วีดีโอ

Not really sure. The guy said the character was named Oliver Swift, and my customer was named Oliver, so maybe it's some reference to himself or something. I always go over all the details about the design and verify if the plushie is for an adult or a gift for a kid because that will dictate some of the design (it needs to be safe for a kid if it's going to a kid), but if the customer doesn't offer up the meaning behind the plushie, I don't fully inquire just because sometimes it's really personal, you know what I mean.

I think it's morally wrong if you think it all the way through and then do it anyway, for sure. But I think she only thought it through AFTER the fact when someone pointed it out. The reason I think that Ashley is not immoral IS because she made the course correction after the fact. Some damage is still done even if she donates the mass produced version (which she definitely said she will not be selling them, so that's good), because now some Chinese manufacturers were basically given the instructions to make the plushie now. So they could go ahead and mass produce it for themselves still because I'm sure it would get bought, it's a cute a$$ duck. But she did try to do the right thing after the fact, so I'm choosing to give her the benefit of the doubt and believe this was an honest, though dumb, mistake. That aside, of course, I totally agree. Crochet is and will always be special. Plushies are cooler when they're handmade, for sure. No doubt in my mind. So this wouldn't have been my first thought...mass producing vs commissioning people to crochet. A thousand dollars worth of crochet ducks would still be a lot of ducks.

To the best of my knowledge, yes. But you'll have to look up the laws for your state (assuming you're in the US). And it's worth noting, in a lot of states, you don't need a business license to run a business. That's just something you'll have to look into. BUT, if you are in the US, please note that ALL income needs reported to the IRS. Not all income is taxable, necessarily. But you have to tell the IRS about all your income. In their eyes, if you're selling anything, you have a business, so you have to report your income and expense to them.

Thank you!

Thank you so much!!

I haven't watched this video in a while, so I'll do my best to answer it just based on using the square reader at every market. In the app, you can set your sales tax percentage. You'll have to look up what that is for your state, but also, look and see if your county is different. I don't know if this is true for everywhere or if Florida is super weird. But everywhere in Florida has a minimum of 6% sales tax on the purchase but some counties have a discretionary tax on top of that. So, if I do any events in, say, Hernando County, I actually need to collect 6.5% sales tax. So if the item price was $20, I'd need to collect $1.30 sales tax (which will be added to the total for the customer automatically, if you have your sales tax set). So the customer will pay $21.30 in total. Then later, I have to remit the $1.30 to Florida. However, sometimes I don't collect tax at the event. But if I made $500 at the event, I'll just pay $32.50 later after the fact. I hope that makes sense.

@WorksofWhimsyCrochetCo thank you so much this helps alot 💗

The hats were meant to be magnetic and she ordered different colours so that people can still mix and match. She said she’s giving them away to charity now though as she had already ordered them but feels bad about selling them after all this.

@@emmadavies8184 Thanks for clarifying. That makes more sense.

I see someone already explained the customization process for the actual plushie. It was a good idea as far as customizing the actual plushie goes. But I agree, this isn't really a solution to market prep even if it WAS her design because we're crochet artists. We crochet. An actual plushie isn't crochet. So even though this does give her more stock for markets, which is helpful, I definitely don't think this was the best way to go about. Like, I can see how she got there in her head, but most of the markets I do require the stock ALL be handmade. So this would be an issue in that sense. And I do think it steps on the fact that we're supposed to be handmade artists, and she took something previously handmade and made it not handmade anymore. All this to say, objectively speaking, I get her thought process. She bought more stock, that gives her more stock. But subjectively, this is a bit of a strange thought process from someone who is a handmade artist.

Thank you for explaining this!!! Very helpful!

That's a good point that I didn't actually specify in the video... You're right. Technically Quinn's video came first, so while I see it as a bit harsh (because she actually speculated that Ashley was intentionally trying to take credit for the design), it's hard to say if I'd still feel that way if the apology video didn't exist/I didn't watch it like immediately after watching Quinn's video. Knowing what I do now, I feel like I can see Ashley's train of thought and how she ended up in such a compromising position without really realizing at first. But Quinn didn't have that kind of insight when she made that video. So that's honestly a great point and I didn't actually consider it like that before I made my statements about how I feel like she was a bit too hard on Ashley. Not that I don't think Ashley was in the wrong, of course. But I just felt like saying it looked intentional was harsh. Though, if you do take away the apology video, I could actually kind of see how she ended up at that conclusion. All that aside, I know I need to get better at giving credit to the designers. In my first year in business I was pretty bad at this. This year, I've done better, but I'm still not doing it 100% of the time. So, there's still room for improvement. It is the right thing to do, and this has really opened my eyes about doing better. BUT it's worth mentioning that I'm a crochet designer too, and while I put in my patterns that I'd like credit too, I mostly just do that because it's standard lol. But I don't necessarily actually care about credit in most cases. Meaning, you don't necessarily have to mention me up front, but I'd like it, if someone asks whose pattern it is, if I get some credit at that point. Just because that could lead to sales haha. But like generally, I don't necessarily need the credit, but of course, don't steal my designs or have them mass produced into an actual plushie. Just get help with crocheting them if you need more for markets.

