed to them, but again, I don't know what images are being used. The way DAC is trash talking those other companies is pretty juvenile, and honestly really shitty. That should be beneath them. It's interesting how incredibly threatened DAC is by her licensing to other companies! What I think they meant by her "capitalizing on the market DAC created" is not the market for diamond painting, but the market for *her* paintings. DAC is upset that they created this huge fan base for her diamond art, and now she is going to go to other companies and take that fan base away. Which is dumb, because if they aren't going to be producing more of her art, those people would be looking elsewhere anyway, for other art that resembles hers. And would still be purchasing other art from DAC. Of course, *now* they might not, given what information we currently have about the situation. Granted, we only have her side of the story, but she is presenting evidence of the company's words, and it doesn't make DAC look good. We'll have to wait and see what the company says, if anything. Oh, and just because I like random facts, the § symbol stands for "state statute". They are the actual written laws of that state. So when they say "under § (whatever number)", they are saying "according to this specific law..." (I entered a paralegal program briefly. Look, I used something I learned! 😂)
That is exactly what I was trying to do. I'm glad that is what you got from it so that means I actually did it. I was worried about that honestly. I think the problem is she is releasing the images that she had previously done with DAC. I am still not sure if they did new rendering or not. I am hoping they did. I really do not like the communication style in bashing other companies. It just sound petty and I agree juvenile. DAC is established and not going anywhere. So I don't understand the animosity. Hannah already had a huge fanbase and was established already. DAC actually gained more customers because Hannah went with them. I do think her fan base grew some because of DAC but she was already established as well. I do agree that people would already be looking elsewhere since they decided to retire her works before the contract ended. I think the exclusivity thing is selfish but business is business I guess. I really hope DAC responds and we can get more of a picture of the whole story. HAHAHA That make my day about the weird s thingy. IDK how to get my keyboard to do it.
@MyShalora , DAC didn't "make" Hannah Lynn. Her art has been out there for a long time. I knew who she was, through other creative endeavors I pursue, way before they licensed her. I can say that they probably did introduce her to new people, though.
@@EclecticBedlam I was saying that was what THEY were saying. That that was what DAC meant when they said that. I never once said it wad true or I believed it. I was just saying "this may be what they meant by these words". Don't come at me.
I've had no problems with DAC except when I made a review about one painting that I rated 3.5 because of how bad the drills were. They immediately deleted the review that except for the rating number was still very favorable to them as to how I felt about the company. I'm not a Hannah Lynn art fan and only wanted Groovy Girl because it is a nostalgic piece for me, but I missed it because of what happened. I have no respect for a company that would bully their clients, there are millions of artists work to choose so cut all ties, settle and move on. DAC is only hurting themselves as well known artists will now avoid doing business not wanting the drama and possible lawsuits.
I don't think they should be able to delete reviews or parts of reviews. That is deceptive. Mistakes are going to happen especially with such a huge production process and high demand.
This is so messy ☹ I think it'll be interesting to see what happens. I feel it's unethical for HL to use exact renderings (if that's what happened) given that the renderings are hand charted by artists -- but whether or not it's actually illegal is another thing altogether and definitely for the lawyers to decide. With that said, I also feel really disappointed by the way DAC has chosen to conduct themselves. Not only with HL, but with their own consumers. I've never in my life witnessed a B2C company make their own consumers feel afraid to share differing opinions on them. They feel like schoolyard bullies, and it's so disappointing to see.
Zoe! I miss your videos! I subscribed but only got to see about 6 of them but then you disappeared. Have you decided to end your channel or just taking a break?
@@TheDesertMermaid5766 you’re so kind! Just taking a break. 🥰 Actually vlogging the next few days, so a new video should be out soon! Thanks for the sweet words!! 💖💖
Thank you for covering this. A huge reason why I supported DAC in the past (I’m not sure if I will continue to do so) is because they license their artwork and compensate the artists. Unfortunately I’m not surprised to hear a large corporation is bullying an artist, and I’m not surprised they are trying to sweep it under the rug. It’s not a good look. I guess we will see if they decide to sue.
Hats off to you for having the bravery to post this. I personally am fearful of ever saying anything overly negative on my channel, for fear of retribution, which I believe I have heard has resulted in being banned, and as I do like their products, and specific artists still licensed through them, I do not want that to happen to me for sharing some things I’ve learned on my own. Almost didn’t comment because of this, but wanted to commend you for your bravery and subscribed because of it. All that being said: what I am getting (and I’d really need to read the legal stuff myself to truly understand), is I think it’s not about licensing with another company, but using the exact same images that they previously produced. I’m guessing that’s where the problem is, but I could be wrong of course too. Whether that’s right or wrong or legal, I don’t know since I don’t have their contract to review.
Yeah that could be the problem too. But it is also clear that DAC knew that was happening. Also if the new companie/ companies rendered it themselves it shouldn't matter. There wouldn't be much difference anyways. Contract was fulfilled and they seperated. But that is also just my opinion. Thank you for the kind words. I am a fan of the artists they have too and hoping I don't get banned. I am a Diamond and have shown my support I think speaking about concerns and wondering about a statement should be fine. But I guess we will see. I have faith that they wont care about my video. That being said I can't lie and say I'm not scared. You are amazing. I have actually been subbed to you for a while. I'm just the lurker type most the time listening to videos for my background noise tool.
@@diamondsandthoughts awe! You’re so kind! Thank you! There is so much I want to say in response, just to keep the conversation going, but I am literally scared myself and it really shouldn’t be that way.
Same images or not is irrelevant, they never owned the artwork. They only had a license to use it for their own derivatives. As in they had a license to turn her art, to which she owns the full copyright, into diamond paintings.
@@some.craftz I’m not here to argue. I’m not making any statements or accusations, only a speculative hypothesis based on the information provided. No one can fully understand the situation without seeing the entirety of the legal documents and contracts. Besides Ms Lynn’s feelings, statements, opinions, facts, etc., that she has chosen to share with us, it’s all just speculation from the outside world. All we can do is continue to support artists, be understanding, and support this platform where such serious matters may be revealed, and treat everyone else with understanding and kindness in return.
Her art is hers! Because you (dac) add the numbers or symbols for the “paint by numbers” painting with diamonds doesn’t change the artwork belongs to the artist! I LOVE DAC!! 😢But I say this all the time in confusion to how people complete a diamond painting and enter it into a competition like at a county fair AND win a ribbon for it!!!!! If it was a paper written in a class such as in college it would be considered plagiarism AND can get the student expelled! YOU ARE NOT THE CREATOR therefore you should not lay claim to the ORIGINAL ART!!!
I didn't know people submitted them into competitions. That's crazy. They are a lot of work, especially if you re-chart and add your own bling. But it is still someone else's creation.
First, I started reading the post on Facebook yesterday but didn't finish it. So, thank you for reading it to us..I had no idea these kind of issues existed..Hannah Lynn DP's have never been my cup of tea..maybe bacause I am older..I don't begin to understand who is in the right or wrong or if they are both in the right...I hope that the issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all parties involved..
You did a great job of covering this. I hadn't heard about it, even though I 'follow' Hannah Lynn's page. What all this does for me, and other drama in the DP world right now, is not want to have anything to do with DP on social media. I love DP, but it's not relaxing anymore because this company is complaining about this, and that company is complaining about that, and don't say this in this group, and don't say that is that group. Thinking maybe it's time to turn it all off, and just sit and watch old movies while I paint. Get my stash down to a bare minimum of paintings I really love, and let go of all the nonsense. That being said, I am glad you put it all on the table. But as a person that just loves to diamond paint, maybe I just need to do that, and pick paintings I truly love, and let the people and companies fight their own battles.
I 100% get this. Do what you love and decompress that way. I hope you continue to enjoy the hobby. I'm not trying to bring stress and drama. Just wanted to open the conversation about the relationships between artist and company. I hope they are able to come to a conclusion and move on.
Thank you for posting this. I personally have never had a bad experience with DAC and their customer service for me (only speaking for me) has been amazing. However this makes me very sad because Hannah Lynn is one of my favorites. I love those big eyed whimsical girls. I really hope that all parties get things worked out.
Thank you for watching. The response to this video is so much more than I thought it would ever be. I haven't had a bad experience either and I am hoping it stays that way. It makes me sad too I want to continue loving this company. And I want Hannah Lynn to be able to continue doing what she loves and make money.
The fact that the company who shall not be named from now on was founded in 2018 says it all! I know for a fact that dreamer designs is older than they are but there have always been kits on amazon before then too! They are trying to monopolize and clearly have with their FOMO but I hope this brings light to day about their motives. I haven't bought from them all year and will never purchase from them again.
I feel like that too When I recorded the video today I said that business or that specific company. Like I really felt like I couldn't say it! It is wild!
The artist want get given the rendered art the DAC have for it, That be in their files and for them only the artist will only have the files she sent in for that art work. So she want be using the some files they did to make them their side. They are claming her art work from sounds of it. Sounds like they want to keep it under their name to use at later date. If they choice to put it back up then they dont need to pay her for it is what they are tring to do. Everything they are doing is wrong and breaking so many rules n laws its nuts.
It sounds like a non-compete, which is moot due to a recent FTC ruling. Hopefully, she didn't sign something similar without realizing it. My husband got a nasty-gram from his former employer's law firm. It was a threat. We ignored it and moved on. There is nothing they can do.
good to know. What does FTC stand for again. I know I have heard it before but I am drawing a blank right now. haha its passed my bedtime and I'm trying to catch up on all the comments I missed.
@morissasweeney yep, they can't do anything and Hannah should move on. The contract is finished at termination anyway, which DAC has done on their request. On face value, I don't see any "in perpetuity" language.
DAC is greedy. I haven't liked much of what they've been offering for months, now and haven't been buying any. I'm not a huge fan of portraits, so I don't have many HL pictures but I do have 1 or 2. I hope they don't start treating other well-known artists this way when their contracts are up
1. Send the possible contract to a lawyer FIRST. 2. Never sign away derivatives of your work. 3. Never sign away intellectual rights. 4. Never sign a None Dis-closer Agreement. 5. Never be exclusive to any company.
I actually love Hannah Lynn artwork and am saddened she has to deal with this. Art and Soul hand renders each Hannah Lynn piece it puts out, which is why they have only released a handful so far because it is so time occupying. So I would feel confident in saying they don’t use the DAC rendering. It literally reminds me of the Taylor Swift case and basically not being able to “own” their own artwork. It seems like DAC is being selfish and trying to keep her artwork to themselves because they know she has a large fan base. It’s ridiculous though because not only is their contract over and artwork no longer available, they are no longer getting anything out of it. They are not making money (nor losing money) from Hannah Lynn anymore 🤷🏻♀️ They have tons of other artists so I don’t understand why they are doing this to her. Let her be free and move on. I love DAC and will continue to purchase from them because their quality is great, but them trying to monopolize the market is sad and makes them look bad in my opinion. Let your company’s quality speak for itself and not try to take down other companies and artists in the process.
I know nothing of the Taylor Swift case. I thought she just did music haha I am so out of the loop. Are you saying that Taylor is trying to claim their own art of her? Tell it to me like I am a dummy haha. They do have tons are artists and like 700 pieces to be restocked. They will be fine and are well established. So this isn't even a blow against them IMO.
@@diamondsandthoughtsTaylor had issues of not being able to own the rights to her songs that she wrote and recorded under a certain label. She ended up re-recording her old songs (hence Taylor’s Version if you’ve seen that). There is a documentary about it on MAX. I’m a huge Taylor fan too lol. Just sad this keeps happening to artists (of any medium)
This makes me very sad. My first full size diamond painting is Geisha by Hannah Lynn. I started it in 2020 and paused my hobby until recently. I am now finishing the painting and was shocked to learn that DAC no longer carries Hannah Lynn's artwork. I had no idea why until now. I was really looking forward to working more of her paintings. I won't ever leave DAC because I absolutely trust their quality and support moreso than other companies...but this situation makes me so so sad. I feel truly grateful that I at least have one of her pieces that I can display and enjoy.
I am pretty sure because the contract was terminated any and all of the terms aligned in with the contract are permanently terminated as well. She will have to confirm with an attorney.
Makes me think of Mr. Disney beginning. He worked with a company that hired all his artist and per contract kept all his characters except the mouse. Contracts are very confusing.
@@dwagner8468 contracts are not supposed to be confusing. If there's confusion in a contract, it favours the party who didn't write the contract. For example, if DAC wrote the contract Hannah signed and it's confusing, the law would favour Hannah.
It makes me sad that you kept saying you were afraid to post this. I've also been nervous to comment when things weren't perfect and have avoided it altogether for fear of being banned. It's supposed to be a relaxing hobby.
