Hannah Lynn's Comment On My Video About Diamond Art Club
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- In this video I am reading and reacting to Hannah Lynn's comment on my video about her statement about Diamond Art Club.
Email-
diamondsandthoughts@gmail.com
Companies-
Diamond Art Club (DAC)
www.diamondart...
Dreamer Designs
www.dreamerdes...
The One With The Diamond Art
theonewiththed...
Amazon
www.amazon.com/
Randas Crafty Corner
www.etsy.com/s...
Mercari
www.mercari.com/
PureBlissWaxCo - Etsy
www.etsy.com/s...
Zodiac Shadows - Etsy
www.etsy.com/s...
Paint Gem-
www.paintgem.com/
Yellow Dog Designs-
www.yellowdogd...
Enablers Outpost-
www.enablersou...
Flawsome Crafter
www.flawsomecr...
I appreciate this video so much, I agree it is important to have an open and respectful discussion. A few thoughts I have now after marinating on this for the past few days (these are my opinions): A) Content creators that are affiliates with any company should absolutely be left out of this. A change in perspective is needed where they are concerned imo. They aren't paid directly as far as we all know, I have never seen any evidence of this in my 6+ years diamond painting. Rather, they receive ad revenue from their videos and/or a commission from first time buyers that use their referral code with DAC, which is something available to everyone (in good standing) not just content creators btw. If one brand brings them the most views which turns into the most ad revenue, why would they stop making those videos? Put yourself in their shoes. Why cut off an income stream (albeit pennies per view) especially when everything is SO expensive these days? I don't have affiliates for my brand, yet I understand the need for their videos for their own content creation career and I'm not salty about it. Let's leave them be. B) I'm still not 100% clear if the DAC render/print files are what are being used by the new licensed companies producing this artists' work. My personal stance for my brand is I would never use another company's render. I would be making money off of the hard work of not just the artist that agreed to license with me, but also the prior company that put the work into the renders. To me this is a bad look on companies that do this, if they are in fact doing so. As a company, I would not provide the print files to anyone other than my manufacturer(s). I understand it is possibly considered a derivative of the original works, but it would be my property in a way because I pay for the rendering to be done (I've invested thousands into my renders over the last 4 years). I will also mention that my licenses state clearly that I am not asking for any ownership of the art, I am only asking for permission to use it. I do not ask that the artist cease showing their art anywhere (social media, Etsy or Redbubble selling merch, etc.) as some companies do. I would never ask an artist to halt an income stream they have for my benefit. However, at the end of an agreement I would never use that file to produce more paintings. This is a core value for me, I run my brand with honesty and integrity. I am extremely open and forthcoming with our customers. Doing something like that is super shady and just the thought of it makes me feel sick. I physically couldn't do it. C) In this community there are folks on both sides at the more extreme ends of the differing opinions. We are human and we are going to have differing opinions. Just like folks that buy the cheap kits that are clearly not legally licensed where the artist is compensated. They say their lack of funds is an OK excuse for doing so, I disagree but it is not my place to tell them they are wrong and part of the problem. It would do no good and only meet me with nastiness in return. I see the same thing here with this situation. It's OK to rally support, it's OK to donate financially if you have the means to do so. But from my seat, all of this bickering, fighting, ugly comments, name calling, etc. is doing so much harm and only making this situation more ugly than it ever needed to be. It's good that we have awareness, however this situation just has to play out in a court of law. None of our opinions will have an impact on the outcome. D) To anyone who has read this and gotten to here, if you are against one side of the other, I would encourage you to just support either the big fish or the little fish or both with your purchases and offer positivity in the many diamond painting groups that exist. We should post and share our favorites where it is allowed. For a small business (meaning those of us building a brand out of our homes with less than 5 to 10 employees), people sharing us on social media is crucial, yet so many of us barely have that done. Everyone thinks this situation is ugly, they would have their socks knocked clean off if they only knew what happens behind the scenes between some of the small brands. Support the brands you want to. Support the artists you want to. Do what makes you happy and try to focus on positivity.
This community is bleeding and it's on us to render aid.
Thanks for coming to my TEDtalk.
Thank you for this. Very well said.
This 100%! You're the best elizabeth!
A. I 100% agree about leaving the affiliates alone. I have more on my why in the video I recorded yesterday. Hopefully I can get that up by friday.