For sure. AT THE VERY LEAST. Though, at the same time, I'm still not sure I love the idea of mass producing a regular ole plushie when she's supposed to be a crochet artist and planning to sell them along side crochet plushies, even if she had permission. We're handmade artists. Aren't we supposed to believe handmade is better, more special? Though, like I said in my video, I certainly understand the desire to outsource some market prep lol. That's just not how I think it should be done.

thank you so much!!!

Omg, literally! Food costs money, even for extra special people lol.

@WorksofWhimsyCrochetCo nah we can just all live on air. Who needs food anyway! 🤣

Not that I didn't know it was important before this, but this definitely made me re-examine my actions. I have been better this year about crediting the designers of the patterns I use without being asked first. HOWEVER, I definitely am guilty in letting laziness get in the way of that because it takes more effort to get the link for every post/description box than it does to just post and only do it if/when someone asks. So, I'm going to strive to do better in this. And not just because of cancel culture, or anything like that, but because it's the right thing to do.

I would consider lying by omission wrong too. I hadn't really consider it like THAT because Idk... maybe I'm gullible... but I didn't really see the intent to hurt from Ashley (her apology didn't feel hollow to me). Conceptually, I saw the mass production as problem solving (only conceptually, I'm not saying it's right to mass produce ANY crochet characters, let alone those that aren't your own). I just felt like the issue was that she didn't think it through enough to realize it WOULD hurt someone. Not that it makes it okay/acceptable/excusable. But even in criminal law, they have two different charges for unaliving someone intentionally and unaliving someone by accident, you know what I'm saying. So to me, it matters a lot HOW this went down. Because of course, if her common sense was the only issue and she's stopped now and apologized, then we can all just move forward together as a community understanding that this ISN'T okay even if it's not technically violated infringement laws. However, of course, if she did 100% intend to leave out the information (which, I don't know that we'll ever know for sure, even if there are people that THINK this is the case), then obviously, my feelings about this would be a lot different than they are. And as you heard, my feelings are that this was a mistake and that she learned her lesson and is trying to do right NOW. But that's the hard part here because it's really difficult to tell what someone is thinking when they do something and I just try to give the benefit of the doubt.

​@@WorksofWhimsyCrochetColove how you called out Quinn for "villainizing" Ashley. Then proceeded to make Quinn into the villain. Feminism at its finest 👏 👏

Yeah, for sure. Ashley literally points out in her video that she's only 22 and her brains not even fully developed yet. The prefrontal cortex is the last to develop and coincidentally is responsible for good decision making. I know when I was once 22, and even being a mother by then, I look back now (at 30) and I can see that I was dumb as heck haha. I can't even imagine being that young and trying to run a business, let alone running a business and being on the internet. I'd like to think I'm a good judge of character, and Ashley genuinely seemed to be sorry and seemed to be giving a lot more thought to her future actions. HOWEVER, it is worth noting, not everyone feels this way. Some of those people are being reprehensible as you put it, so I feel like we can disregard them. If you're going to be straight up nasty, your opinion of someone else is irrelevant. BUT some, like Quinn, and like a few people in this comment section, do think this wasn't a fully innocent mistake, and while I disagree, I don't think THEY should be disregarded because they were able to give an opinion and give examples as to why they feel that way without just straight up attacking her. So, you know, they SHOULDNT be ignored just because I don't agree, which is why I explained how I feel about what Quinn said in my video. I don't agree with it, even with the examples she gave, because I feel like there's some logical explanations for them, you know. But, the good news is, I think we can ALL learn from Ashley's actions, whether they were fully intentional or not. Course, I wouldn't mass produce a plushie like this (though, I'm not against hiring help to ACTUALLY crochet), but this has really highlighted the fact that I have no excuses for not crediting a designer every single time. I've been better about it this year, but there's lots of room for improvement still. So that's what I learned, and what I'm going to work on.

