Lawyer Response- Diamond Art Club
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ย. 2024
- Diamond Art Club responded and I am so happy we now have both sides and it's cleared up exactly what the problem was. Now we get to see what the courts say if it comes to that so that the rest of the artists and companies know what to expect from here on out.
Support the Channel
www.buymeacoff...
Amazon Wishlist
www.amazon.com...
Email-
diamondsandthoughts@gmail.com
Companies- (I do not have any affiliates)
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...
![[Live] : ONE 168 วันนี้!! "โจนาธาน vs ซุปเปอร์เล็ก"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jIN65KgJsI/mqdefault.jpg)
Just because they created a copy of her work in another medium doesn't mean they own that copy ... or the rights to the image.
really weird that they are emailing and contacting you instead of making this statement public
That's my question too. They have the money for a PR and legal team to be putting something out that wouldn't affect a court case. I don't think any of this makes sense to be going directly to a youtuber instead. It still doesn't make their side of things look any better.
Yes, you are completely right really suspicious. And whoever says the contrary, doesn’t know anything about lawsuits. Common practice is to public a statement in the company page without given to many details addressing the situation, that’s the normal practice.
This! I was hoping they would make an actual statement and don't like that they made me their mouthpiece. But maybe they will now that they see the consumer base and DP community wants to hear from them.
They haven't learned anything because now they have filed suit against the Redditor mentioned for speaking to Hannah Lynn, amongst other things. Not just a random Redditor but a former customer, who purchased many of their kits. Her side of the story is on Reddit.
😬😢😨 damn
I have seen some screenshot comparing DAC's and other company rendering of same image and it's not the same. In any case I don't think a rendering can be copyrighted by DAC, because it is made on an image which doesn't belong to them. I don't even believe that hand charting is taking hundreds of hours for a single image, because I've done it for myself and it's not taking so much time as they claim. HL owns her artwork, period. And once the contract with DAC has expired, she can do what she wants. And they can't even complain in which sizes she sells her DPs with other companies, because they don't even own the DP size. This is ridiculous. Did you read latest HL statement on FB? That they even pushed her to remove her agent because he was being difficult about terms on contract? He was protecting her and they got rid of him to manipulate her better. You can believe what you want, but they are not the good ones. They are not amazing. They are just trying to protect their ass.
Your point about the contract expiring is spot on! I’ve said that the whole time - the contract was not in perpetuity, so they have no ongoing claim.
Whatever. You’re not a lawyer, let them decide whose is what.
I'll preface my comment by saying I'm not a big fan of DAC's rendering style. Although i think it suits artists that do cartoonish images like HL, i prefer a more soft rendering style myself.
I am also someone that was banned by DAC for some mysterious reason ( i never got an explanation, i tried making a purchase after nearly a year of not buying from them and said purchase was cancelled, without explanation and my email went unanswered and they blocked me on Facebook messenger).
So i might be a bit biased. But i do think HL is correct that she owns the renderings and can use them as she pleases. As she states, all production costs are taken into account when calculating profits and royalties. Rendering the images is just another production cost imo.
Unless the contract specifies otherwise, she can do what she wants. What i see happening forward if the courts do decide in favour of HL is diamond painting companies adding something to the contract to prevent this situation. It will be interesting to see.
HL is totally right when she speaks about loss of revenue because of the black market, and DAC is hugely responsible for that, with their fomo marketing strategies. Lots of her kits came out as Limited Edition so that fomented that situation and she probably lost a ton of revenue whilst with DAC for that reason, i cant blame her for not wanting more delays and to lose more money because of them.
I would love for you to do a video about marketing strategies and the black market by the way.
Great video, i like your style!
The problems with the reselling market is that DAC is admin on most of the groups. They know what their kits are going for. Maybe they need buyer limits or an inhouse resale site. But the problem is FOMO is their marketing. You kill the resale market, you kinda kill their marketing
IMO - legally and ethically/morally are different things and can be vastly different in degree. HL I’m guessing is correct, the artwork, including the renders DAC made are hers legally and she can do as she pleases with them. This is where contracts come into play and it’s a live and learn situation. It’s up to DAC to put in the contract with the artist that if they are to go their separate ways that the renders they created will be destroyed - so they don’t have any right to it nor the artist.
But we are humans and should do what is morally right.
Destroying the renders would definitely solve any future squabbles.
@@Jo-nj3esthis is the nature of business in the arts industry. Hannah isn’t doing anything wrong she owns the art and any derivatives of it
You’re correct she owns the renders as well since they had to pay her to render them, and they no longer have a contract, that means that she legally can do whatever she wants with them
Thinking over it that’s a very legal lawyer response. The contract gives her the derivatives and if they made it impossible to get income I see the urgency in using what was already produced to get income. I mean if I was at the point of loosing my livelihood and can’t provide I’m going to go for the quick sale. The people who created the renders were already paid for their work. I mean is anyone questioning if Ghibli got paid for the paintings they are selling? Also the Sailor Moon knock off kits.