Makes me sad too. But whats done is done and I did it anyways. Still scared though because I am a diamond and love the product. I just want a statement and both sides of the story. And maybe some acknowledgment that their community feels scared of them.
As far as I know about renderings from my experience, unless the company that is hand rendering is giving it back to the artist or putting it out in public (without watermarks) is not the artist's concern or responsibility - renders are directly between the diamond painting company and their supplier. The artist does not usually get involved with how the company renders. Purchasing licensing rights is just that - you can license the image to sell for specific conditions within the contract - it doesn't give "ownership" of the image. It stinks on how bad some companies are handling things with the individual artists, I have experienced it and have seen it throughout the community. There's a professional way to handle things and a way that creates more drama, and too much in this community there's drama. This is the first time I've seen your channel and wow. Thank you so much for your opinions and commentary - I don't normally get involved with the community drama so this is interesting.
This is the only community that I know of so far that has the least amount of drama and I am saddened by that slowly starting to change. That being said if something is concerning the community should be able to talk about it without fear or at least be able to ask questions. I think I added to the drama problem unfortunately by breaking the unspoken rule of not speaking negatively about anything in the community. My goal was to react and point out both sides and ask for a statement because we are only getting one side of the story and that isn't enough information for me to make an informed decision on where to spend my money. I honestly thought more would be talking about it because DAC is such a huge loved company.
I am so torn on this. I love the quality of DAC and have about 10 more in my stash , but if this is all true then that puts a bad taste in my mouth. I just need to know more before I buy again. Btw… just found your page and subbed. You and I seem very similar. 💜
I agree. I would need more information. But also, I'm starting to lean more towards artist loyalty vs. Company. I don't want to punish artists who are already in a contractual agreement, too, ya know.
@@diamondsandthoughts I completely agree. Being an artist - not nearly as talented as the DAC artists - I would want people to buy licensed items that were obtained in a correct and non-threatening manor. It’s all so crazy!
Don't compare yourself to others. There is art on there that I do not like at all but others love. So it doesn't mean that the art I don't personally like is bad.
I love DAC, I'm also not a fan of Hannah's artwork. But I think DAC is messing up. It makes me mad at DAC. Leave the little guy alone, DAC. Suck it up and move on.
First off, I have so much respect for you for trying to have an open conversation about this. People are quite literally scared of posting anything not 100% positive about DAC out of fear of being banned - and yes, people do actually get banned. Secondly, out of respect for you and your request I will keep my comment as nice and civilised as possible. DAC have an excellent product, but their business practices are shady as hell in my opinion. I cannot fathom how any company can find it acceptable to bully their customers and artists. I also know from experience that their customer service comes across as amazing, until you dare complain about something. They banned so many loyal customers after their beef with Bella Art de Nicole last year, which I find ridiculous, and have in the past threatened multiple small diamond painting companies. As for your question about her using DAC's rendering - that would be impossible, unless an actual person sat down and copied every drill over from a DAC kit. They render in-house, and produce in-house. Art & Soul had the same images hand charted, which would be completely within their right and Hannah's rights, as she retained the right to her original artwork. The marketing image they are referring to in the letter was an occasion where Art & Soul posted an old rendering from DAC because their own rendering was not complete at the time of the announcement. My understanding is that Hannah asked them to remove it until their own rendering was completed, and they did so immediately. DAC had a license to use her artwork for a limited time, and that contract has now expired. So in essence they are trying to restrict her from licensing artwork they previously had a limited time use license for to any other company forever. That - in my opinion - is wrong. If anything, this is sour grapes on DAC's side because they are no longer profiting from her work and don't want anyone else to sell her work. The diamond painting market is huge. DAC should just let other companies have their moment in the sun as well, instead of acting like the way they are and tarnishing their own name.
Thank you for the kind words. I am trying to make sure this stays as a conversation and that everyone knows it's okay to have different opinions. I just find it weird no one else is talking about it. I am still scared of being banned but so far not a peep. So I am gaining some faith that I may be fine. I cant seem to find anything on the beef with Bella. I looked and cant find anything. If you want you can email me some of the stuff so I can check it out. I'm curious now. You are not the first one to comment on this. ahhh thanks for the clarification. I think that DAC shouldn't limit their artist and make it hard for them to move on. They are established and not going anywhere. The contract is up and the exclusivity thing is icky to me. But I also understand it. But also they should also be able to other companies after the contract is up. Three years is a long time.
I’m very new to the DP world… But I think this whole situation comes down to the original contract and the exact wording that was used… unfortunately words get slipped in and agreements and clauses get added and people sign things that later come out and then it’s a problem… such as with speaking about the financial side of the contract. Even if the contract has ended so NDA’s can last much longer than the original contract agreement. It’s definitely not right! But people see the money and sign without having a lawyer of their own look it over and make sure it’s in their best interest… this is a horrible situation and I feel sorry for this artist and I hope they get the win on this… But this is just a reminder to all artists have an attorney read over all documents so that your contract is what’s best for you not the company…
"she's not using DACs rendering" She is though, there were multiple conversations on facebook where she cleary stated that she was using the DAC renders.
@@diamondsandthoughts @diamondsandthoughts Oh I think you deleted mine by mistake then because mine was civil, I didn't say anything about being an attorney. I forget what I said honestly but Im emailing you the screen shot I have. It seems like HL thinks she owns the render and DAC thinks they own it and that is the main issue since the DAC render was used to promote the Art and Soul product and since HL has told people Art and Soul will have the "same render" as DAC. Im not going to spend more time on this but the comments are available in the replies of her FB post.
Having never used DAC, these hard tactics by lawyers seem overkill for products they no longer do, except if she is using their rendered work. Evenstill I believe there should be middleground or mediation which it appears not to be an option. Artists by nature have fluctuating income and this seems incredibly sad.
I don't feel like watching videos of dac unboxnings anymore because this whole behavior from them doesn't sound good. I won't unsubscribe from the youtubers I follow if they unbox and talk about other brands but i probably won't watch the dac videos
I can understand that. I really don't think we as a community should hold any fire to the affiliates feet. They aren't doing anything wrong and are doing it for free. I don't think DAC pays them to make content and the affiliate link is only a one time use for a first time buyer only. The majority of people watching the unboxings are returning customers or subs. So I don't see how they are making anything significant. Plus they are getting that artists name out there and they artists shouldn't be punished. They are already contractually obligated and this isn't on any of them.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for opening up a discussion about this. My thoughts on a couple things including using the renderings…Not Legal Advice.
This is arguably a case of “renders/charts” being determined as pixelated copies because of them being SO CLOSE to the original art (or even cross stitch charts that preceded them, and with the colors, formatting, sizes, and processes being so close between manufacturers), or if the charts would qualify for derivative status (I don’t believe they will)-but either way, in the case of a pixelated copy, the protection and ownership simply falls under my ORIGINAL copyright, but if they are determined as derivatives…that copyright is also still mine as per the agreement as I retain all rights to my work, including derivatives. “Licensee agrees it will not claim any intellectual ownership rights to the Artwork, or any derivative, or compilation thereof, unless such rights are granted to Licensee by Licensor.” I did not send them my work so they could copy it and then immediately OWN it upon “creation of a copy”, claiming that I can’t copy “their” copy forevermore!?! It’s too slippery of a slope. Because the process of charting is so similar in the industry, if I sent the same original artwork to 10 different Diamond painting manufacturers, even if they blindly created a chart without looking at any previous renderings, the chances of a couple of them coming “too close” or even exact are VERY HIGH and we’d be in court every other month fighting over each pixel, which would dissuade any Diamond painting company from ever working with my portfolio as they’d be afraid they’d “accidentally” be infringing on someone else’s renderings just in regular course of business. This is why the laws say in order for a derivative to qualify for its own protection it has to be more than “trivial” changes because no judge is going to rule pixel by pixel, and that ownership is ultimately determined by the original owner of the copyright. It’s just too close to the original. In fact, the closer the chart is to the original, the better the overall result with cross stitch and diamond painting. Just like how if someone referenced my art (by looking at it) and tried to paint it exactly the way I did (or like when someone paints a portrait that started as a photograph), it would obviously be “different” because a different hand did it and it’s in a different medium, but it’s still a copy by definition. You can get up on it closely and say “oh this line is wobbly and the original line is straighter”, but when you look at it from a regular viewing distance, it is recognizable as a copy of the original artwork. Even a paper or canvas print from a printer is created using pixels from a computer and tiny droplets of ink, and the colors and size will definitely be different-it’s still a copy. When it comes to copies, they can be blurry, crappy, amazing, or even adjusted for contrast, cropped, painted by hand…still a copy of my artwork which can only be owned and copyrighted by me unless I have sold someone the rights, which I DID NOT. This was a limited licensing agreement that is now expired. The amount of “work” someone puts into something doesn’t change ownership either. If it did, then your building contractor would own your house and be able to tell you what paint colors to use, or your vehicle manufacturer or mechanic would own your car.
2. They are also claiming that somehow the term of exclusivity extends beyond the agreement and that I’m still exclusive with them (for how long!?!) for all of my artworks in the entire field of Diamond painting, which would mean that includes artwork they had, artwork they didn’t have, and maybe artwork that wasn't even created yet!?? It was a 3 year contract, but somehow I’m to understand it’s exclusive FOREVER for Diamond paintings now?!? If this was their position, why didn’t they say that when we were negotiating either upfront or when we were talking about separating?
3. The owner of anything ultimately has the power over it. They can change it, license it, trash it, and stop others from using it, even if they don’t want to use it themselves. This cannot be them, per the contract, and I never would have signed a licensing agreement that didn’t state I own all the rights to my work, and they never would have received my work or the authorization to create the charts for the compensation we discussed. They didn’t buy the rights to my work, they borrowed them, and that's the cost difference between renting a car for a weekend vs. buying it. If a Diamond painting company truly owns it, then I lose my rights, as if I sold them, period. There can be no in-between here where I shouldn’t be allowed to “copy” “their” rendering; it’s not their rendering by legal definition, it’s mine and I'll explain why it matters so much. That’s just how ownership in almost everything works. As the legal owner I can use it, license it, sell it, reference it, copy it, or stop people from using it without special permission. If THEY own it, that means they can do all those things now without paying me, consulting me, asking me….because they OWN it? So if they take the original artwork off the packaging and replace it with the “rendering” (copy of my work) they can now sell it forever without paying me anything and also stop anyone else from doing so including ME!?! Mmmm, no. I hope you all can see how this CANNOT STAND in a court of law and I have to deal with it. I MUST maintain clear ownership over my copyrights and there has to be a DEFINED line in that ownership. It cannot be unclear or confusing in any way. I aim to get to a place where there can be no more confusion or questions about if I can or cannot legally or ethically “copy” or “reference” these renderings, which are a direct copy of my work and owned by me. The answer is emphatically YES. They were not created "from scratch" they were created from MY ARTWORK. Also if they are claiming they own them because “they created” them, who exactly in their company owns them-is it the executives…or the graphic artist they paid that actually DID the work? The contract is clear-I own all rights to my original artwork AND derivatives (if applicable). I’m not being mean, picky, difficult, shady, or unethical. I am protecting my business assets and other companies that I work with. I will not, as some have mentioned, “change a few colors” here and there or the size to avoid conflict with a company who has zero ownership or say over my art AND is trying to take my rights away, as a matter of principle; and because it sends the confusing message that somehow I have to yield to or “respect their copyrights", which don't exist in relation to my artwork. Ultimately it’s up to the companies I work with to use whatever process they want, but if I’ve legally licensed my artwork to them, then that would simply by default INCLUDE these copies or derivatives for them to reference or use if they so choose, and because it’s a process based on copying my original art as closely as possible, I simply CAN’T promise that their competitors WON’T produce a copy or near copy of those renderings through normal course of production, even if I wanted to!)-and if that’s what DAC really wanted, then they should have offered to BUY the rights, more like a film contract, in which case--yes, I would not have been able to contract elsewhere for the same product, which would have better protected them from the possibility of it being "accidentally" infringed upon. Which is why I’ve said publicly many times that I’ll use any renderings that have been done in the past if I like them without apology or moral dilemma, because I have nothing to be ethically or legally concerned about and absolutely nothing to hide-and their arguments on this subject cannot stand in a court of law (but they can still sue me and waste my time and money defending myself). They cannot tell me what to do with my art. I’m standing on my rights and I’m not moving, and I’m not just doing it for me-I’m doing it for all artists. We are done being exploited and manipulated! Thanks for the support! Hannah Lynn
“Licensee agrees it will not claim any intellectual ownership rights to the Artwork, or any derivative, or compilation thereof, unless such rights are granted to Licensee by Licensor.” That is ambiguous legal language (or mumbo jumbo) that might be the heart of what's being challenged. The words "will not claim any intellectual ownership rights or any derivative or compilation thereof" is pretty straight forward until you get the the word "unless." And then the words "such rights are granted ..." Basically by virtue of this agreement for them to render the work to sell as diamond paintings, they are claiming you have granted that right, so they claim ownership. But all that is for the lawyers to fight over and I hope they settle in your favor and you can put this whole thing behind you without ever having to go to court.