Yeah, I didn't want to make the exact same video so I said where I disagreed with Quinn. Because while she is entitled to her opinion, I am too lol. Plus, it's definitely not clickbait to mention the one thing no one has said in a video yet, INCLUDING Quinn, which is that legally, what Ashley did was perfectly acceptable. But you don't have to appreciate my video, as that's YOUR right.

Yeah. I kind of agree. It's best if we keep things black and white. If it's not yours, don't profit off of it (except in the context of paying for a pattern and making it for a market.) But don't mass produce someone else's design. Try to keep the trademarked stuff just for funsies. That kind of deal. And I also think Ashley apologizing was the right thing to do. It felt sincere to me. And she seemed like she was actually reflecting on her current actions and how to be better in the future. Which is really important and shows growth.

Oh, I totally agree. I do think it was disrespectful but as you said too, I don't think it was intentional. And that's part of why I wanted to make the video because like, I can see why Quinn drew the conclusions she did but at the same time, I think speculating that it was intentional to not give credit to the designer so Ashley could potentially take credit herself, to me, came off as villiainizing her more than was necessary. But of course, that's just MY opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I appreciated Quinns take on everything else. Like she posed good questions that I personally never even have considered as far as the potential consequences of this. And I was genuinely curious about everyone's take because I know there are some people that don't even consider it as morally wrong because how can it be if it's not illegal. And that's why I thought mentioning the lack of legality issues was very important to the conversation too.

Thank you!

These aren't legal opinions. This is basic factual information about intellectual property law that EVERYONE in the crochet industry should know because it's speaks to what we can and can't do in our day to day business. It was also worth mentioning because if you go read the comments on Ashley's videos and Quinn's videos a lot of people were calling this infringement and it's technically not. So I explained how it's not infringement. And, I personally think that's worth mentioning because some people see the world as black and white, and have the mentality of "if it's not illegal, then how could it be immoral". I thought that was an interesting perspective to hear about. And since this is my channel, I get to ask people to share their perspective. Also, it's worth noting that before I even made this video, I ASKED people on TH-cam and social media if they wanted to see it. When I made those posts asking, I went out of my way to mention that there was already a video made about, though I disagreed with some of the points made in the video and I felt like an important fact was left out (that this is not a legality issue being what I was referring too). The vast majority of people said they'd like me to make this video. So, here we are. But I agree with you, I kind of get a bad taste about mass producing what was originally a handmade item. That's part of what made it special. And this has definitely made me self reflect about making sure I'm giving credit EVERY TIME and not just most of the time when I post a thing I've made.

She could have inspired others to do the same. Publicly speaking about things like this teaches ppl what the proper etiquette is. For sure the target attention doesn’t feel nice but she did make a mistake. The last person this should have been unfair for was crochetedbyel and I think that’s who CatCakeCrochet was speaking up for.

@@MarleneNailStudio she absolutely did and why if she was spoken to privately and a video made by anyone on these situations would have been fine but to pretend we didn’t know this was going to cause a target on someone is absolutely mean girls shit. People do do this just to make situations aware of but add a person into the equation is then brings it to this situation at hand. I’m not saying she isn’t wrong.. she is but the person that felt the need to not speak privately and share with the world a dicey situation and then a person attached is bound for a attack and that’s what I think is wrong.

I get what you're saying, but it's worth noting that Crocheted by El didn't even realize it was happening until Quinn (Cat Cake) told her, so at that point another party was already involved. And I supposed technically Quinn didn't HAVE to make her video, but I do think it's definitely part of what made Ashley apologize for the situation. Which is the right thing to do. And, I do kind of agree with Marlene that speaking on this publicly will help prevent another situation like this, which is good. At the very least, it'll help persuade people not to do it because even though Ashley seems like she's made an honest mistake, people came at her HARD. And you KNOW people won't be as forgiving if this kind of thing happens a second time. The prospect of having a community of people say really mean things to you can definitely be motivating to really carefully think what you say and do through.

@@CompleteCreationsLLC Privately it could have gone ignored just like some of the comments asking if it was her original design. The whole point was to get ppl taking about it to hopefully fix the wrongs. All I’m saying is accountability is a good thing and we can all grow from it and I guess I’m more empathetic to how sad this would of been to crochetedbyel, the original designer, if it had reached the selling of a mass produced product stage. Cause it’s harder to fix then. 🩵

I think she was speaking up for Crocheted by El too. And Quinn was the one who told Crocheted by El, so at that point Quinn was already involved anyway. And you know, I think that was the right thing to do. Telling her. It was important to get her feelings on it before even speaking out. But I personally don't think people should be attacking Ashley, even if they feel she did this on purpose because no one gains anything by being hateful. But that's just me, and maybe I'm biased about it BECAUSE I believe her when she says it was in honest mistake so I feel particularly bad for her that people are being mean, but still. However, I definitely think that talking about it will ABSOLUTELY help sway people against doing it too. If anything, they'll see the hate this girl's getting and at least think twice lol.