If they chose to make her life hard and decide to feed the black market over providing a profitable market for both .
They were legally hers to use. DAC is being smart by being quiet so we won’t confirm or deny their image.
Concerning their latest suit on the redditor I wonder where this will lead for you.
I hope Hannah Lynn is able to move forward with other companies using new artwork and renderings created by the other companies. I agree that renderings made by employees paid by DAC should not be used by other companies. I still feel DAC tends to bully others and uses scare tactics to keep negative feedback about their company hidden. I am a fan of DAC and their quality of product but not their business practices.
She has signed with at least 4 other companies so far that Ive seen
I agree with all if this. I really don't like that they have not made an actual public statement and used me as a mouthpiece.
I still stand with HL and all artists. I have decided to remove myself from the DAC world as far as not purchasing from them ever again. I, like many others, got swept into the I gotta have this one & that one right now. I'm taking back my enjoyment of this hobby by not stressing over trying to buy certain ones before they are gone. That's not enjoyable to me. This hobby started as a relaxing hobby.....no stress & no drama. I'm definitely not keeping a wishlist of DPs anymore and I will be supporting the smaller companies from here on out.
Good for you! ❤️ The FOMO business model is a really strange one and one that has always felt really icky as an artist who also licenses with a few different companies. Hobbies SHOULD be enjoyed and you should be able to buy the art you love at a reasonable price without worrying about missing out.
On the flip side, it’s wild to me that DAC would operate this way knowing they have term contracts with their artists and do not own the rights to any of the images. They’re granted a temporary license to use the images for kits and once the terms are up, the artist is free to take those images elsewhere….because they’re theirs. So their FOMO business model kind of backfired and now it seems like they’re just throwing a giant temper tantrum because of it.
same here.100 % everything you have said.
My question is why DAC released most of Hannah Lynn’s kits as limited edition (one-off) going straight to archives when selling out within minutes. Meaning she was only paid for however number of kits DAC decided to release. I have not seen majority of their other artists kits going straight to archives as they have with Hannah Lynn. DAC is creating a black market predominately for her kits by not restocking her work thereby affecting her compensation for her copyrighted artwork.
Also, how many different ways can an artists colored artwork be rendered when all companies use DMC standard color codes?
Just asking…
There have been a couple recently which have been released and archived.
The only issue I think colouring would have is that DAC makes their drills in house and have created their own colours. I feel like that might be an issue coming up.
Rendering can look very different! As an example, check out the different rendering styles that Jaded Gem Shop offers, they give a notably different vibe to the original art.
Precisely. (y) I have a x stitch rendering program on my pc. there are only so many ways to manippulate an image, anchor or DMC, and size ratio as well as how many colours.. there is no style because... its pixels!
This company says they hand chart each piece. There was a comparison video made some time ago where one of the dp TH-camrs did comparison piece of J Wall’s “Spirit of Flights” painting. One was from DAC and the other one was from a well known Germany company. Once you see them completed you can tell that these two are from the same painting but look very different. 66 colours from DAC painting but 100+ colours from the Germany one.
@@rantsofafangirl7000 DAC hasn't created their own colors. They use DMC color codes like most other companies. It's correct that they manufacture their drills in house, but that's not the issue here.
Hi, it’s funny how DAC send their “Lawyer “ to you to make you think that they’re doing things the “right way, I don’t believe absolute nothing from them, and Hannah Lynn has the rights to her work ones the contract ended but , I’m just a little person, it’s just my opinion, but thank you
Well Lawyers tend to have to follow the law and she does have the rights to her work. What she is trying to say in this video was it’s not morally right for her to hand dacs renderings over. The other companies should have to do the work just like Dac did. Dac sets the bar high for diamond art and they should have to do their own work spend their own money to make the rendering not just take a short cut and use what Dac paid their employees to do.…
I'm with you, this Attorney letter looks and sounds fake. No lawyer write this type of letter. Unprofessional. No legal terms. Nothing burger 🍔
Here's the thing - DAC paid their artists for the rendering work done. However, if that payment was deducted from what they owed Hannah Lynn before they paid her, then it seems like she paid the artists and should be able to give those renderings to other companies. Having said that, there are two sides to every story, so I'm not sure if she actually paid for the renderings. Since I can't tell from either side if this is the case, we'll just have to see how this plays out in court. Then artists will know for the future what they can and can't do when changing licensees.
She doesn’t have to pay them for the renderings it’s her work, she owns the licensing, essentially they have to pay her to render it and use it. The renderings belong to her.
It think it's so important to find out what the courts say so everyone on both sides know.