B. I agree 100% and really your input on this from the prospective of being a company owner. This is also in my next video on why I think it's valuable to have these conversations. Other brands can see what the customers public opinion is and use that to evaluate their marketing tactics, communications and what exactly they can offer as a company. You are taking the thoughts right outta my head haha.
C. I am sad that is is the case too. I really hope that other companies can see this and learn from it. I also think that it sucks its possible for stolen art work to be sold where the artists don't make money. I also hate how reselling price gouging is a thing too and I believe as a community we could make a difference and even the companies too. (A video idea percolating in my head. we cant stop it but there is a way to make it harder. I doubt it would happen but it can at least be a conversation and something to be brought to awareness.)
D. I support this message!!!
LAST BUT NOT LEAST LOL
I love the mystery box I got from you. I posted the picture in your group. (No I have no affiliates with Enablers Outpost and bought it with a gift card and my own money for you nosey folks out there lol)
They unboxing I recorded of it will be up on Saturday.
I agree so much with all of this!
Yeah I think DAC is butthurt that they lost a great artist and now their line of thinking is simply "If we can't have her, then no one can". We haven't seen them do this to other great artists that left, so this is definitely screaming personal vendetta to me. I won't be surprised if this deters other artists from working with DAC in the future. I feel bad for the artists that are currently working with them that are about to end their contract. They might be too afraid to leave now considering their right to make diamond paintings AT ALL might be taken away from them, thus manipulating them to keep renewing the contract.
These artists deserve better than that.
Yeah it does kind of look like that.
HL has the right to do whatever she wants with her own works, and I'm glad she knows her rights. I don't think there's much you can do to change the rendering here because of her particular coloring book art style. This is not a diss. Her art is not for me, but there's no point denying it's very recognizable and that she has a big fanbase that adores her art.
IMO, this is what DAC wants-the ability to state that the only legally licensed and produced HL DPs come from them, because she _does_ have a substantive fanbase which will go to great lengths and expenses to acquire one of her DPs. I believe she meant it truly when she said that DAC's FOMO tactics of selling out kits within minutes of release and staying out of stock for months did not serve her fans effectively.
Having any artist's licensed work available from different companies only gives us, the customers, more options. Don't like Company A's rendering? That's ok, maybe you'd like Company B's! Company C is too pricey? That's fine, Company D is affordable, and from previous experience, you know their products are great and will still be available after a year.
We, as the customers, win when there's competition. Companies should want to do better because they want our money, and this radicalism is seriously off-putting.
Companies are not your friends.
I agree
unfortunately DAC has a reputation for doing this type of thing to their artists; the first I heard of it was the artist Sherri Baldy. They had a huge ruckus with her, especially when she put up her own website to sell her own diamond paintings of her own work. I love DAC's quality but if this is how they treat their artist's I would prefer to go to another site that has the artists work. its such a sad situation. thanks for talking about this!
I hope this encourages other artists to come forward and speak their truth! Keep pushing for your rights Hannah! Ive never purchased a piece of your work but I want to now!!
I haven't seen anything about other artists being upset but they could be out there. I hope it's just rumor. The argument is about the renderings and I hope the companies choose to not use DACs renderings. I know Hannah could possibly use them (that remains to be seen) but that doesn't make it right or mean that she should.
HL understands the case law repercussions that this will have. Please continue providing updates.
Im totally on hannahs side. I just saw a wedding dress designer go thru this same crap. Its sad! DAC is pressing so hard bc they know they have competition with other companies now. They need to chill and let her go...their loyal buyers will continue to buy from them.
Agreed. It's a weird hill to die on. They have so many artists and so many different kits that losing one isn't going to hurt them much. I doubt most of their customers buy from them for any particular artist, but because they are known for quality, and that isn't going to change. They are losing a lot of good will by pursuing this. They should just let it go and change the language in the artists' contracts going forward if it's such a big deal to them.
Hannah Lynn is right. Derivative work can’t be copyrighted by anyone other than the original artist. See Warhol foundation vs Goldsmith and the famous picture of Prince.
The Warhol foundation lost at the Supreme Court and in their opinion they stated that derivative work is not sufficiently transformative. Diamond painting “renderings “is no different than printing using different printers. Basically hand charting (basically Photoshop) and printing her image does not transform that image.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol_Foundation_for_the_Visual_Arts,_Inc._v._Goldsmith
Thanks for providing this.
We need DAC to understand that this is not the first time customers have felt frustrated with actions done by DAC regarding competition and exclusivity.