Hannah I’m supporting you 110%
Hannah - on point no 2, the agreement is not granted “in perpetuity”, therefore once the agreement ends, the licence of use also ends. Ask your lawyer about thar specific language. Also, ambiguity in a contract favours the party who didn’t write the contract, in this case you, because DAC wrote the contract. Good luck with it all, I think you have a strong case.
I'm just...my jaw is on the floor now. Hannah Lynn's paintings are some of my most fun ones that I completed. First of all, I agree with Hannah Lynn 100%. I would have thought if she did have a problem it would be with another company, but this Diamond Art Club. DAC is my home & family. It is my happy place. How was I so unaware of this?!?!? This is blatant disregard for the artists. But I would have thought they would have WANTED to keep her as an artist because Hannah's paintings are so popular. How is this happening? I simply had no idea of the stress this poor artist been made to endure. I'm just speechless atm. I just cannot believe this is happening.🤯
This absolutely does NOT surprise me with the other things I’ve heard about them abusing artists while pretending to be doing them a favor by only using licensed art. They are shady af with their behavior towards the artists AND their customers, which I have experienced myself. I lost over $50 worth of rewards after posting a comment on a video about how I disliked their business practices. DAC are spiteful and vicious and Hannah, I hope you can find some damn good lawyers.
Affiliates are scared to talk about it coz they will get banned. It so sad that people is turning a blind eye on this very serious issue.
I agree. I am not affiliated with anyone which is going to make it har to make this a job but I will find a way so I can stay unbiased. lol
DAC is starting to sound like the Mafia of diamond painting 😂.
@@Naener1977 👍🤣🤣🤣
haha they do huh?
@@diamondsandthoughts lol
They have a cult like following.
I had to leave their Facebook group. It was cultish and weird.
I am on Hannah's side. This is not the first time DAC behaves like this with artists and customers. It's time they learn a lesson, so if this goes to court, hope DAC will lose.
I think more artists need to come out if its ever going to be fully addressed or ever changed. But this may be the start of that. People are allowed to talk their minds but it seems no one is really willing to. I know I was terrified of posting this video.
It sounds like lots of artists don’t understand the contacts and ownership of rendering and rights to produce Art already produced by DAC.
@@imissnj2 new renderings were made, the didn't use DAC's and there are screenshots on reddit proving it
@@nephtys1959 It still her art work. She made it and gave the company the chance to use what she made. They don't own her artwork.
Sounds like DAC is on a power trip thinking they can control people and the diamond market. For instance, the FOMO to me is ridiculous .They cause this on purpose so they can sell more. I had many of situations where I felt they are holding back on the paintings to cause panic upon buyers.
It not a good way to do business.
I can see a lot of people not buying from them any more, "this includes me."
No artist who they gave the privilege to use their artwork should be treated in such a manner.
At the end of the day, it still her artwork. .....peroid.
@@imissnj2any company has the right to render her art if she gives permission to, they hold no copyright on any of her artwork she retains that even if they have sold her art before
Personally, Im going to boycott DAC. This isn't the first I've heard about bullying tactics from DAC. The whole mess in the Canadian Facebook group and people getting booted out of the group when it changed to only DAC being permitted, instead of all licensed kits. I love their quality, but they have lost my business.
OMG that just happened to me! I just made a very respectful comment in PRIVATE to the admin about the Hannah Lynn situation. She had deleted my post, I just told her I thought justice and freedom of speech was important and... she banned me! I That's it...
@@KatA7X my husband likened it to the 'Soup Nazi' on Seinfeld. Am I aging myself? 😆
No soup for you!!!!
what mess in the Canadian group? I miss everything lol was it recent?
I'm sad that their actions are the reason people are so unhappy because the quality is there.
Wow. I'm sorry that happened.
It is not an accident no one is hearing anything. When posts of substantive value are removed from public forums to manipulate the appearance of customer satisfaction, that’s fraud. Not sure how much I can say without bashing, but there are a lot of people who feel very hurt, both financially and personally by DAC. I commend your courage for speaking out, and I hope that you aren’t banned and blocked for asking questions.
information and opinions are not bashing in my opinion. I really just want no disrespect or threats. I love what your bringing up because I didn't even think of the fraud angle. I wonder if that will ever be more openly talked about. There are other companies that do this too I think and it's more of a hidden dark secret that I think is really hard to prove ya know. So it's almost like people dont think its not worth it to talk about. It's all just allegations forever like now.
I am so saddened that there are so many people hurt from the actions that seem to be coming to light recently. Like I said I hope they can make things right with their audience and customers. But I also think that sometimes business practices and morals do not always align.
I’ve noticed a lot of the bigger RUclipsrs have stated in 2024 they want to “branch out to other companies”. I’ve really noticed this shift of late and reckon they’ve had additional insights which have caused this shift. A monopoly is never good for a brand.
I may be to new to have seen that. I know of one so far but I think you may be onto something!
I'm not a part if the HL fanbase or anything but 2 things are clear to me:
1. I will never stand to watch a massive multi-million (maybe even billion at some point soon) institution do a witch hunt and pursue causing damage and inflicting revenge aginst a single artist EVEN IF that person caused them some kind of trouble. The imbalance of power and pain is just not fair.
2. I will not support a company who makes me scared of just talking about a product, especially when it is just a hobby and its supposed to relieve our stress and anxiety. It now appears predatory and terrifies it's customer base.
I have become very well practiced in boycotts over the last few months and it is a very easy decision to conisder growing that list. Yes it is the industry leader, but there are endless alternatives still.
Also, F*ck capitalism ❤
1. yeah don't pick on the little guys. They are just trying to survive.
2. I get that. I am hoping they make a statement. I also know we arent getting the full story. I am just going to go with the flow. I just wanted to react to the statement and give some unprofessional opinions.
It's not just single artists they do it with other businesses too. They think they have the monopoly on the diamond painting market but there's so many great quality companies out there. I still like their kits but have seen a major change in style and artists this year.
@@StacysRitzyDPCraftssame. I’ve bought so much less from them. The kits just haven’t been my cup of tea lately, most of this year, really.
But without capitalism you won't have any other choices to give your business to, so there's that.
@@Christine__D
Listen,
You sound like you have not a single idea what capitalism is. Or how the economy runs to begin with.
You only know that "capitalism goooood" because that's what they tell you on TV.
You need to live in other countries, in different continents, with people who don't look like you, speak like you, or like you.
People who don't parrot what you say, and be comfortable listening to things that you oppose.
You need to have studied economy for more than a week, know more than grade 12 math, been in capitalistic hellholes that are experiencing the end stages of Capitalism, to know what the hell you're talking about.
Notice how they were telling her how other companies drills are not resin like theirs and making it seem as if she will get crappy results when she goes to another company lol 😂 😅. It’s like a divorced spouse saying you’ll never find another me. 😅
Yeah I really didn't like that at all. That is not professional communication at all and sounded really petty. The communications need work.
Art and Soul does use resin drills.
THIS! If DAC were a person, they would be the WORST narcissist on the planet in my opinion. They are "NEVER" wrong.
I will not support DAC. She is the sweetest person. She is not the first artist they have done something like this to. I am team Hannah. They are bullying her…. I loved them but this is not ok…
I feel like a lot of people have this opinion too. It is sad she is being backed into a corner. I dont have enough information yet to make a full judgment. But I will keep an eye on it. I am disappointed with their communication style and the way they talk about their competitors
I’ve never got one kit off them there massivly overpriced it’s ridiculous
Dac did not send Hannah off with their original rendered programs. However, dac paintings are in the wild and easily copied. The contract ends, Dac tried to scare her into staying, and due to poor treatment Hannah left. Now they have regrets and are going to tie her up in court. Dac hates Bella Art and has banned them and threatened them by litigious means. Bella picked up Hannah and now Hannah is in court. Dac specifically states in the email they still have the charts and could start right back up if Hannah would just come back. Hannah is finding new companies to work with and I would say Dac is burning a bridge when they only meant to threaten her to sign a contract more beneficial to dac. Shameful. Hannah's work is original, all DAC and every other company is just using a pixelating program and then gone over by hand. Without the artwork no chart!
I cant find anything on this Bella stuff but keep hearing about it. I really hope they stop picking on the little guys it is a terrible look.
@@diamondsandthoughts I go to the same retreat as the owners of Bella Art and was told last year of their difficulties with DAC. This year we were told to expect many Hannah Lynn paintings in the coming months and days later I see DAC emails were sent to Hannah. Seems suspicious to me.
@@diamondsandthoughtscheck their RUclips channel. They had the whole story there
The simple fact that you were so afraid to make this video & many others are afraid to say anything other than "All Hail DAC. They are the DP Gods" speaks volumes and only confirms what MANY others have said for awhile now regarding them silencing people and not allowing honest feedback. It is a shame. I have bought from this company from the very very beginning. All Hannah Lynn legal things aside, the silencing of any feedback that does not fit their "ideal" is concerning.
This. Silencing a whole fanbace and platform is weird. I really thought there would be more videos on it and I think mine is the only one. It's not bad to report on the goings on and open a conversation.
DAC being a bully. They say they support artists but then try to destroy them when they leave. Shameful!
You know I'm seriously disappointed in DAC. Why did they let their head get swollen. Seems to me that since her artwork was pretty popular under DAC, DAC wants to ensure it doesn't loose this income opportunity for it's business any time soon. That falls under GREED. How in the world does DAC now figure, "it's mine it's all mine" and proceed with measures to secure that mindset over this artist's work. Have there been other artist who went through this in silence because they've been strong armed whether an artist was naive or in fear? Oh Man! This is just so messed up for me as I looked up to DAC as a new diamond painter and hoped one day to obtain a lux canvas from them. Well, safe to say that isn't on my list any more. I hope the attorney's for these two parties settle this in a MORAL DIRECTION and that DAC especially learns valuable lessons. The owner/s of DAC have made an awful mistake and needs now to atone. HUMILITY DAC, will keep you intact.
They had already stopped producing her works before the contract ended. I think they had one last hurrah with a single restock but that's it. They have the capability to keep things in stock or at least pre order but choose not to so they can feed into that FOMO marketing tactic. I agreed greed is showing. But that is also business.
I am not sure if there are other artists who went through this and were silenced. There are rumors that there is. Maybe now they will speak out. or DAC will clear things up. But who knows at this point.
I hope they do come to a moral decision too but sometime morals and business as well as the law don't align.
Chuck pinson went through this exact same thing, he had to stop contracting with Dreamer designs because they pulled this BS with him too
@@sparklinbudgets
Wow! It is such a shame that growing businesses that have created a name for themselves based on GOOD QUALITIES then become corrupted/tarnished by GREED. This is plain and simply what it is. Have a Blessed weekend.
@@diamondsandthoughts
I do agree that this behavior is considered or rides under the term business but this type is UGLY BUSINESS, BAD BUSINESS, IMMORAL BUSINESS etc. Have a Blessed weekend.
I wonder if DAC is meant don't use that painting because we have handcharted it & someone else may handchart it too & it may come too close to the DAC's rendering style, because you can only change it so much before it may look similar to DAC's & cost less. Maybe, that's why the owner of DAC was asking for not the kits that they rendered be used. But she can work with other companies using other paintings that DAC hasn't used. This way DAC keeps their secret way their way of rendering & HL can create new art & work with other companies. It's a win-win for both. Neither of them has to even go to court. I don't know how to feel. Tbh, I am still in shock after this video showed in my feed. I love DAC & I love Hannah Lynn's artwork & her spirit. What am I supposed to do now? I'm torn between my fav company & one of my beloved artists🥺💔. I feel numb. Are DAC truly doing this to other artists too? But they want to compensate all artists & do right by them, right? right?!?😢
I’m new to DP and was looking to my buy a premium painting from DAC. But something told me not to… and then I discovered Dreamers Design and like them better. Then DAC VIP denied my post because I answered that I don’t have a favorite artist yet. That made me not want to buy at all from them and then this!!! I am definitely not buying from them at all, regardless if she’s trying to use their rendering or not. I had a feeling DAC was not a very good company. I will not buy from them. They lost a customer that likes to spend money 💴 oh well moving on to the billion other companies that sell DP.