Correct Lyra! This is all great information and examples!!! Also, I see think I see what you're saying about the duck plush and the crochet pattern being different enough to not be the same thing legally. Copyright only protects the pattern, but if she trademarked the character, even as a crochet plushie, I'm pretty sure Ashley couldn't make a plushie out of it, because at the end of the day a crochet plushie and a commercially manufactured plushie are still both plushies. And to use Harry Potter as an example too, someone couldn't turn the Harry Potter books into a Harry Potter movie without getting the rights because even though it's a different medium (book versus movie), its still the same characters, if that makes sense. So if she had a trademark, I do believe Ashley would still need to get permission to make a plushie of it or even put it on sticker like some people do with their crochet plushie characters.

Kleenex too! That's a good point!

I could be wrong, but I do believe the Blood and Honey Pooh wears a red top of some sort. And Disney was who put the red shirt on Pooh. However, I could be wrong, for sure, because I've never seen the movie lol. I like horror movies, but not like that lol.

@@WorksofWhimsyCrochetCo I did not see the movie. I heard it was awful and not the so horrible it is good awful. I could be wrong as well.

Blood and Honey was possible because the copywrite expired for the book version of Pooh. Disney still holds copyright for the yellow bear with red t shirt

@RowanFey The bear in the movie has a red shirt, which IS Disneys adaptation. To the best of my knowledge, it's because the movie can be argued as a parody of Winnie the Pooh why it's not infringement. AND it's worth noting that Disney has "Winnie the Pooh" and "Pooh" trademarked, yet the movie was still called Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey.

I thought it was a Pooh-ish spoof of Five Nights at Freddy's. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure my teenager mentioned the correlation.

You said everything I was thinking well … I also didn’t like the mass production thing as the whole point of making stuff and being a small business is just that. Taking something and making it cheaper and gas doesn’t mean it’s better. If People spend money for handmade items that’s what they need to be. I wish this was handled privately to avoid so many hurt feelings and hate in the process. No one deserves it .. none of the girls ❤

@@CompleteCreationsLLC I agree, it takes away the whole point of being a small crochet business. I’m not convinced that handling it privately would have led to the same result since comments questioning her right to do this were being deleted and ignored. But I do wish people who commented had only addressed the behavior instead of attacking the girl. I feel for them all too. ❤️

Oh for sure, it'd definitely an interesting choice to take a handmade product, in general, and mass produce it. HOWEVER, especially when that handmade product IS crochet being that it can't be machine done. So having the "knock off" manufactured instead of commissioning someone else to make them is an interesting choice, especially because with $1000, you could have FOR SURE hired hands to make at least SOME. Maybe not as many as you can have manufactured, but still. And if you pay for the materials and find someone who is quite fast at crocheting, they likely would have made the ducks for at least A LITTLE less than she was already selling them for, and then she could bump up the price on hers, just a smidgen, to help cover the fact that she's outsourcing and boom, there would be no issue. So you definitely made some good points. And FOR SURE, I felt Quinn was *just a bit harsh* but those comments were *waaaaaay* out of line.

Yeah absolutely, I wish people would figure out the difference between sharing an objective opinion on something and being downright awful. Because, to me, there's a clear difference lol.

You make a great point Priscilla. I don't know anything about comments questioning her being deleted (though, I do know Quinn mentioned them being ignored... maybe I'm naive, but I'd like to think there's a logical explanation for that too. I'm a SMALL TH-camr, and sometimes I get WEEKS behind on responding to comments, and her reels/tiktoks have like a bajillion views, so I'm SURE she's gotten more comments than me... so maybe that's why they seemed ignored... but also I could be wrong). BUT I do think this definitely would have gone down A LOT differently had Quinn not messaged Crocheted by El or made her video. So that is a SOLID point.

It was either "duck gate" or "the duck that broke the internet" which is a reference to Kim Kardashian's butt from a magazine cover from like a decade ago haha.