In previous conflicts with other companies and the agressive way the DAC behaved, actively banning them from non-DAC spaces, exercising unfair leverage on affiliates to limit those companies' reach, is classic monopoly.
The economic system in the US makes it inevitable for companies to turn predatory and anti-competetive once they are in the lead.
However, because this hobby community is still largely a niche, and not a this might backfire badly on them.
This is a huge possibility.
Agreed. The problem is that they're well aware, and based on what I've been told, if anyone complains, their entire account gets deleted. The way they handled this situation is disgusting, especially as a business, in my opinion.
I feel like DAC is being a bully. The contract is over. Move on DAC.
I mean that is kind of what I got from it. But I also understand they don't want others using their work when the companies have the ability to render it themselves. Which I fully understand.
We need to start a movement #FreeHannahLynnDAC!
Thank you for watching. Remember to please keep it respectful in the comments. I hope your day is beautiful and amazing. Go out into the wilds and complement someone genuinely. It feels good and brightens everyones day.
Are you going to cover her new statement that was just released? Seems pretty interesting.
Just more corporate greed😢
We do all the work, they try to get all the $$ they can off our backs 🤬
😥
New to your channel. AND I love that someone is talking about the hard stuff around this hobby. Honestly, I don't know why there is hard stuff....it is a hobby to most of us. But it's there all the same. Keep up the good work.
Thank you!!!
She does not have a contract “in perpetuity”, once the contract ends, that’s it - the licence is terminated. She’s on the right side of the law. There’s no “opinion” in law, the law is the law.
yup
EXACTLY
While the contract is not in perpetuity it is possible that parts of the contract do not terminate at the same time. For example confidentiality terms often exceed the end date of a license agreement.
Listen, I have only done 1 DAC kit...it was a great kit! But for all the talk on licensed art in the DP community...and promotion of DAC, in part, due to that fact, its disappointing that DAC has engaged in this legal fight with the artist. I would hope an agreement could/would be reached before it gets to a courtroom. I think DAC is a good company and Hannah Lynn is a good artist...I understand the fact that my hobby, is someone else's livelihood.....that being said this issue (renderings, intellectual property, copyright etc.) was probably going to surface in one way or another. Let's hope for good resolution that sets a precedent so we dont have this again.
I agree
She's bringing the artwork to other companies...Not the renderings. That's what I'm getting out of this and she says the renderings the other companies make will quite possibly be near copies to DAC. There's only so many ways to produce a rendering of a diamond painting, either a cleaned up version or a heavily confetti version depending on manufacturer. DAC may be able to own the rendering style due to doing everything in house, but they have no rights to the artwork being used. The quality might not be as high as DAC but maybe that's what DAC is thinking is that somehow someone on the rendering team gave her rendering files.
She is saying she can use the renderings. But if she legally has the right to that is up to her.
You know this whole thing makes me wonder if DAC’s lawyers are setting them up for failure. Like they decided there was a suit and haven’t fully communicated with DAC on everything. Company’s have had this done to them before. But that’s my thoughts. I love Hannah Lynn’s artwork. DAC also has a lot of my favorite artists as well. The fact that so many are afraid of saying anything in fear of getting kicked out of the VIP group or their channels being hit is truly scary. I really hope that this all gets taken care of the correct way. This is a nasty situation and it should have never come to this. I wish the best for all.
I do hope they figure it out.
This video popped up on my feed and I'm so glad it did. I knew there was drama between DAC and Hannah Lynn but had no context so this was very insightful!
I love your personality and you seem like someone I would be friends with irl. 😂
Gonna go binge all your other videos now 😍♥️
Awe thank you! I appreciate you.
I mean....if you want the diamond painting to be faithful to the original art, there are only so many ways it can be rendered. Why should these companies have to alter a few pixels to not step on DAC's toes? I didn't read that as she's taking the actual renderings from DAC and handing them to the other companies. I read that as other companies' renderings are going to be almost identical because the process is the same from company to company, and DAC can't copyright their renderings and then sue because she owns the rights to all derivatives. She's not doing anything wrong ethically, morally, or legally.
I get that and she can do that. Put in those terms it makes more sense. That's why I'm glad it's being talked about so we can see different POVs and learn.
Just to add a little more context, in the US you are legally obligated to defend your copyrighted work against infringement or you risk losing your copyright. She really doesn't have any option that doesn't hurt her in some way unless DAC backs down.