I get that. Sometimes you have to listen to your intuition and DAC may not be right for you. What is your favorite company now? I wanna know lol
Letters from lawyers like that are supposed to sound scary. They are like a dog barking at the gate. It’s supposed to make you think twice about proceeding down the path, not because it will cost you money, but because it will cost THEM money to defend their house. Lawyers like fights imho and they are arguing about whether something means a or b. Usually it could mean either and the one who blinks first will pay. If no-one blinks a judge decides. But for everyone else it’s like watching a someone on a high wire. You just want them to stop being so stupid and act like rational human beings. Like most humans though, once they’ve started a fight, they don’t want to back down, which just hurts whoever is paying the lawyers 😔
This is the best way to describe law lol
Okay, so I'm fairly new to the diamond art scene. So while researching companies to pick canvases from D*C very often esp in like the youtube videos came off very ummm cult like. Quite a few of the content creators feel like they're reading off a script they've memorized while singing their praises. It felt really weird, so I ended up going over to reddit to see what people said. Not about them but in general to get a feel for the different companies. Down the rabbit hole I went, including the truth one you mentioned earlier in the video. I'm not saying I wouldn't order from them again but I'm definitely looking into smaller shops first before going with them.
I have seen many many times DAC accused of being cult like or having a cult like following. As well as them trying to control the information their fan base is allowed to retain as well as controlling the narrative and keeping everything super positive. I understand not wanting bad things said about your company but you also have to let the public spea of their opinions and experiences.
So basically what I got from this information because I’m pretty good at reading between the lines is that DAC was upset that she didn’t renew her contract with them because even though you or I may not personally care for her art style, she does have a very large fan base who does and her kits sell well which brings a lot of business to DAC. Therefore they are retaliating against her for deciding to move on to competing companies and trying to keep her from working or gaining income by seeing it as betrayal because for some reason they act like she owes them more than what is displayed in that now dissolved contract. This is very in line with all the complaints I have read from disgruntled customers they have treated the same way but this is much worse because they are trying to destroy this woman’s brand and reputation. May they get everything they have coming to them and more because you reap what you sow. I do commend you for posting this. Most wouldn’t have the guts to do so.
It's almost like she was baited and led to believe she would be able to move on. That is whats twisting up my guts. I couldn't imagine the stress and I feel so bad her health is taking a hit. I hope they come to some resolution so she can move on and keep doing what she obviously loves.
They don't own her and shouldn't monopolize someone like that.
I am seeing more of those complaints now that I have actively looked which I think shouldn't be so hard to come by. They really do filter everything I am noticing. I hope that changes too because some of it seems so trivial or petty. You literally can NOT make every one happy. Imagine if they were transparent and treated everyone right. There wouldn't be dedicated groups to expose them. Ya know?
@@diamondsandthoughts They can't keep her from licensing her art to other companies, and unless she signed an agreement that said the images she released through them were exclusive to them, they can't keep her from releasing the same images to the other companies. Personally, I wouldn't want to release an image that had already been released elsewhere, but I'm just an artist wannabe. I guess I can see where they wouldn't want their version exactly duplicated, but I don't think another company WOULD make an exact copy.
So I love Diamond Art club products but I’ve already been on a no buy because I don’t like how they create FOMO by unpredictably discontinuing items without warning. I was spending way too much money and I had to pull back. This situation is disappointing as deceived by Hannah Lynn but we haven’t seen the full contracts and terms and we don’t know what exactly Hannah signed and agreed to.
Took the thoughts right out of my head.
@@diamondsandthoughts my guess is that they had a tail around the last release date for each painting - she couldn’t release those paintings for a certain period of time after Diamond Art club released them that was separate from the end date of the contract. I am not entirely certain of that having not seen the contract, but that is my suspicion.
That would make sense
A quick thought about the whole charting thing from someone who renders and charts herself:
HL allegedly said that DAC sent her the chartings of her art for approval. And that's where a lot of the confusion in this discussion seems to come from.
I get the feeling they didn't sent her the actual charts, but rather mockups of each one. The difference being that the charts are exactly what you see on the canvas before you start placing, while the mockups show what the finished DP would look like based on the charting. Charts can include negative image effects for symbol clarity or other artifacts that don't necessarily represent the image correctly. So what at least I would send to an artist for review and approval would definitely be mockups.
By the way, to try and reverse engineer the charting from a mockup would be a fool's errand (believe me, I tried after accidentally deleting a chart I was working on for almost a month).
That being said, I have never bought anything from DAC simply because their output and my taste in art just don't align, including HL. I just happen to work at an arts academy and it kind of comes with the territory to have an interest in art/business relationships. Far too often artists are somewhat naïve about contracts and intellectual property. That's why we offer classes about these topics to try and keep them from signing away their firstborn by accident.
Thank you for starting the discussion on this and representing it fairly. You earned another subscriber today.
I am loving your point of view. They do sound really challenging and hard to copy. I emailed photos of DAC renderings versus Art & Souls, and they are different. So I'm not sure why they are so upset. But we also don't have the full story. I just know an artists is really unhappy and brought it to public attention. I hope they figure it out.
@@diamondsandthoughts I agree, we do not have the full story and likely never will. So I just try to look at this from different angles, point out things that stand out to me and reserve judgement until more comes to light or there's a resolution. I know quite a bit about contract law in my country, US contract law not so much. So I won't even try to comment on that.
Here is the thing, as a content creator, you should never feel afraid to speak your mind, or be silenced. That is showing right there how damning this is to anyone who is in the content creation field for this community. Just talking about it, offering opinions whatever they may be, well they are worried of losing thteir affliate status, their kits, or even their club points because DAC has banned for less things before. This is not alright. A company should never have the ability to silence others, and make people afraid to talk about things. They should not have this mentality of being better than anyone.
Above all else, Hannah is a person, someone trying to make her career as an artist, and being held in exclusive contracts, or harrassing her because she is looking to put her art with others as well to be able to maximize her own income to support her family is just... disgusting. You do not need to like her artwork to see that this has some damning implications , and if they were to do this to younger or naieve artists who do not know better?
All around there is better options. I hope the best for Hannah and what challenges come.
I am afraid which is the huge problem and really does show the power they hold over creators and I am not even affiliated with them. I also know that this means I never will be able to. But I am 100% okay with that. This is a hobby that I do. Maybe one day it can turn into something but as of now I love what I am doing.
I am hoping they don't ban me but if they do it was my choice to speak on this even through the fear. They can't sue me over it. It's all allegations and opinion as well as entertainment. I am confident in that. I didn't do anything wrong.
I do love their quality and the art so I hope things get better. But there are so many companies I will be fine if they do ban me. I want to try all the placed but that will take time and my wallet would hate me haha.
Hannah's bravery for her post has gained my respect. She deserves to continue doing what she loves and be able to continue her career. That contract seems to be very restrictive and makes me sad that she was unhappy for 3 years and then not releasing her work and discontinuing them just feeds into that FOMO. They have the capability to not have a marketing structure for that not to happen. But that wont happen because that works as well as controlling the narrative and making it so only positives are seen in their group. But that reach isn't only in their groups. It seems they have control of private groups and forums. which sucks and shouldn't even be a thing in my opinion.
@@diamondsandthoughts it is very unfortunate that they do try to silence people and their opinions by holding such things over them. It is why I will never purchase there even though I appreciate the quality of the product. They should not have to do these tactics to be able to ensure they stay relevant- the contracts that restrict an artists ability to earn is just unfortunate, tying her down to one company and using words like dilute ?! It is a product and having other venues to sell her product is part of business. It is beyond sad :(.
But thank you for even posting this and being one of the brave creators to do so. I hope the best for you as well the whole situation too
@@jennybeansGames the quality of their stuff isn’t that great. So you’re not missing out. So many wonderful diamond painting companies out there, which is what DAC doesn’t like. They want to be the only company.
@@grammaknits02 Yea, I have avoided them with the way they have treated and tried to silence people. I absolutely refuse to support business practices as such. I do the hobby for my own enjoyment, and mental healtth. The craft started in China long before them, and for them to try to monopolize is just sad. Especially controlling Artists income as they do? That is unfortunate.
The truth ALWAYS comes to the light.
I hope they figure it out.
So basically they want the exclusivity of ALL Hannah's work to remain theirs and theirs alone in perpetuity so they can keep the market for her work (past present and future) wrapped up in their hands only. Irrespective of whether they own it or not. They are manipulating the contract after expiration because they just realised how badly they screwed up by ending her contract leaving her free to go elsewhere taking her fanbase with her and now they are scared of how much business they are about to loose to a rival company. They are retrospectivelt trying to gag her with an nda that doesnt exist because the contract ended by their own hands and trying to frighten HL into silence whilst bullying her to keep the art licences for new work from being produced by a new company.
Thats what all this sounds and reads like.
I have no idea if thats right it sounds like someone at dac made a decision to letHL go and someone else is trying to roll it back some how.
What an awful mess.
Some of that dac legal stuff reads like a word salad produced by ai rather than a lawyer. I am glad she has a decent legal team.
This doesnt sound like its got anything to do with rendered work being used elsewhere, it does sound like a botched red herring to stop her work being produced elsewhere.
Am l a fan of HL? No,Am i a fan of Dac? No.
Dac have lost the plot if they think they control the market by coercion and bullying of artist and customers.
I have witnessed both and have stopped buying dac kits since December last because of the pressure of the FOMO thing and insisting that fb groups are only dac. It kind of makes it hard to enjoy da when conversation is shut down instantly and you are called a troll. ( I havent,but i have seen a perfectly reasonable question treated as such and the person asking villified)
Ps, thank you for reading that lot out and giving us a place to discuss it and for being brave x
Love their quality but them treating her this way is not right. The problem is there have been other small businesses that have been bullied and black listed by them.Example is Bella art de Nicole.
I didn't know that. As you can tell I'm still new to the scene with rose tinted glasses that aren't so tinted anymore.
@@diamondsandthoughts I remember hearing that they banned from the FB group and shut down store accounts of creators who showed Bella Art products on their channels. Not sure if that's 100% accurate, but... It was after Nicole and Jamie bought Mary's Diamonds.
thats not okay
I definitely don't like DAC throwing shade at their strongest competitors. I'm totally re-thinking my entire diamond painting life. Its sad that they seem to be bullying Hannah like this.
@@AislinElizabeth agreed. I don’t get going after competitors. Diamond painting is such a cool community and being able to buy from different places is so cool. This behavior has me questioning purchasing from them and I’ve been a customer for years
So, I have seen TOWTDA use what looked like the EXACT same rendering for the discontinued Esmeralda kit, but I haven’t heard DAC say anything… I feel like using the exact rendering may be an issue if that is what the company who picked up Hannah Lynn did. HOWEVER:
I’ve seen so many small businesses lose images because DAC buys out the artist from small businesses. Treasure Art studios used to have Maria Abagnale, Distracted by Diamonds still has Puffy Gator, but Diamond Art Club literally came out with the same Halloween Cat with SLIGHT changes and I barely see any Puffy Gator images on Distracted By Diamonds anymore. IK Craftibly had the preorder issue, but DAC had taken a big artist from them too months before they shut down. There are others I can’t think of atm. Also, there was a time before Hannah Lynn that it was brought up they were buying artist exclusivity. DAC deleted all the posts and kicked people. I’m pretty sure removing people from VIP status because of an opinion is illegal 😬 I don’t know what has been happening in the background, cause I could be wrong and things were done amicably, this has just been my noticings. Of course they also picked up artists when DIYmoonshop closed down, which I liked.
I like the quality, but holy crap has DAC done some shady things. I still buy from other shops because DAC has a very cartoony style sometimes and you can find similar quality with nicer images at other shops. I think people need to stop being DAC snobs because it incentivizes this behavior. They’re monopolizing (common in the crafting industry), but getting away with it cause of the niche shops still around.
Are there shops with crappy drills? Absolutely, those are the shops I avoid because that usually means there are other issues. Are there shops with OK drills? Yes, I buy from those and alter the images a little, dumping trash. I think Jaded Gem Shop is one of the shops closest to DAC quality, but Jade genuinely loves her customers and what she does and has recently started doing hand-rendering. There are other shops out there, people!
EDIT: Affiliates are responsible for supporting this negative behavior too by keeping quiet! They’ve stopped supporting certain small businesses because of this too. Also now that this is public, I can’t see DAC moving forward with any suits. It’s going to look REALLY bad, and it ALREADY looks REALLY bad. If they’re going to attack anyone, they need to attack the businesses copying their renderings ONLY IF THEY’RE THE EXACT SAME. There are laws that protect youtuber’s from just posting videos so long as they react (transform) the original video, and again you have bigger channels that abuse the copyright system. This is the exact same thing!
As well, makeup companies take artist images as well, but they do not own the art itself and the artist continues to sell their work. DAC has people like Margaret Morales, Aria Illustrations, and others who sell on Etsy or personal websites. If DAC was correct (which they’re not) these artists wouldn’t be able to sell their art as they have been for years 😂 This is comedy at this point the way DAC is threatening her.