See, this is why it's worth noting! I personally think it's uncool to do, but it's an interesting question to pose, "how can something be morally wrong, if it's not legally wrong?" That's essentially why I thought it was so crazy that no one had bothered to look at things from a legal standpoint yet. Though, after talking to Cat Cake (who's name is Quinn, I learned), she said she didn't cover the legal side because she didn't feel qualified to because she's not a lawyer. Fair. Honestly, that makes total sense to me in hindsight. But at the same time, I just felt like it was really important and didn't give a FULL picture of the situation to NOT mention the legal side. So, here we are. And it's worth noting, that Quinn did explicitly say in her video that she's against ripping off one of our own, so she did touch indirectly touch on the point you made about folks' basically stealing patterns and making tiny changes. In my opinion, I feel like certain things are like always going to look similar. Like I've got a dinosaur that looks similar to a lot of other dinosaurs, but I wanted a faster market make, so I made up my own dinosaur basically. HOWEVER, I think there's a difference between taking a generic shape like that and making my own version, and someone seeing something like KnotJadedCo's leggy frogs and making their own. Like no one pioneered the generic dinosaur shape, so to me, it's fair game if we all make our own Dino patterns shaped like that. HOWEVER, to the best of my knowledge KnotJadedCo was the first person to create frogs shaped like that. And they have a clear, unique, distant shape that's not similar to a generic frog shape. So, at that point, I think it's wrong for people to make and sell their own leggy frog patterns. EXCEPT for Jo's Web who made a leggy frog, but it's distinctly different than the original version. In my opinion, it's different enough that, while you can tell it was inspired by the original design, it's not a direct rip off. Of course, all this is my own opinion, so take it with a grain of salt lol.

Loved your video ❤

Hello Quinn, it's nice to formally meet you, for starters! And I appreciate you taking the time to respond to this. I'm hearing your points. But, I would just like to explain a few things, so you can maybe see that I wasn't trying to like jump to the furthest of conclusions. I'm rewatching your video so I can pick out exactly what you said to explain exactly how I came to the conclusions I did. But, I do hear what you're saying. First, I'll address your second point because you touch on this first in your video. While you didn't technically say "we should be allowed", which is how I interpreted it, the comment you made was, "Do I morally thick it's wrong? No. Not really. I'm not ever going to side with a huge corporation. I don't think those huge corporations are hurting by us small creators charging $30 for something that took us an hour and a half." Then you went on to say when it would be sketchy to use a trademarked character. Your example was Bluey p*rn, which of course, I fully agree here lol. But I think, reading back your own words here, you can see why, even though you didn't explicitly say "we should be allowed", I took it as that. And in my video, I went on to talk about what can and can't be done as far as infringement goes, it was just meant to educate viewers, in general. NOT because you said anything about it that was right or wrong about it. There's just be a lot of discussion of infringement related to this, so I wanted to give everyone a run down about it. I hope that makes sense. Basically, that was just generally speaking, not responding to what you said. So that's my bad for not creating a clearer separation between where my thoughts about what you said ended, and where my next points begin in the video. If I ever do a video like this again, I'll make sure there's more distinct separations between thoughts. And to clarify what I said, I don't think AAAA crocheter could corner the market on smugglers. BUT if we, collectively, start producing Disney snugglers, this *could* hurt Disney because when there's a true need for something, it's more valuable. But, with us producing Disney loveys, there's no longer a need for them. I do see that this is a stretch in THIS example, but I don't think anyone can argue that something that doesn't exist yet, but is wanted, is more valuable than something that already exists that someone else also tries to produce. So point taken here. It is basically impossible for us to compete with Disney, but you get the gist of what I was trying to say. It was just a poor example in hindsight. Now, we'll move into your first point, since it was kind of the next thing covered in your video. In my head, I combined what Ashley said in her video and what you said in your video about the "my duck" thing, but I'll explain that in a second. I know you did *explicitly* say you were not trying to bully her, at all. Which I do respect. However, you did say, "in this case, unfortunately, in my opinion is that she is taking credit for Crocheted by El's design because she isn't openly stating that it's not her pattern". To me, that part felt harsh (judging by your reaction, perhaps I'm interpreting this as harsher than you meant it). But note, that's just TO ME that it seems harsh. I can't speak for everyone. Though, you do go on to point out that she did leave a link, but it was way after the fact, which I agree is a little late for sure lol. Because, while I forget to credit people here and there (and genuinely, this is something I'm trying to work on, because it IS the right thing to do), if they leave a comment asking for a pattern, I will go find the link and post it. Then, you went on to say that you felt it "almost seemed intentional" for her to not credit Crocheted by El. This, to me, was where it really felt like it crossed the line into villainizing her. Now, I don't think you were like crazy insulting or anything. I don't even necessarily think it was uncalled for to say. And, I think it's fair game for you to share your opinion. However, in my opinion, saying that she was trying to take credit and maybe even intentionally avoiding crediting Crochet by El just seems harsh. You could have just laid out all the facts, like she hasn't credited her, her whole platform is built around the duck, etc, without saying the part about how you think it's intentional because that makes the situation particularly nefarious. HOWEVER, like I said, it is technically well within your rights to share your opinion, as it is within my rights to explain why I interpreted what you said the way I did. Now, I FOR SURE don't mean to be harsh or aggressive towards you in any way, and I don't think you're like super mean or a bad person. This is just my take on it, so this can be an area where we respectfully disagree with each other. Then, as far as the "my duck" part. Ashley said in her video that she was calling it "my duck" and that's where people were getting confused. And you said in your video, that because of the lack of crediting Crocheted by El, it makes it seems like that's her duck. So I do admit that I mistakenly cited what you said. Though, I do think my point still stands that it's not uncommon to say something like, "look at my duck!" when showing a duck you crocheted even when it's not YOUR design, just simply because you physically made that item. And now I think we're at the last point. I can see why you didn't focus on the legal issue with this, now that you've said that. I'm not a lawyer either, but at one point, I was going to school to become a paralegal (which was really fun... there was a whole mock trial at one point... but at the same time, A LOT of reading haha), so the law interests me. Even as a paralegal (had I become one officially), I couldn't give legal advice, but I know my way around some legal research, and for the most part infringement is pretty cut and dry anyway. But, of course, then we get to issues like this where it's not legally an issue, but probably should be. It's just not covered by intellectual property law at this time. But of course, ya probably shouldn't do it regardless lol. And I'm not saying I'm 100% qualified to cover this topic from a legal standpoint, it's just something that HASN'T been mentioned (at least in video form yet) in relation to this situation. And to me, it's really important. I felt like people weren't getting the FULL picture, without making that distinction. Morally wrong/legally perfectly acceptable. And where you were more interested in pondering the morality of the situation, I find it interesting that something can be morally wrong, but at the same time, not legally wrong. And yes, I agree 10000000%, I absolutely don't think we should be ripping off one of our own, for sure! And unrelated, but I was thinking about it the whole time I was watching your video, I LOVE your wallpaper. It's so cute and calming and gives like hippie nature vibes.