Just to add a little context she did take the exact rendering from DAC complete with their little icon and all and that’s what was posted in the other group as “the rendering” that would be sold and I think that’s when all of the mess began
@gmays3003 well she owns all renderings so that shouldn't matter.
@@MeeshTeesh I’m not even looking to argue literally just clearing up the confusion that it was indeed the same exact one from DAC website and it was provided to the other company by Hannah herself. When all the orange began in the group I already knew it was about to get messy. That’s what I was saying and that’s all. I’m not interested in arguing or taking a side. I’ll still support Hannah wherever she is and I will also still buy from DAC if I love the art
Love Hannah!
I like how confident she is in standing up for what she believes in.
💜💜💜💜👩🍳 Thank you for the update 💜👩🍳
You're welcome. There will be one more after this one. I just have to edit it. I am a nervous rambly mess so I have to figure out a way to make it less chaotic lol.
@diamondsandthoughts your fine. Remember,
❤️🤍💙 First Amendment of the United States Constitution Protects freedom of speech.
DAC might take your buying needs away, but they can't take your voice. Keep it going 💜👩🍳
I can't believe dac lawyer emailed you I need this video updated lol
Thanks for sharing this
You are amazing
Yea i said something about j wall !! The other thing i would do is be smart about change the colors of the drawings there are ways to go over dac
I don't think she should have to change her art. I do think that the new companies should do their own process in renderings even if it ends up similar to DACs. Start from scratch and manufacture their own work.
🐞 thank you for these thoughts and info
♡♡
Thanks for putting this out in the open
your welcome
Ok here's the thing I keep coming back to. I don't understand why this is an issue for DAC. They have retired all Hannah Lynn art so they were not going to be making any money from the art. Her letting someone else make diamond painting of them has 0 affect on DAC. So why does it matter?
Get out (in my Rachel from Friends voice)!
I’m new to your channel and I totally agree with your disclaimer.
Thanks!
I don't know about DAC but certain DAC affiliates are absolutely deleting (civil) comments about it.
I think that's okay and their choice and we should respect it. IMO because their content isn't just about DAC. In my next video I go into it more but I think them getting that artists name and art out is more important so we don't punish the artists that are already contracted with DAC. DAC'S behavior shouldn't reflect on them
not cool that ppl are scared of repercussions
🐞 so sad this has to happen to such a popular artist..I wish her the best
Same
Thank you 🙏🏽 ❤
Good for her love her art!
Hannah Lynn has the rights to her work, and she should be allowed to license them out at will. I just don’t know how I feel about her taking an exact derivative and licensing THAT to another company. The difference of her example with contractors or mechanics lies in who is paying the worker. Hannah Lynn doesn’t pay the worker charting the derivative of her work. The company she licensed to does. So the company is paying their worker and Hannah. When Hannah takes the workers work and brings it to a different company, that worker can no longer be paid for the work they did. Whether Hannah has the rights to do that based on a copyright courts definition of a chart as a “derivative” remains to be seen. I, personally, don’t think it looks good to take the work another person did to create a rendering and sell it to another company who won’t or didn’t pay that person. The person obviously doesn’t have the rights to Hannah’s artwork, but they do have the right to be paid for their work, whether that’s a one-time lump sum (like in the case of a contractor or a mechanic) or an agreement for a percentage of sales. Obviously one is messier than the other…….. and since none of us know how DAC pays their rendering artists, who’s to even say?
I know that personally, it doesn’t feel right for another company to profit off the work of someone they neither employed nor contracted for the rendering. Hannah Lynn obviously has the right to her artwork. But to me it feels wrong to then sell/license the EXACT rendering she didn’t chart herself (nor paid to have charted herself) to another company. Note I say EXACT rendering
Because frankly if it’s not the EXACT SAME rendering, this is all moot!! If it’s a different rendering then OBVS IT DOESNT BELONG TO DAC LMAO
Either way the vague wording in the contract might work against DAC in court even if they do try to claim this other company is using an EXACT rendering. And also either way I doubt DAC is paying the rendering artist a percentage off the kits, the way the original artist is probably getting. So frankly even IF it is the exact rendering, if the graphic artist was paid a single lump sum for that (or it’s included in their standard wages) then frankly I don’t really care. I’m not here to vouch for a company having rights over people. I merely make the argument purely in the case of the rendering artist, because they’re a smaller fish than BOTH Hannah Lynn and DAC and I don’t want them to get lost in the shuffle of this dispute. They deserve to be paid for work done, regardless of who paid them for it. As long as they were paid what they were told they’d earn, then it’s all good.