As i finish listening to this video all I can say is DAC is literallly trying to monopolize a market they did not create by saying they created it. Others walked so you can run DAC.
It still her art work. She made it and gave the company the chance to use what she made. They don't own her artwork.
Sounds like DAC is on a power trip thinking they can control people and the diamond market. For instance, the FOMO to me is ridiculous .They cause this on purpose so they can sell more. I had many of situations where I felt they are holding back on the paintings to cause panic upon buyers.
It not a good way to do business.
I can see a lot of people not buying from them any more, "this includes me."
No artist who they gave the privilege to use their artwork should be treated in such a manner.
At the end of the day, it still her artwork. .....peroid.
I agree it is still her art work. But I also agree that she shouldn't use the renderings DAC made from her work for their company. I do think that they have the power in this community to bully and scare people and I hope they don't do that in this case and that there was simply a misunderstanding between them.
I do hate the FOMO marketing tactic. Especailly because they have the capability to make enough for the demand. They can even do a preorder option for when it does sell out so people can not freak out.
I hope they come to an understanding and are able to move on
Simple fact - licence was not granted in perpetuity, therefore, upon termination, IP vested back to artist. Additionally, artwork has moral rights associated with it, which cannot be relinquished.
I feel like this is another language. I'm half asleep, so I may re read in the morning 😄 🤣
Is this meaning that she can use the same pictures that were already produced by DAC?
I'm sorry I'm not very fluent in law.
@diamondsandthoughts probably not the reproduced work, but the original work is still, and always will be, hers. You can't sell moral rights (I work on the periphery of IP at a University in Australia, but deal with domestic and international contracts).
@diamondsandthoughts for the licence to continue after termination, they would need a licence in perpetuity. It didn't state that on the contract aspects Hannah has disclosed. Honestly, this is just poor form by DAC and unlikely to hold up in court.
Thank you so much for the clarification and I agree.
I will no longer be using DAC.. I stand By Hannah Lynn. This is not the first time I have heard bad about this company. I also dont like that you cant have an opinion on their page without it getting deleted. They are bullies and I hope everyone stands up to them.
I believe they also want to run other small companies out as to be the big cheese...
@@cagneylacy4795 I agree
I've seen what they do to people that give them bad reviews. This being said, the majority of paintings I have, have been purchased from them . The questionable things they have done is why I have been consciously trying to buy paintings from smaller sellers. They should NOT have the sole rights to her work once her contract with them expired/was terminated by them. I only have a few Hannah Lynn paintings, but that is not the point. I wonder how many other artists they have done this to.
I agree they shouldn't have rights to her work. But their rendering shouldn't be sold by competitors either. If the new company/companies make their own renderings DAC should be happy for her and move on. I hope they don't make other artist jump through hoops like this. When someone completes their contract they should be able to move on.
There are so many reputable companies out there that don’t have such underhanded and shady business practice. DAC instigates so much drama. They are not worth it when there are so many much better companies out there.
I boycotted DAC 2 years ago this is not the first time they’ve had issues with artists and secondly they like to pick and choose which customers have value to them. Not only that but I hate how they constantly trash other companies and insinuate that their quality is the best and that they are the only company worth money. Personally I dislike that kind of business practices. A company that cannot take constructive criticism without accountability or bashing other companies is not a company I want to spend my money on
I definitely don't like how they speak about their competitors. Its gross.
They literally banned me from their website becuz I said their stuff is made cheap
@@diamondsandthoughts I got blocked on facebook and had my account terminated (also lost my $10 gift card that was on my account) because they were publicly bashing Dreamer Designs in a group (not theirs) and I commented that they went above and beyond for me when I had an issue. Then...bam! banned and blocked! But they are doing this so much that I think it's all starting to catch up with them.
I really appreciate that you made a video about this. I'm really sad to see that people have felt uncomfortable speaking openly for fear of losing their relationship with the company, though I understand why someone may not want to risk having their account closed/lose affiliate compensation. I'm also sad to see how the company spoke about their competitors, I thought it was quite distasteful.
As the party launching the (hypothetical) lawsuit it's DAC's responsibility to prove the allegations in the suit based on the requisite law. I think they'll have a difficult time doing so for several reasons - ex. the contract not being in perpetuity, Hannah retaining the right to her work including derivatives, the difficulty of proving the company used the exact render AND that such use is against the terms of the contract.
I wouldn't be surprised if DAC's lawyers have told DAC this and DAC is prepared to go ahead anyways, knowing that they have the money (or ability to borrow money) to pay lawyers for a whole trial while Hannah may not. It's also possible this is an empty threat and DAC won't really want to move forward for several reasons, ex. if they identify information they don't want becoming public through discovery, which is where both sides are required to exchange information about the evidence they'll present at trial.
Thank you for this insight and yes it is their responsibility. I hope they figure it out.
Agree with most of these posts. I quit buying from them a couple of years ago. Their customer service was terrible. I won’t go into to details here but it was bad enough to drop them completely. Still have a huge stash, their kits are great but can’t support their business ethics.
This is not the first, second or third time, and definitely not the last, that this has/will happen to their artists by DAC. DAC is so unprofessional and try to sue everyone! HL art isn’t my taste, but I feel for her and other artists that DAC has done this to.
I’m also going to throw this out there…didn’t they promise last year when they announced all the “changes” happening that they “were not going to raise the prices of the kits and products because they made cuts elsewhere” or something like that? Then BAM all of a sudden all of the kits are $10-$15 more. When I bought kits last year they were $45-$55 and now on average they are $65-$75.
I am to new to it to know. I started in March. I have also heard they are making larger canvases more recently too. That could add to the price maybe?
@@diamondsandthoughts the canvases on average feel about the same size as they have been (there have been some really huge ones which I totally get the price increase on) which is why it’s so irritating. They specifically told everybody not to worry about the price because they were committed to making sure we didn’t have to pay more for the things they were improving because they were going to substitute some things. I completely understand prices needing to change but if that’s the case don’t make a whole post and big deal out of ensuring we know you won’t do that only for you to turn around and do exactly that!
Ahhh okay!
@@diamondsandthoughts great video though! Thank you for speaking about it!
No thank you for watching.
Thanks for doing this video. I didn't know any of this so I'm pleased you made it public. Unfortunately DAC won't be happy about it, as they have their spies always trawling thru youtube so you may find you do get banned and blocked which will be why no other channel (as far as I'm aware) have done a video about it all.
I have watched videos in the past of creators that have had their accounts with DAC terminated. One in particular had bought about 100 kits from them so she was an avid supporter but when she received a canvas that wasn't cut properly around the edges and looked like it had been mangled by the machine during the making process, she obviously asked DAC for a new canvas. Well...they refused and terminated her account along with blocking her from their facebook group. This is someone who had spent thousands of dollars with them so they don't care how good a customer you are! If they had replaced it, she would not have done a video about the appalling treatment she had experienced from DAC. It would have only cost them a few dollars to rectify the situation but nope. I honestly feel like they get a kick out of banning people.
I really hope they don't do that because then that would be proof of exactly what the public thinks of them. Especially because I didn't do anything wrong. It shouldn't be feared to talk about your experience and opinions on a company or a product. It is their fault that this fear is there.
@@diamondsandthoughts Exactly. Time will tell. They are the most insecure and unprofessional company I've ever encountered. And more and more people are becoming aware of how awful they are.
I hope they don't do the same to you, if you want to keep buying from them.
Shouldn’t DAC be taking this up with the other diamond painting companies if said diamond painting companies are using DAC’s renderings? Not Hannah Lynn.
Idk maybe. They might be doing that too but I don't think we will ever know. But it's the fact that there's a chance they are trying to put a stop to this part of an artists career.
DAC renders their art in-house, and produces in-house, so I don't believe another company couldn't use their rendering even if they wanted to unless an employee leaked it. Art & Soul once used a picture from DAC to give an idea of what one of the images would look like rendered, since they use hand rendering as well. Hannah asked them to take it down as it wasn't their own rendering and they did so immediately.
Thank you for talking about this topic! I haven't seen anyone else on youtube talking about this situation until now.
I stopped buying DAC kits due to the price of them ($100+ before shipping is too expensive for me), and these shenanigans don't make me want to buy from them in the future.
I hope this situation won't scare artists away from working with other companies, and I hope things work out well for Hannah in the long run.
I have not either and it is weird.
They are really expensive but so are a couple other places I want to try too. I personally have had to slow down a little bit because I was getting to excited and it made my wallet sad lol.
I hope everything works out.
It's practically impossible for another company to use the exact same renders as DAC. It would most likely require that they obtain the printing file of the render from DAC which I don't believe would be possible. The only other way I can think of that it could be done is for someone to take a DAC canvas and chart a new one pixel by pixel, extremely time consuming.....there doesn't seem to have been enough time for that to be done between when HL signed with new companies and when their kits were released for purchase. Although I admittedly do not know if the kits that have been released so far are all brand new ones or former DAC releases. Just my 2 cents on that.
This is good to know. I trust your judgment and words on this because you guys sell art too and know the process more than I ever would lol. (totally fangirling over here that you commented. My July box gets here today.)
Hannah has stated multiple times on facebook that she was using the DAC renders at the new company. When a commenter said it would be the render that makes or breaks their decision on wether to buy she replied to their comment saying its the same render. There were multiple discussions on public forms where Hannah defended using the DAC renders. (She also mentioned she had to approve the renders when she was with DAC which I think would be how she has access to them) She believes she owns the renders but DAC believes THEY own them and that other companies would need to make their own. If you read the lawyer emails between her and DAC that she posted that seems to be the big thing DAC is legally mad about (That and her disclosing confidential financial contract info to a person she met on reddit who then leaked the info, the redditor deleted the leaked financial info at this time after stating they recieved a cease and desist).
@@battlebugplays ahh, Ok, I was not aware of all of that. Thanks for the info.
@@diamondsandthoughts I by no means know all of the inner workings, these are just my thoughts from my experiences. We will most likely never know 100% of the details either way. I'm saddened to see such a divide in a community that is used by many for their mental health (including myself, I'm struggling to come out of a clincally diagnosed severe depression). I just hope that both parties involved as well as the diamond painters themselves can find some peace about this or any other negative situation 🥰 (Thank you for your support of our small business & the others that are represented in the box, I honestly can say I have no idea who you are by name, but I hope you enjoy the box contents!)
I didn't know all that info. I don't think they should be able to use DACs rendering. That is not okay and I stated that many times. I have been working through depression for years and understand that. I hope that they come to some sort of agreement and are able to keep it civil. I dont like the divide either. Makes me sad.
Hahaha My names Marissa. I hope I'm able to record the unboxing tomorrow but we shall see if the home life permits it. But there will be an unboxing. It will also be my first small shop pen.
Bonus points for quoting C.C. Suarez! Seriously, this is a sad situation, and I hope Hannah Lynn and her legal representation are able to resolve it quickly. Thank you for shedding light on this. I think you presented it fairly.
haha thanks I love C.C. Suarez.
I agree it is a sad situation.
And no thank you for watching and for your kind words.
I stand behind Hannah Lynn. I've been diamond painting for three years and have bought many paintings from DAC. After learning about this situation and some others from customers, I've decided to no longer be a DAC costumer. I'm not going to stand behind a company that bullies artists or customers. I'm praying hard that Hannah wins and shows other artists not be scared & stand up for themselves.
I have not made a choice yet because I don't know both sides just what she is posting. I do know it isn't a good look and I just wanted to be part of the conversation. But it seems no one else is talking about it.
Nothing about this company surprises me. The only reason they have such a "good" reputation is because they have very shiny drills and they bury any and all comments bearing any passing resemblance to a complaint under a dogpile of internet vitriol. I love their kits. I will never EVER purchase from them again. Their "VIP" group makes reddit and 4chan look like a peaceful stroll on the beach.
Also, no they are *not* trying to use d A C's rendering. They are trying to make their OWN rendering of HER artwork that D A C licenced for X amount of years. It's *her* artwork to sell or license as she sees fit once the license period is passed.
She's also far from the first artist to have these kinds of overhanded tactics from d a c.
I am so new to reddit. Like a month ago I finally went on there. I have some arguments there so far. But I have also seen some really amazing comments and posts too. But I also don't fully understand how it works.
The number of people that preface their feedback with "I'm not complaining..." or "I love dac..." or "I'm grateful for..." I've never seen anything like it.
I avoided the group for nearly a year because I was on a no buy and didn't want to break it. When I came back it was chaos. Or maybe it always was and only noticed when I returned earlier this year.
Like damn it's only diamond painting. It's not that serious.