What about all the people who were banned?
To say a company owns renderings of one's art work is like saying if someone were to restore a person's art in a museum now owns copyrights to that art because they spent money on someone to restore it. I think renderings belong to the artist because it's their art. Just my opinion.
Keep in mind you talked to a lawyer, not the company. A lawyers job is to try and make their client look good.
I think DAC is completely out of line. If she legally owns those renderings, it's her decision what she does with them. It's her artwork. All DAC did was make pixelated images of her work.
Also it just sounds like you're condoning a big company bullying an artist and that's just sad.
Also I sa DAC filed a lawsuit against the Redditor. They're just doing damage control in my opinion.
She is not condoning any bullying by saying the new company’s should have to put in the same work as dac did and make their own renderings
@@Jo-nj3es that's your opinion. My opinion is she is condoning it.
@@crimsonfate99 👍😂
@@morissasweeney and no one has fully proven that she reused the rendering. And if she has, again it is her work. A rendering of her intellectual property is still her intellectual property. All they did is render it into pixels.
I'm not a lawyer, but logically if they're going after a Redditor, but not her, it's probably because they don't actually have a leg to stand on. Until shown otherwise, I'm fully on the artists side and good for her for standing up to a big company that, again in my opinion, is just trying to bully her
I have no idea as to why DAC cannot respond personally, but instead just hand it all over to their lawyers to deal with. You are just so brave to speak out, knowing just how many would want to have you silenced. But WOW, the way you have handled this it truly amazing. Even from you being confronted by DAC lawyer. You are such an amazing mediator all round. Perhaps you should really reevaluate your skills regarding such sensitive issues. Im sure Hannah Lynn is impressed with the way that you have given such light as to what goes on behind the scenes. To be paid as an artist is one thing, but by how much is quite another. Is the payment enough for them, as an artist, to just turn a blind eye as to what they can do with the artist artwork, once they have access to it.? I dare say Hannah Lynn is wanting to close the loop hole that she has unfortunately had to deal with, just to be an advocate for other artists, not to fall into the same trap. Thank you for being so strong to making us all aware of this important issue. Afterall, all of us as customers are the ones who are paying for the rights of artists to release their works. Not DAC. The same as how postage is already incorporated into the price of each artwork. Just remember, there is no such thing as free postage. For a company wanting to promote the compensation for artists on one hand for their artwork, but then again exploiting them behind the scenes is quite disgusting. DAC need to be accountable for their actions.
I think it's the Streisand Effect. Normal people don't care about this sort of drama. Especially in a craft that is supposed to be relaxing. If they mention it on their socials, people might not be aware of it suddenly go down the rabbithole and they lose sales.
To your point that it’s wrong of another company to sell DACs renderings or “steal their ideas” DAC also does that multiple times all the time. None of their ideas are original and they are not unique. All this talk about “ethics and morals” yet that is essentially the nature of the business. The point still stands that Hannah Lynn is the sole person who owns copyright on her paintings or renderings. DAC can claim all they want that what she’s doing isn’t legal when in all actuality it absolutely is
This really makes me think twice about purchasing from Diamond Art Club, it seems like they are bullying. I think Hannah should be able to use her renderings. It seems practical to for Hannah to use the renderings since DAC isn't going to be using them going forward.
@@morissasweeneybecause the renderings are based off her art, it is hers to do with what she wants and she’s been prevented from one major source of income for more than half a year. She should be able to profit off her own work regardless of who rendered it. They wouldn’t have even been able to do so without her permission and they aren’t able to use those renderings now anyways so someone should be able to
I'm an artist and NOT a lawyer. According to the parts of the contract that was posted, the artists retains ownership of derivative works (the renders). The time and amount of money paid to the person/team that converts the originals to diamond painting charts is irrelevant because that is just the cost of doing business and that falls on DAC if they wish to sell kits. Those salaries, along with webhosting, marketing, etc. are paid for out of the upcharge that DAC puts on their kits when they sell them. BUT, if DAC chooses to fight about it, and apparently they do, I don't personally think this is the hill that I would choose to die on. Legal fees, time, and anxiety would not be worth it to me. Hannah Lynn is free to make her own choice about it.
The thing is that if she doesn't fight she's setting a precedent that she won't enforce her copyright over the derivatives. That could lead to DAC eventually saying that she can't sell her artwork that they have renderings of with other companies, or them selling those derivatives without her permission, because they could claim that she gave up the copyright to her derivatives.
Basically in order for her to establish that she owns the copyright she's forced to fight this, but DAC is hoping that she'll just give up her rights which would greatly benefit them.