If they’re losing out on money they were promised for the work because DAC didn’t understand the law and the liability they held towards the licensed artist’s work, then that’s STILL on DAC. But personally if i were in Hannah Lynn’s shoes, I wouldn’t be able to stomach putting another person in that situation. I’d feel like I’m taking advantage of a smaller person’s loss after their company screwed BOTH of us
@@Slightecho_ (IMO) I think we need to evaluate the term “rendering artist” as a marketing term. We don’t classify people that color in a coloring book as artists. I’m not saying they aren’t talented, but in the business world- I wouldn’t refer to my company’s marketing and creative team that creates logos and presentation designs as artists. They are simply executing on an already established vision- not one of their own. The term “rendering artist” is used more as a marketing term to make a customer feel like an upgraded experience because they have an “artist” touch. You can easily call it pixel formatting, but doesn’t carry the same feel.
Adjusting and formatting pixels in a software program is a job and shouldn’t warrant royalties or commissions like the actual creator of the art. For example, the person who changes the color of the Nike Logo on their website should be paid for their time, but they should not receive commission/royalties as it’s not their design/intellectual property.
@@cyriousdiamondpainting3743 The job title for a person who designs logos and marketing materials is a “graphic artist” and to be one you still need an arts degree and an understanding of color theory, design, and composition… so that particular argument doesn’t really work for me unfortunately. I almost went to school to become a graphic artist and believe me when I say the courses i was assigned and all the materials and supplies necessary for them were the exact same as the the people who were there for a “fine art” degree 😓 I literally changed majors in part due to the expense.
I agree about it really coming down to how the graphic artist was paid by the company, which ultimately comes down to the fault of that company. But having been in the shoes of having my own concept art for marketing materials taken without credit or even a thank you, that is the only reason I bring it up. In my case, when it happened to me, yes. I acknowledge the logos and images were not my art. Those were created by someone else and I was using them with approval. But the *product* I created with them was stolen without even so much as credit and that SUCKED
Im conflicted. I'm still against the idea that she will bring the renderings over to another company. Even if she legally can. I think that's exactly what she's implying she will do and I guess that's on the company she works with to be ethically responsible.
But DAC is the #1 company and if you have the opportunity to make their quality renderings and get an insight into a "trade secret" ie rendering, id be hard to resist.
I'd argue because DAC makes their own colours at times, there's somewhat a propriety part in colourings that may be kept to DAC. But I'm not sure.
No where near the same but it reminds me of how Kylie Jenner swapped companies with her lip kits and they had to sue her because it was believed she gave recipes and insights.
I think it will come down to the wording of the contract. If they didnt fufill her contract and ended it early, she also has grounds as will
Yeah. I understand why she can and will use them and the companies can it most likely will reference them. It is conflicting but it is what it is. I don't have to agree with it. I'm glad we're hearing the different perspectives
DAC doesn’t make their own colourings even they use DMC colouring, and RGB colouring from a cold wheel.
They actually have expanded the color pallete with more colors @@sparklinbudgets
That was supposed to say color wheel
I agree with leaving the affiliates alone. Some of them use RUclips and affiliate programs to help feed their kids. Thanks for highlighting HL's response for those of who didn't see it.
And the affiliates are also getting the artists names out there.
I I’m not on either side, but I think there may be some misunderstanding on the part of the artist. The contract may contain language preventing her from using any of the artwork that DAC produced with another diamond painting company. I’m not talking about her Art going forward, or Art they didn’t use, but the ones they purchased to use as kits. I understand how frustrating that could be if that’s the case, but it’s not the first time anyone has ever heard of a company retaining the copyrights of someone’s intellectual or physical product. It happens in business all the time. The difference here is one entity is being quiet about the situation and waiting for all legal matters to be settled while the other entity is talking about it in a public forum. That could go badly in the long run.
I’m not going to pretend to know anything about legalities. What I CAN say with 100% certainty is that I will continue to buy from DAC because their pieces are the highest quality and best renderings, second to none, in my opinion. I can also say with certainty that I will continue to support artists like Hannah Lynn, small shops, and try and defend the “little guy” when necessary.
Yes. I think everyone should support where they want to and how they want to. At the end of they day I believe it comes down to the artist and they deserve the support
Thank you so much for the video ❤️🩹💎❤️🩹💎
♡♡♡♡
@@diamondsandthoughts love you 🥰