@@tinalvlls Absolutely this. I think a lot of it is the manufactured scarcity that's very deliberately cultivated by the company (FOMO marketing) and perpetuated by the loudest of the customer base.
People spend SO much time, effort and money to obtain these "limited" kits, and if they admit - even just for a second - that the whole company is corrupt, they suddenly realise how much of that time and effort and money was for something completely dishonest and revolting.
It's the same mentality that keeps people devoutly sticking up for companies like TEMU (and I'm saying this as someone who occasionally buys from TEMU because they are accessible). Like.. people on the outside KNOW it's a horrible, horrible company, but if you're "in the club" you go so far down the rabbit hole. It *hurts* to admit that you have supported and been REALLY mean to other people for nothing.
There's also a LOT of 'moral currency' and 'moral high ground' that's been embedded in DAC marketing and reviewing, because they "only use licensed art". Nobody has bothered to drill down and see how ethical their licensing actually is. If their licensing practices are dodgy, how is that better than stealing the art?! In this case it's worse, because they are not just using art without consent they are literally stopping the artist from making a future income!
I truly don't care what company people buy from, but if they're going to buy from a company that is blatantly corrupt I get very cranky when they then claim morality points and flame at people who point out it's corrupt.
All I can say in way of opinion is that it is a strong one against what DAC practices are and hers is not the first report of DAC acting in the way that this report is stating . Because of this and out of respect for your channel and your request this is all I can say on this subject.
I've seen this floating around and it saddens me. Thank you for keeping it nice and still being open to conversation.
Didn’t Taylor swift go through something similar, all about copyright and intellectual property… this is for the lawyers. Thanks for posting as this helps viewers make informed decisions about their future purchases.
From my very unprofessional perspective 😄 🤣 😂
And idk with a song or actual art? I'm so out of the celebrity loop.
I literally thought of this too! Huge Taylor fan 😂 seems like businesses get intimidated by big fan bases. And I’m not endorsing anything with this and definitely don’t act out being a fan of either artist, but just something I’ve noticed.
Same! Also why Prince changed his name to a symbol decades ago.
I hope others artists like Chuck Pinson leave because he was also in the same situation like Hannah Lynn and he decided to stay 😞
I don't know anything about that. But it seems like DAC and Chuck figured it out. I hope he made the choice that felt right to him and he wasn't bullied into it. But we will never know.
The losers in this scenario are going to be the diamond painting community. DAC simply cannot afford to allow an artist to take their renderings with them and have them produced by other companies. This is a precedent that would completely destroy their business if other artists followed suit. Other than their canvas, the rendering style is what DAC is known for and sets them apart from other companies.
A quick quote from Legalzoom regarding derivative works: "The creator of the derivative work owns the copyright to the derivative work. This can either be the creator of the original work, or someone else who has obtained a derivative work license from the holder of the original copyright. The copyright of a derivative work is separate from the copyright to the original work. Therefore, if the copyright holder gives someone a license to create a derivative work, the holder retains the copyright to the original work. In other words, only the derivative rights are being licensed."
DAC has a right to be upset that another company is now selling the work they created. Hannah has the right to take her original artwork to a different company. The question will be what they actually contracted for. If it is deemed that DAC does indeed own the copyright to the renderings, they have the right to exclude anyone else from making those renderings for 95 to 120 years. They have no right to the original work, so they could not sell the derivative renderings themselves; but they do have the right to prevent others from selling them. This case will come down to a contracts dispute and the interpretation of what each side contracted for. It is simply not a matter that should, or truly will, be played out in public.
The big problem now is that this will come down to lawyers. The attorney fees for a case like this can quickly rise to the 6+ figure level. If HL seriously does want to die on that hill and go down penniless, she probably will...and she'll most likely take the new company with her. A fledgling diamond painting company struggles to survive in the best of circumstances, much less facing a huge law suit right off the bat. We don't know if the new company is also being threatened with litigation, but I'm pretty sure they soon will be. Additionally, DAC will have to shell out huge sums of money to their own attorneys. Where will this money come from? It will surely be reflected in rising costs of products or eventual bankruptcy/collapse of DAC. The diamond painting community will surely lose out by picking sides and drawing battle lines.
I love HL's art. I have tons of her kits, purchased from several different companies. I also love DAC's DP kits. I have way too many of their kits to mention. All of this controversy could be avoided if the new company just creates their own renderings and doesn't try to take short cuts for an easy way to quickly make money. Even if legitimate, it seems a bit shady and will cost them long term. Just rechart the original artwork. Make it a different size/drill shape/color count, etc. from DAC's.
That's why I don't think it would be right for her to use DACs renderings. New companies need to do their own renderings. There isn't enough information for me to make a choice. I think HL should be able to move on as long as the renderings are all new and I hope DAC can move on too.
Hannah Lynn will own and retain the copyright she is allowed to have other companies render it, I’m very familiar with copyright law, because she is the Original artist the courts will work in her favour
@@sparklinbudgets from what I’ve been reading, the core of the issue is that it’s alleged that the other company is using DAC’s rendering.
Hannah's legal team communicating with DAC references contractual language stating that all derivatives are also retained by the artist. Because if DAC retained the derivatives, then they could continue to reproduce the designs. So it makes perfect sense that all forms of reproduction of the original artwork should be the property of the original artist.
Furthermore, I've seen close ups of sections of renderings of both DAC's version and Art & Soul's version showing that they are not identical. Since both are based on the same original pure e, of course they are going to look very similar.
It will be very interesting to watch how this whole affair plays out, in or out of court. Until then, everyone is really just armchair quarterbacking. But whether they win or lose legally, DAC is already taking big hits in the court if public opinion. And that's a shame. 🤷♂️
@@gabriellepacker7921 I didn’t actually get that from her post, what she was trying to say is that they’re trying to tell her that their contract states the are the only company with exclusive rights to render her artwork into a pattern/chart so to speak which is also another problem because a lot of people also cross stitch her art, or convert patterns into cross stitch conversions
Thank you for this video. I've been off social media and hadn't heard about this. 95% of my stash is currently DAC, but I don't think I want to continue buying from them. I've been on a no buy for a couple years now but any future "slip ups" will be with a different company.
I won't pick sides because I can see both sides. I have DACs statement coming out on weds.
I used to have a pretty good sized channel in the adult coloring RUclips world. I worked directly with Hannah Lynn a few times, and every time I spoke with her, she was nothing but upfront, sweet, and honest. If I was forced to take sides, I'd have to be on Hannah's. She is so generous, gracious, and fair about how we (the coloring community) were allowed to share her work online, and I've never met another artist who is that willing to bend to make her community happy.
In this same vein... I just read a reddit thread on how "Under the Stairs and Kiki's Delivery Service" are not legally licensed. Does anyone know of this?
I admit that I do not know the ins and outs of licensing. I am just repeating what I read.
From what I understand.... Yumei made the Ghibli fan art but did not get permission from Ghibli studios when allowing DAC to make DP'S. DAC is using Yumei designs without permission from Ghibli Studios. DAC is violating licensing laws by not getting permission from Ghibli... but may have a fall gal to blame in Yumei.
I don't understand all this. Can anyone clear this up? Thx
I think they would be discontinued and pulled like the elusive Maleficent canvas a long time ago was. It is the artists responsibility from what I understand to do. But I could be 100% wrong. I mean they have been restocked I believe multiple times and it's big enough that the company would probably claim rights and sue as well have them pulled from the market.
It was shady enough as is with the Maleficent one though. So who knows.
@@diamondsandthoughts thanks.💕 I'm trying to make an informed decision, whether or not to continue with DAC.
My understanding is the same as yours. It's both the responsibility of the fan artist and company selling their work to get permission from the intellectual property holder to sell fan art items. And it's not legal for a company to sell fan art without licensing.
Under the Stairs is very clearly Ghibli fan art to me. If DAC had a Ghibli license, I think they'd list it as they do with other kits like anything Harry Potter, yet none is listed on the site...
First i just want to say how brave you are for putting this information out there. I am so sad this needs to be said, but without artist and the community you can not have a buisness. People and the artist should be able to have an open and honest talk about whats going on all to often i see things hushed leading to a fearful community. I love how respectful you were and i live by MAKE THE COMMUNITY WHAT YOU WANT AND BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE MOVING FOWARD. I respect you so much for this you have no clue.
Thank you. I really appreciate it. I agree 100%
I mean, I absolutely love their kits. They are just stunning, and the best range of quality fantasy and whimsical work on the market. But this...there's no reason to handle it this way. The competition is virtually non existent, and if you treat the artists well, they won't really want to go elsewhere. If the allegations are true, they created their own problem. I'm down for a boycott, too. I can't afford many of their kits anyway, lol.
What about DAC throwing a fit about a community event over Drills and Chills last year? [2023]. They told the hosts they would not participate if Bella Art De Nicole and a couple other companies who had sponsored before was participating at the time.
Also they like to delete people's DAC account with hundreds of points left on them from purchases.
I have NEVER had an issue with DAC. Ever. They have gone above and beyond for me as a company. But a lot of people I personally know have had so so many issues with them. I don't know what to believe. But most of my stash is DAC. I adore their canvases and their products.
But I will never buy a 200$+ on a kit thats discontinued. They did say That DAC [dac said] they are trying to crack down on scalpers and resellers
I have heard so much about this. I cant find any information about the conflict. I'm saddened they treat competitors this way. It's uncalled for especially when it's a small shop.
I would never buy a canvas for that either and honestly the community shouldn't lett hat stand either in my opinion. Like an example is in destash FB groups. A price gouge like that isnt okay. They should allow a max of a certain price up percentage. But if it exceeds that not allow it. They can go to ebay or something. DAC should follow Munimades choices. They leave a note asking for people to do this exact thing and if they find out its you doing this then you are banned. There is options and I'm not seeing or hearing of them practicing. Just claiming that they make it so you cant predict when something will be archived. What about the people that already bought it for the just in case. ya know. There aren't any repercussions or telling the affiliated de stash groups to not allow it. This is something we can do as a community. But no I have a comment deleted because they don't allow price complaints be a thing.
This is a great post, I know you had some fear to post it, but having a dialog about stuff, whatever it is, is important.
My understanding of how contracts work is this, under the exclusivity agreement that DAC claims is in the contract near the end of your video, any artwork she licensed to DAC during the term of the contract is still subject to those terms whether DAC archived it or not, meaning if she licensed it to them she can't license it elsewhere after the contract ended IF the exclusivity clause is there. Things that occurred while the contract was in force are STILL enforceable by BOTH parties. This enforcability likely extends to the nondisclosure aspect of the contract too. It stinks but unfortunately that's how I understand how contracts work. An example of this is when Taylor Swift was not able to use her recordings that were released under a label she formerly had a contract with, so to assert her rights to the music she re-recorded the music to license and release elsewhere.
I don't have access to the actual contract so I can't really say if the exclusivity agreement is in there (or not) but my understanding of that would be it would only apply to work licensed to DAC. If I'm wrong, that would explain why she wouldn't want to renew the contract with DAC, because if all of her artwork was covered under the exclusivity clause she would be completely under their thumb and that would tie her hands. Work NOT licensed to DAC under the contract would be fair game to license elsewhere AFTER the contract ended 1) Because it wasn't licensed to DAC and 2) Because artwork NOT licensed to DAC isn't subject to the contract after the contract terminated... I am not a lawyer but I think she is well within her rights on this point, but not on artwork she licensed to DAC if the exclusivity clause was indeed in her contract.
I'm not a diamond painter, but my wife is. I had no idea that this hobby even existed before January 2024 but do I know she's really enjoying it. Thanks for all you do and thank you so much for your support and advise to her.
Sorry it took a day to respond. I needed a day to let the anxiety settle. I had no idea this video would get a response this big. I knew it would get some conversation but this is a little overwhelming honestly. I seriously thought someone else would have posted and I would just be adding to the convo.
Anyway.
Thank you for clarifying some of this to the best of your ability. I think I understand better. But I am not fluent in law at all. It's almost another language.
Tell your wife I said hello and that I said you're welcome
No issues, it is definitely a scary thing to put your opinion out there for the world to see.
All I’m going to say is…if it’s listed under the agreement, all in the agreement expires with the agreement. If they wanted confidentiality in perpetuity, there should’ve been a separate NDA, imo.
agreed
They shouldn’t make a statement. There’s a law suit in progress, it’s inappropriate for both sides.
I disagree. They can have a lawyer write it up. Even probably have a PR team. Public image is very important and adds to it.
With that being said I also understand why they would stay silent. It's okay for their customers to ask for a statement. But we don't have the right to demand one.
All opinions are okay, even the negative ones. I just ask that you not be disrespectful and wishing harm on someone.