Quinn, you literally introduce yourself at the start of every video, so if this person is subscribed, she would have known your name. I liked your video and you mention up front to not go harass this Peter’s girl. Second video I see dissecting the drama, think it’s just the same of trying to get more view traffic. I enjoyed your video, this one I cannot finish viewing, too much finger pointing and misinformation about your video.

The responsible thing to do among our sister & brother crafters is to have reached out to them one on one, to have an adult discussion about the concerns. It was made into click bait, ultimately hurting one of our own in our community. This makes me sad. We should be holding each other up with support and education. Let's do better. 🧶

@coastalb1 Actually, I made this video after asking on social media and in my community tab if people wanted to hear my opinion on it and I even mentioned there was already another video about it when I asked. Multiple people told me they WANTED to hear my take. Has nothing to do with trying to get views. This actually was the SECOND video I released today. My regularly scheduled content has gotten me more views than this. Which makes sense because this video is only for a select group that cares about such a niche topic. If you did TH-cam, you'd know niche topics don't typically bring in the most traffic/viewership. That aside, if you listened BETTER, you would have heard me say that I stumbled upon this ONE video of hers, that's how I discovered her, but I subscribed. Why? Because, as I stated at the beginning of the video, I think she provided a beautiful commentary on the morality aspect and the potential consequences of these events. However, you are correct, she did introduce herself at the beginning of her video, which I did catch the SECOND time I watched it all the way through. Because I literally watched her video more than once for clarity sake because I'm TRYING to do by due diligence as I'm putting out my opinion and info on things. But I missed it the first time because I was more focused on listening to her talk about what was going on. My bad, I'm only human. And no need to stress about not watching all the way through. I'll still get paid even with your partial view and commenting is engagement and will boost my video in the algorithm. Thus, more views. So don't worry, you've already done more than enough to support my channel!

Your take is exactly why it's an interest conversation even for those NOT directly involved. I agree that there is nothing wrong with her getting a second set of hands for crocheting the plushies. Especially because this is a free pattern, so it's not even like she'd be sharing a paid pattern (which IS covered by copyright law). But, I do think it is more of a gray area that she outsourced an ACTUAL plushie of the character. I personally wouldn't do it (maybe to have one for myself, but certainly not to sell), but it's legally okay. That's why this is such an interesting scenario, in my opinion. But, I hear ya, it would be tidier if Quinn (Cat Cake) and I didn't involve ourselves in it.