To be honest- I’m scared to say anything. I don’t want to be banned.
I enjoy their diamond paintings a lot. They are beautiful.
I’m scared to tag them in Instagram posts- bc what if I had a competitor’s tray or pen in that photo. Soo stressful and causes me incredible amount of fear.
All sooooo sad...It seems that said company misrepresents the caring & love that this entire community exudes 99.9% of the time! The Bible says "the "love" (of $$$!!!) is the root of all....what?! Think about it ❤
Hannah I love your Paintings. I will pray for you to have a good outcome with DAC. I’m a huge fan of your work. I’ll go where ever you go. I have purchased many of your coloring books as well.
See that is not okay!!!
Sorry, which one is not ok? 😢
We'll see what happens, but even though I love their product, I am prepared to boycott DAC as well. There are other good companies out there with really good quality. DAC should be careful so as not to completely alienate their fanbase.
This is true. I hope they get everything figured out.
Thank you for posting about this! I don’t have FB but had seen people mentioning that Hannah had posted about her experience with DAC and what has been happening. While I love the quality of DAC kits, seeing how they’re trying to stop Hannah from getting licensed with other diamond painting companies is giving me the ick!
I can see how it will give people the ick. I really thin sometimes business and morals don't align.
Kudos to you for at least making the community aware of this. I don't believe a good company needs to spend their time, money, energy on attacking the competition. Instead just create the best product and niche in the industry you can and you will be successful. I feel for this artist who is trying to make a living. 😢
Agreed
Thank you for talking about this! I was really hoping RUclipsrs would talk about this because like you said it feels like they are definitely sweeping this under the rug and it’s important to talk about!
You're welcome 😊 it's pretty scary though.
I used to work as a graphic designer on an independent contractor basis back in the early 2000's. This was around the time when copyrights were being determined legally as it pertained to digital art. I know I had to buy a license from an artist for specific digital copies in order to use them in the making of any website layout or any digital manipulation of the images. The artwork itself was not sold. We only bought the rights to use the image. I can't imagine this changed. Imo Hannah Lynn should own the rights to her work.
Based on what I am hearing, it sounds like Hannah Lynn could sue DAC for terminating her contract early, providing that I understand that correctly.
In regard to her art being rendered, well DAC certainly does not own the rights to rendering an image into a diamond painting. That would be like saying because WalMart sells Kleenex, Target can't sell Kleenex. The process of creating a diamond painting is the same. The only gray area I see here is the human element. As I understand it, DAC hires people to remove the "noise" that occurs anytime you copy art into digital form. They also hire people to chart special drills. That is the work of those individuals. I'm not a corporate attorney. I would think that would fall on the other companies and not Hannah Lynn herself. I honestly don't understand why DAC would be suing her UNLESS she signed some sort of agreement to wait a specified period of time before releasing her work to another company. Just my 2 cents on this subject.
It certainly is something to think about.
She def should own the rights to her art.
It is pretty confusing and I am leaning more towards them trying to throw thier weight around and it makes me sad. I am also leaning more artist loyalty vs company too. I dont want to unintentionally punish artists because of what company they are contracted with.
Thanks so much for the attention to this, and the warning. Good luck, to Hannah.
Your welcome. It is scary
I appreciate you posting this and going through the legal statements and everything. It sounds to ke like you're trying very hard to stick to the facts, and you are very clear when what you are voicing is solely your opinion. I have so much respect for that, it really shows integrity on your part.
This sounds really complicated. I don't know anything about copyright law, so I don't know if DAC was granted rights to those specific images in perpetuity or just until the end of the contract. I also don't know if the images she is currently licensing are the same ones she had licensed to DAC or are new images. I feel like there should be no way DAC owns the rights to art she never licensed to them, but again, I don't know what images are being used.
The way DAC is trash talking those other companies is pretty juvenile, and honestly really shitty. That should be beneath them. It's interesting how incredibly threatened DAC is by her licensing to other companies!
What I think they meant by her "capitalizing on the market DAC created" is not the market for diamond painting, but the market for *her* paintings. DAC is upset that they created this huge fan base for her diamond art, and now she is going to go to other companies and take that fan base away. Which is dumb, because if they aren't going to be producing more of her art, those people would be looking elsewhere anyway, for other art that resembles hers. And would still be purchasing other art from DAC. Of course, *now* they might not, given what information we currently have about the situation. Granted, we only have her side of the story, but she is presenting evidence of the company's words, and it doesn't make DAC look good. We'll have to wait and see what the company says, if anything.
Oh, and just because I like random facts, the § symbol stands for "state statute". They are the actual written laws of that state. So when they say "under § (whatever number)", they are saying "according to this specific law..." (I entered a paralegal program briefly. Look, I used something I learned! 😂)
That is exactly what I was trying to do. I'm glad that is what you got from it so that means I actually did it. I was worried about that honestly.
I think the problem is she is releasing the images that she had previously done with DAC. I am still not sure if they did new rendering or not. I am hoping they did.
I really do not like the communication style in bashing other companies. It just sound petty and I agree juvenile. DAC is established and not going anywhere. So I don't understand the animosity.
Hannah already had a huge fanbase and was established already. DAC actually gained more customers because Hannah went with them. I do think her fan base grew some because of DAC but she was already established as well. I do agree that people would already be looking elsewhere since they decided to retire her works before the contract ended. I think the exclusivity thing is selfish but business is business I guess. I really hope DAC responds and we can get more of a picture of the whole story.
HAHAHA That make my day about the weird s thingy. IDK how to get my keyboard to do it.
@MyShalora , DAC didn't "make" Hannah Lynn. Her art has been out there for a long time. I knew who she was, through other creative endeavors I pursue, way before they licensed her. I can say that they probably did introduce her to new people, though.
@@EclecticBedlam I was saying that was what THEY were saying. That that was what DAC meant when they said that. I never once said it wad true or I believed it. I was just saying "this may be what they meant by these words". Don't come at me.
@@MyShalora I didn't feel like I was "coming at you". I apologize if that's how it seemed.
Great video well done for doing this video at the end of the day it’s her art work
I've had no problems with DAC except when I made a review about one painting that I rated 3.5 because of how bad the drills were. They immediately deleted the review that except for the rating number was still very favorable to them as to how I felt about the company. I'm not a Hannah Lynn art fan and only wanted Groovy Girl because it is a nostalgic piece for me, but I missed it because of what happened. I have no respect for a company that would bully their clients, there are millions of artists work to choose so cut all ties, settle and move on. DAC is only hurting themselves as well known artists will now avoid doing business not wanting the drama and possible lawsuits.
I don't think they should be able to delete reviews or parts of reviews. That is deceptive. Mistakes are going to happen especially with such a huge production process and high demand.
This is so messy ☹ I think it'll be interesting to see what happens. I feel it's unethical for HL to use exact renderings (if that's what happened) given that the renderings are hand charted by artists -- but whether or not it's actually illegal is another thing altogether and definitely for the lawyers to decide. With that said, I also feel really disappointed by the way DAC has chosen to conduct themselves. Not only with HL, but with their own consumers. I've never in my life witnessed a B2C company make their own consumers feel afraid to share differing opinions on them. They feel like schoolyard bullies, and it's so disappointing to see.
So much this! my thoughts exactly just not put into an hour long video lol.
Zoe! I miss your videos! I subscribed but only got to see about 6 of them but then you disappeared. Have you decided to end your channel or just taking a break?
@@TheDesertMermaid5766 you’re so kind! Just taking a break. 🥰 Actually vlogging the next few days, so a new video should be out soon! Thanks for the sweet words!! 💖💖
Thank you for covering this. A huge reason why I supported DAC in the past (I’m not sure if I will continue to do so) is because they license their artwork and compensate the artists. Unfortunately I’m not surprised to hear a large corporation is bullying an artist, and I’m not surprised they are trying to sweep it under the rug. It’s not a good look. I guess we will see if they decide to sue.
Def going to keep an eye on it. I hope it doesn't come to that and they can come to an understanding.
Hats off to you for having the bravery to post this. I personally am fearful of ever saying anything overly negative on my channel, for fear of retribution, which I believe I have heard has resulted in being banned, and as I do like their products, and specific artists still licensed through them, I do not want that to happen to me for sharing some things I’ve learned on my own. Almost didn’t comment because of this, but wanted to commend you for your bravery and subscribed because of it.
All that being said: what I am getting (and I’d really need to read the legal stuff myself to truly understand), is I think it’s not about licensing with another company, but using the exact same images that they previously produced. I’m guessing that’s where the problem is, but I could be wrong of course too. Whether that’s right or wrong or legal, I don’t know since I don’t have their contract to review.
Yeah that could be the problem too. But it is also clear that DAC knew that was happening. Also if the new companie/ companies rendered it themselves it shouldn't matter. There wouldn't be much difference anyways. Contract was fulfilled and they seperated. But that is also just my opinion.
Thank you for the kind words. I am a fan of the artists they have too and hoping I don't get banned. I am a Diamond and have shown my support I think speaking about concerns and wondering about a statement should be fine. But I guess we will see. I have faith that they wont care about my video. That being said I can't lie and say I'm not scared. You are amazing. I have actually been subbed to you for a while. I'm just the lurker type most the time listening to videos for my background noise tool.
@@diamondsandthoughts awe! You’re so kind! Thank you! There is so much I want to say in response, just to keep the conversation going, but I am literally scared myself and it really shouldn’t be that way.
Well you can always email me if you need to get it off your chest.
Diamondsandthoughts@gmail.com
I've gotten many many emails already
Same images or not is irrelevant, they never owned the artwork. They only had a license to use it for their own derivatives. As in they had a license to turn her art, to which she owns the full copyright, into diamond paintings.
@@some.craftz I’m not here to argue. I’m not making any statements or accusations, only a speculative hypothesis based on the information provided. No one can fully understand the situation without seeing the entirety of the legal documents and contracts. Besides Ms Lynn’s feelings, statements, opinions, facts, etc., that she has chosen to share with us, it’s all just speculation from the outside world. All we can do is continue to support artists, be understanding, and support this platform where such serious matters may be revealed, and treat everyone else with understanding and kindness in return.
Her art is hers! Because you (dac) add the numbers or symbols for the “paint by numbers” painting with diamonds doesn’t change the artwork belongs to the artist! I LOVE DAC!! 😢But I say this all the time in confusion to how people complete a diamond painting and enter it into a competition like at a county fair AND win a ribbon for it!!!!! If it was a paper written in a class such as in college it would be considered plagiarism AND can get the student expelled! YOU ARE NOT THE CREATOR therefore you should not lay claim to the ORIGINAL ART!!!
I didn't know people submitted them into competitions. That's crazy. They are a lot of work, especially if you re-chart and add your own bling. But it is still someone else's creation.
How would other companies have access to DACs rendered art? I don’t think that’s the issue.
Idk. That's what confuses me.
Hannah has DAC's renderings because she had to aprove them.
First, I started reading the post on Facebook yesterday but didn't finish it. So, thank you for reading it to us..I had no idea these kind of issues existed..Hannah Lynn DP's have never been my cup of tea..maybe bacause I am older..I don't begin to understand who is in the right or wrong or if they are both in the right...I hope that the issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all parties involved..
I didn't really either until the post. I thought everything was fine.
Does anyone know the names of the the two companies that the DAC email refers to as being ethical and stand up companies?
I do not but I hope someone answers.
You did a great job of covering this. I hadn't heard about it, even though I 'follow' Hannah Lynn's page. What all this does for me, and other drama in the DP world right now, is not want to have anything to do with DP on social media. I love DP, but it's not relaxing anymore because this company is complaining about this, and that company is complaining about that, and don't say this in this group, and don't say that is that group. Thinking maybe it's time to turn it all off, and just sit and watch old movies while I paint. Get my stash down to a bare minimum of paintings I really love, and let go of all the nonsense. That being said, I am glad you put it all on the table. But as a person that just loves to diamond paint, maybe I just need to do that, and pick paintings I truly love, and let the people and companies fight their own battles.
I 100% get this. Do what you love and decompress that way. I hope you continue to enjoy the hobby. I'm not trying to bring stress and drama. Just wanted to open the conversation about the relationships between artist and company. I hope they are able to come to a conclusion and move on.
What are other diamond painting companies that have great quality we can support?
Thank you for posting this. I personally have never had a bad experience with DAC and their customer service for me (only speaking for me) has been amazing. However this makes me very sad because Hannah Lynn is one of my favorites. I love those big eyed whimsical girls. I really hope that all parties get things worked out.
Thank you for watching. The response to this video is so much more than I thought it would ever be. I haven't had a bad experience either and I am hoping it stays that way. It makes me sad too I want to continue loving this company. And I want Hannah Lynn to be able to continue doing what she loves and make money.
The fact that the company who shall not be named from now on was founded in 2018 says it all! I know for a fact that dreamer designs is older than they are but there have always been kits on amazon before then too! They are trying to monopolize and clearly have with their FOMO but I hope this brings light to day about their motives. I haven't bought from them all year and will never purchase from them again.
I feel like that too When I recorded the video today I said that business or that specific company. Like I really felt like I couldn't say it! It is wild!
The artist want get given the rendered art the DAC have for it, That be in their files and for them only the artist will only have the files she sent in for that art work. So she want be using the some files they did to make them their side. They are claming her art work from sounds of it. Sounds like they want to keep it under their name to use at later date. If they choice to put it back up then they dont need to pay her for it is what they are tring to do.
Everything they are doing is wrong and breaking so many rules n laws its nuts.
I would tell her if it dose come to lawers she need to put a claim in for THEM to pay back any legal fees and upcoming ones.
It sounds like a non-compete, which is moot due to a recent FTC ruling. Hopefully, she didn't sign something similar without realizing it. My husband
got a nasty-gram from his former employer's law firm. It was a threat. We ignored it and moved on. There is nothing they can do.
good to know. What does FTC stand for again. I know I have heard it before but I am drawing a blank right now. haha its passed my bedtime and I'm trying to catch up on all the comments I missed.
@@diamondsandthoughtsFederal Trade Commission 😊
@morissasweeney yep, they can't do anything and Hannah should move on. The contract is finished at termination anyway, which DAC has done on their request. On face value, I don't see any "in perpetuity" language.
DAC is greedy. I haven't liked much of what they've been offering for months, now and haven't been buying any. I'm not a huge fan of portraits, so I don't have many HL pictures but I do have 1 or 2. I hope they don't start treating other well-known artists this way when their contracts are up
I agree. It has been weeks for me. I am also newer to the hobby.
I haven't purchased anything from DAC in the last 2 yrs. There off my list for sure now!
1. Send the possible contract to a lawyer FIRST.
2. Never sign away derivatives of your work.
3. Never sign away intellectual rights.
4. Never sign a None Dis-closer Agreement.
5. Never be exclusive to any company.
That is some good advice ♡
@@diamondsandthoughts Thank you.
I actually love Hannah Lynn artwork and am saddened she has to deal with this. Art and Soul hand renders each Hannah Lynn piece it puts out, which is why they have only released a handful so far because it is so time occupying. So I would feel confident in saying they don’t use the DAC rendering. It literally reminds me of the Taylor Swift case and basically not being able to “own” their own artwork. It seems like DAC is being selfish and trying to keep her artwork to themselves because they know she has a large fan base. It’s ridiculous though because not only is their contract over and artwork no longer available, they are no longer getting anything out of it. They are not making money (nor losing money) from Hannah Lynn anymore 🤷🏻♀️ They have tons of other artists so I don’t understand why they are doing this to her. Let her be free and move on. I love DAC and will continue to purchase from them because their quality is great, but them trying to monopolize the market is sad and makes them look bad in my opinion. Let your company’s quality speak for itself and not try to take down other companies and artists in the process.
I know nothing of the Taylor Swift case. I thought she just did music haha I am so out of the loop. Are you saying that Taylor is trying to claim their own art of her? Tell it to me like I am a dummy haha.
They do have tons are artists and like 700 pieces to be restocked. They will be fine and are well established. So this isn't even a blow against them IMO.
@@diamondsandthoughtsTaylor had issues of not being able to own the rights to her songs that she wrote and recorded under a certain label. She ended up re-recording her old songs (hence Taylor’s Version if you’ve seen that). There is a documentary about it on MAX. I’m a huge Taylor fan too lol. Just sad this keeps happening to artists (of any medium)
I should watch that! It sound interesting.
This makes me very sad. My first full size diamond painting is Geisha by Hannah Lynn. I started it in 2020 and paused my hobby until recently. I am now finishing the painting and was shocked to learn that DAC no longer carries Hannah Lynn's artwork. I had no idea why until now. I was really looking forward to working more of her paintings. I won't ever leave DAC because I absolutely trust their quality and support moreso than other companies...but this situation makes me so so sad. I feel truly grateful that I at least have one of her pieces that I can display and enjoy.
I am pretty sure because the contract was terminated any and all of the terms aligned in with the contract are permanently terminated as well. She will have to confirm with an attorney.
She has one.
Thank you for posting this video! I was thinking, "ok, is nobody going to talk about that???"
You are so welcome. It was super scary.
Makes me think of Mr. Disney beginning. He worked with a company that hired all his artist and per contract kept all his characters except the mouse.
Contracts are very confusing.
I didn't know that. Thats crazy.
@@dwagner8468 contracts are not supposed to be confusing. If there's confusion in a contract, it favours the party who didn't write the contract. For example, if DAC wrote the contract Hannah signed and it's confusing, the law would favour Hannah.
That explains why the art work in voting sucked so bad. They’re losing artists
It makes me sad that you kept saying you were afraid to post this. I've also been nervous to comment when things weren't perfect and have avoided it altogether for fear of being banned. It's supposed to be a relaxing hobby.
Makes me sad too. But whats done is done and I did it anyways. Still scared though because I am a diamond and love the product. I just want a statement and both sides of the story. And maybe some acknowledgment that their community feels scared of them.
Reading through it all. I think someone in the legal/licensing department thinks she signed the new contract.
hmmmmm... maybe.
As far as I know about renderings from my experience, unless the company that is hand rendering is giving it back to the artist or putting it out in public (without watermarks) is not the artist's concern or responsibility - renders are directly between the diamond painting company and their supplier. The artist does not usually get involved with how the company renders. Purchasing licensing rights is just that - you can license the image to sell for specific conditions within the contract - it doesn't give "ownership" of the image. It stinks on how bad some companies are handling things with the individual artists, I have experienced it and have seen it throughout the community. There's a professional way to handle things and a way that creates more drama, and too much in this community there's drama. This is the first time I've seen your channel and wow. Thank you so much for your opinions and commentary - I don't normally get involved with the community drama so this is interesting.
This is the only community that I know of so far that has the least amount of drama and I am saddened by that slowly starting to change. That being said if something is concerning the community should be able to talk about it without fear or at least be able to ask questions. I think I added to the drama problem unfortunately by breaking the unspoken rule of not speaking negatively about anything in the community. My goal was to react and point out both sides and ask for a statement because we are only getting one side of the story and that isn't enough information for me to make an informed decision on where to spend my money. I honestly thought more would be talking about it because DAC is such a huge loved company.
I am so torn on this. I love the quality of DAC and have about 10 more in my stash , but if this is all true then that puts a bad taste in my mouth. I just need to know more before I buy again. Btw… just found your page and subbed. You and I seem very similar. 💜
I agree. I would need more information. But also, I'm starting to lean more towards artist loyalty vs. Company. I don't want to punish artists who are already in a contractual agreement, too, ya know.
Awe! Thank you for subbing.
@@diamondsandthoughts I completely agree. Being an artist - not nearly as talented as the DAC artists - I would want people to buy licensed items that were obtained in a correct and non-threatening manor. It’s all so crazy!
Don't compare yourself to others. There is art on there that I do not like at all but others love. So it doesn't mean that the art I don't personally like is bad.
I'm 63 FOMO was lost years ago 🙄
Hahaha share that maturity everywhere. We all need it. I didn't have FOMO long at all.
I love DAC, I'm also not a fan of Hannah's artwork. But I think DAC is messing up. It makes me mad at DAC. Leave the little guy alone, DAC. Suck it up and move on.
I think they are too. It really doesn't look good to pick on the little guys IMO
@brandylangley1624 , Right? DAC is huge. There is room for everybody in this space.
You all better stop talking they are going to ban you. You have guts to post anything. Good luck to all so sad for everyone honestly
So sad to have to say “stop talking or they will ban you”…smh
But its true im sorry im not being nasty if anything im trying to be kind
Thanks for looking out. I think so far its been conversation, opinions and nothing mean. So hopefully theres no bad reactions from anyone.
First off, I have so much respect for you for trying to have an open conversation about this. People are quite literally scared of posting anything not 100% positive about DAC out of fear of being banned - and yes, people do actually get banned. Secondly, out of respect for you and your request I will keep my comment as nice and civilised as possible.
DAC have an excellent product, but their business practices are shady as hell in my opinion. I cannot fathom how any company can find it acceptable to bully their customers and artists. I also know from experience that their customer service comes across as amazing, until you dare complain about something. They banned so many loyal customers after their beef with Bella Art de Nicole last year, which I find ridiculous, and have in the past threatened multiple small diamond painting companies.
As for your question about her using DAC's rendering - that would be impossible, unless an actual person sat down and copied every drill over from a DAC kit. They render in-house, and produce in-house. Art & Soul had the same images hand charted, which would be completely within their right and Hannah's rights, as she retained the right to her original artwork. The marketing image they are referring to in the letter was an occasion where Art & Soul posted an old rendering from DAC because their own rendering was not complete at the time of the announcement. My understanding is that Hannah asked them to remove it until their own rendering was completed, and they did so immediately. DAC had a license to use her artwork for a limited time, and that contract has now expired. So in essence they are trying to restrict her from licensing artwork they previously had a limited time use license for to any other company forever. That - in my opinion - is wrong.
If anything, this is sour grapes on DAC's side because they are no longer profiting from her work and don't want anyone else to sell her work. The diamond painting market is huge. DAC should just let other companies have their moment in the sun as well, instead of acting like the way they are and tarnishing their own name.
Thank you for the kind words. I am trying to make sure this stays as a conversation and that everyone knows it's okay to have different opinions. I just find it weird no one else is talking about it. I am still scared of being banned but so far not a peep. So I am gaining some faith that I may be fine.
I cant seem to find anything on the beef with Bella. I looked and cant find anything. If you want you can email me some of the stuff so I can check it out. I'm curious now. You are not the first one to comment on this.
ahhh thanks for the clarification.
I think that DAC shouldn't limit their artist and make it hard for them to move on. They are established and not going anywhere. The contract is up and the exclusivity thing is icky to me. But I also understand it. But also they should also be able to other companies after the contract is up. Three years is a long time.
I’m very new to the DP world… But I think this whole situation comes down to the original contract and the exact wording that was used… unfortunately words get slipped in and agreements and clauses get added and people sign things that later come out and then it’s a problem… such as with speaking about the financial side of the contract. Even if the contract has ended so NDA’s can last much longer than the original contract agreement. It’s definitely not right! But people see the money and sign without having a lawyer of their own look it over and make sure it’s in their best interest… this is a horrible situation and I feel sorry for this artist and I hope they get the win on this… But this is just a reminder to all artists have an attorney read over all documents so that your contract is what’s best for you not the company…
"she's not using DACs rendering" She is though, there were multiple conversations on facebook where she cleary stated that she was using the DAC renders.
You can email the pictures of this if there is any I would love to see.
This is sounding a little argumentative. You know this isn't the attorney. Let's keep it civil
@@diamondsandthoughts Did my comment get deleted? I tried to edit it to add a comma and it disappeared 😂
@battlebugplays what comment. I don't think so. I did delete the comment asking if you were the attorney. But I don't think that was yours.
@@diamondsandthoughts @diamondsandthoughts Oh I think you deleted mine by mistake then because mine was civil, I didn't say anything about being an attorney.
I forget what I said honestly but Im emailing you the screen shot I have.
It seems like HL thinks she owns the render and DAC thinks they own it and that is the main issue since the DAC render was used to promote the Art and Soul product and since HL has told people Art and Soul will have the "same render" as DAC. Im not going to spend more time on this but the comments are available in the replies of her FB post.
Having never used DAC, these hard tactics by lawyers seem overkill for products they no longer do, except if she is using their rendered work. Evenstill I believe there should be middleground or mediation which it appears not to be an option.
Artists by nature have fluctuating income and this seems incredibly sad.
Agreed
Before I comment question ...how long have you been diamond painting?
I’m 3 and a half minutes in and all I’m just entertained by the kiddo in the background crawling and sneaking a peek at the tea 😂
Hahaha they are always so interested lol
I don't feel like watching videos of dac unboxnings anymore because this whole behavior from them doesn't sound good. I won't unsubscribe from the youtubers I follow if they unbox and talk about other brands but i probably won't watch the dac videos
I can understand that. I really don't think we as a community should hold any fire to the affiliates feet. They aren't doing anything wrong and are doing it for free. I don't think DAC pays them to make content and the affiliate link is only a one time use for a first time buyer only. The majority of people watching the unboxings are returning customers or subs. So I don't see how they are making anything significant. Plus they are getting that artists name out there and they artists shouldn't be punished. They are already contractually obligated and this isn't on any of them.
@@diamondsandthoughts true