@@WorksofWhimsyCrochetCo Definitely wasn't meaning to sound harsh it's just been in my face so much the last couple of days. I agree people need to be educated on the ins and outs of copyright and infringement. It's a slippery slope and one I won't go down not even when someone asks if I can make our college mascot or an item that has their logo on it. I'll be happy to make a red and black scarf or hat but in no way am I going any farther than that. She definitely overstepped with the mass market approach and like someones comment I read now that manufacturer could take the idea and run. I was doing macrame when it became all the rage again and then hobby lobby, michaels etc started selling the products so cheaply made but people were buying them. So it does hurt us in the long run as small business owners. I have to say I do enjoy your channel because it is very informative. So you keep doing what you are doing.

And Quinn (Cat Cake) definitely pointed that out. We, as crocheters, are already competing with companies that mass produce crochet and now, by doing this, we're like potentially giving them the opportunity to rip off our characters too. I definitely understand the desire to outsource, but she should have outsourced using other crocheters and then we wouldn't even really need to have this conversation lol.

@@WorksofWhimsyCrochetCo I totally agree with you. It’s probably been an educational conversation for many newbies. Better to learn from others’ mistakes. AND you ruined my Christmas sale…I just realized the goofy grinch I crochet is a licensed character, now I have to skip it. 😂

Thank you so much! I hope it's helpful! And if you're referring to the Oak and Marlow chickens, I sell those for $15-$18. Primarily $15, but I play with pricing, so it's worth noting that I have sold them at $18 as well.

@@WorksofWhimsyCrochetCo Thank you so much! They are adorable!!!

hahaha, gotta love those AI generated captions!

Welcome welcome! And congrats on getting started! It's a very exciting time!

Thank you! I think they came out pretty cute! Better than I thought they would after I fumbled my way through the first one lol. I feel like it's a bit easier to hide mistakes in plushies versus wearables.

I think it's a good pattern, but I did the same thing as you, and flubbed up the first one a bit. So I had to equally flub up the second one to make them match haha. But they did turn out cute!!!

@@WorksofWhimsyCrochetCo I think it was a good pattern as well. It was my first attempt at anything like that so my skills were lacking. I’ve only ever done amigurumi or simple hats. Love to see your stuff and how honest you are! ❤️ I’m in massive market prep mode. I’ve got a huge market in October and need about $10k in inventory 🫣 good luck in your market prep

It's not in the seller agreement. It's in the Terms and Conditions. Key paragraphs are: "Welcome to Michaels.com. These terms and conditions (this “Agreement”) apply to your use of the Michaels website located at www.michaels.com and all other sites, services, applications, products, features and tools that we make available online (collectively, the “Site”), except where we expressly state that separate or additional terms apply for certain services as outlined in this Agreement or by any incorporated terms and policies. Third party Marketplace sellers, or sellers on MakerPlace by Michaels, are further governed by the terms of their respective Seller Agreement, which are incorporated into this Agreement by reference. As used in this Agreement, “Michaels”, “us”, or “we” refers to Michaels Stores, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates." This means anything in Michael's T&C also applies to the MakerPlace website. But also, the people who use MakerPlace also have to abide by the seller agreement. "For any User Content you submit, you grant to Michaels a non-exclusive, sub-licensable, fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, transferable right and license to use, display, perform, transmit, copy, modify, delete, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, sell and distribute such User Content and to incorporate the User Content into any form, medium, or technology, now known or hereafter developed, throughout the world, all without compensation to you. For this reason, do not send us any User Content that you do not wish to license to us, including any confidential information or any original creative materials such as stories, product ideas, computer code or original artwork that you do not wish to license to us. In addition, you grant to Michaels the right to include the name provided along with the User Content submitted by you; provided, however, Michaels shall have no obligation to include such name with such User Content. We are not responsible for the use or disclosure of any personal information that you voluntarily disclose in connection with any User Content you submit. You represent and warrant that you have all rights necessary for you to grant the licenses granted in this section. If you use the identity of a third party in the User Content, you represent and warrant that you have their written permission to do so. You further irrevocably waive any "moral rights" or other rights with respect to attribution of authorship or integrity of materials regarding User Content that you may have under any applicable law under any legal theory." So, you own everything except what you grant them the rights too, but anything you've put on the website you've granted them rights too. And I know the next argument is that this is all standard faire. But check out what they say about THEIR STUFF: "Content All content posted on the Site by Michaels, such as text, graphics, logos, images, audio clips, video, data, music, software, and other material (collectively “Content”) is owned or licensed property of Michaels or its supplies or licensors and is protected by copyright, trademark, patent, or other proprietary rights. The collection, arrangement, and assembly of all Content on the Site is the exclusive property of Michaels and protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. Michaels and its suppliers and licensors expressly reserve all intellectual property rights in all Content. License The Site and the Contents are intended solely for personal, non-commercial use. You may download or copy the Contents and other downloadable materials displayed on the Site for your personal use only. No right, title or interest in or to any downloaded Content is transferred to you as a result of any such downloading or copying. You may not reproduce (except as noted above), publish, transmit, distribute, display, adapt, modify, creative derivative works from, sell or otherwise exploit in any way any of the Contents or the Site." So funny how they own their stuff, indefinitely, and we can't publish, transmit, distribute, display, adapt, modify, create derivative works from, sell, or otherwise exploit anything on THEIR website. But they can create derivative works from anything WE put on their site. I'm not saying they would. HOWEVER, it's clear that all the protection in these Terms & Conditions goes to Michaels, NOT the artists.

You'll see in the paperwork if the white tent is required. I've done A TON of markets and it's not been a requirement for all but one of them. Meaning, the average market, any colored tent is okay. But the fancier juried events, it CAN be a requirement. And the benefit to THESE events is that they tend to be quite selective about who they let in, so you don't always have to worry about like 5 other crochet artists being at the same show. Plus, they tend to attract *actual* shoppers. Whereas, at regular events, some people are just going to browse (which is okay, but when the customer has to pay money to get into an event, they're more likely to actually spend money within the event too). HOWEVER, you definitely don't have to do juried events to make money. So basically, all that to say, don't worry if your tent ISN'T white, because you can still do plenty of events with a colored tent. It's just something to be mindful of. Also, good luck at your first event!!! I hope it goes fantastic!

Yes, for sure. It can be quite overwhelming to have to take in a chaotic display. Especially if you're literally trying to pick through and shop. And that's awesome that your set up is so well received!! f you have Facebook, I'd love it if you could go to my Facebook group and post a picture of your display. I know that's a weird request, but: 1. I'm trying to grow the group, so I'd love to have you! 2. I want the group to be a place of learning and inspiration, so seeing your set up might help people get ideas for how to organize THEIR stuff. Plus, it's good to see an example of what's actually be well received by customers too! Here's a link to the group: facebook.com/share/AWf6u6tY6HE4pdio/

@@WorksofWhimsyCrochetCo I have joined and uploaded a small video of a stall we’ve had this year x

Events can be expensive for sure. In other industries, it's not uncommon for people to pay $200-300+ for markets, but those kinds of markets are already kind of outside of our grasp because it takes so many crochet hours just to break even at those events. But even for the "cheaper" events we tend to do, you still have to price well to make a profit. And I would venture to bet, if I ran down THEIR numbers, they're not even making enough for yarn money. Also, thank you so much!!! I try!!

Thank you so much!! I hope it's helpful!!!

It IS doable alone, definitely. Rebecca, my podcast cohost sets up alone at all of her events and has an ABCanopy tent too. But it's definitely easier to do if you're not on the pavement because you can kind of use the dirt/ground as leverage. Like basically slightly bury a foot to hold it in place so when you're trying to pull the tent to pop it open, you're not just dragging the whole thing, if that makes sense. However, I don't set up alone, so I can't 100% give you my own experience. But I do know it's doable because of Rebecca and because, I won't lie, a lot of times, I just have my husband set up the tent for me, and then I get out and start setting up the stuff in the tent haha.

Ohhh, I like that tip!!! I would have never thought of that, but I could see it working pretty well and it's not like pool noodles take up a ton of space, so it could be pretty functional too. Great suggestion. You'll have to let me know how it goes. I don't use table cloths anymore because I've switched totally to grid walls, so I can't test this advice myself, but I'd love to find out of it works!!! And I totally understand where you're coming from. Not everyone that has a crochet business does markets, that's just one option for your business. So, it's definitely smart to find out if it's right for you before investing a lot of money into those larger purchases, like a commercial tent. I hope most people got that as a take away here: the fact that you can work your way up to these things and you don't necessarily have to have them all from the get go. I don't want to stress anyone out or overwhelm them.

@@WorksofWhimsyCrochetCo I'm sure that no one was stressed out. You were giving advice from your experience and not telling anyone what to do. I appreciated the information and the visuals.

This is true. It's just hard/nerve wracking to say stuff sometimes because I don't actually have control over how it's perceived.

Yeah, that's probably the most expensive upgrade on this list, getting a commercial tent. But if you're going to be regularly doing markets, it IS worth the money for sure. That's a cool side by side comparison though. I mean, not cool cool because having to spend more money on something you already had sucks but just for science sake, that's a cool side by side comparison lol.