@@Alexis-q7lvery excellent points
@@Alexis-q7l exactly. They will keep a stash of renders for years and then do 10th or 20th anniversary editions of them on specials without the artists approval or permission just because they say they own the renders. Thats the issue here, who owns the renders? the artist or the company. Right now, I wouldn't
trust DAC as far as I could throw them, because this is all about them trying to retain control and ownership over an artists work and future output with other companies because the artist dared to leave the oh so mighty DAC. sour grapes because they realised one of their biggest income generators has gone and they are trying to force ndas and contracts retrospectively in order to keep their exclusivity of being the only producer of HL art for Diamond art. Im glad this row is out in the open, I nearly recommended a young artist of my acquaintance submit their art to DAC, jolly glad I didnt now, until this is sorted out artists, digital and otherwise really do have to be very careful about retaining intellectual ownership over their art. :-(
This makes it sound like they sent files of renderings to Hannah and she’s taking them and giving them to other companies and that is not at all what’s going on. I’ve been licensed with a few companies and they will send pictures of kits for quality control or low quality pictures with a watermark of rendered patterns for the artists approval but never files. Every Diamond art company worth their salt is going to have similar renderings because it’s literally taking the images - which belong to each artist, and square by square turning them from a colour patch into a pixelated one. They may end up looking the same in the end if the same images are being used… but unless you purchase the rights to the images (which is BIG money) the images belong to the artists and once a contract is up, they can bring them to whichever company they choose. DAC did not purchase the rights to Hannah’s images nor did they send files over - no company does this and if they’re saying they did, they’d need proof of that. It’s a lie they can easily be caught in.
On top of this, going to ANY TH-camr to post a public statement is super weird. You may be flattered and I have nothing against you or your channel, but their actions are questionable.
When I add this with all of the posts in various groups from people that say they were banned from DAC’s FB group for saying something was wrong with their kit or asking questions regarding AI etc, it makes me question their integrity and practices. Their behaviour is bizarre.
Oooh this is good to know. Thank you so much for the informative comment 😊
I agree and wish they would make a real public statement. But I also wasn't going to hide that they reached out.
@@diamondsandthoughtsno I’m glad you did say something about them reaching out and put it out to the public. Your actions are not strange at all - sorry if I made it sound that way. THEIR actions are really bizarre. Reaching out to content creators to hear their side seems like bully behaviour and not at all professional. YOU have done nothing wrong or weird.
The way they’ve worded all of this…. Doesn’t make them look good. And it shows they’re actively throwing Hannah under the bus making it seem like she did something she didn’t. The fact that DAC opted to ‘retire’ some of Hannah’s kits based on their FOMO method of marketing is wild because they didn’t own the exclusive rights to those images. It seems like now they’re retaliating more because they tried to behave as though they had exclusive rights to her work and now she’s taking her images to other Diamond kit companies and ‘Re-releasing’ them which exposes DAC’s marketing strategy for what it is - terrible.
She has a right to take her images that she owns the rights to to any other company she wants because her contract is up with DAC and they didn’t own exclusive rights to anything. What they’re doing comes across as bullying and a giant temper tantrum.
Copied and pasted statement I made on 7/25/2024, cross posted to every other place where my updates are: "I don't have, nor have I ever had, files from DAC to share, and this was addressed by my lawyer in the July 1st letter. Companies with re-release rights are advised that I own derivative rights, and if they choose to reference previous renderings which everyone has access to online, they are legally allowed to per our contract. Every design, including re-releases, still have to go through a hand-rendering process, regardless, which is still also approved by me. DAC just doesn’t want re-releases “looking” like the renderings they did, which is a copy of my art to begin with and also legally my intellectual property."
And I would question why another company, that wants to be viewed as reputable, would take someone else's renderings. That does not make sense. Additionally, there are so many people out there with first hand experience of VERY poor customer service at the hands of DAC. Additionally, many high level artists have parted ways with DAC and are now at other companies. So.....not sure where to go with this.
This doesn't sound like any attorney letter that I have ever read. So...hmmmmmmm....
I totally agree!
@@SheriTracey61 I agree with the company comment. I want to know who she's releasing her work under because I'm going to avoid that company. That being said, if you were selling cola and had an opportunity to see Cokes secret recipe, you'd be a little tempted...
@@rantsofafangirl7000Don’t be stupid. They are using her artwork not DAC rendering . DAC thought they were alpha and now tons of company’s hand render. It’s HL work hand rendered by a different company and charted differently. You are just a DAC sheep. Stop believing bs. You think HL is crazy enough to use the exact renderings of DAC? Be freaking fr.
I also agree with your first statement! I, honestly, don't have enough money to buy works from DAC (although I have bought a couple of their Amazon kits), so I cannot respond on their customer service nor their artist interactions. However, I do have 2 or 3 custom photos that I'd like to get rendered for DP. My dad, who took the pictures, says I need to get them copywrited. I just want to know that my copywrite would stand and that whoever I get to do the custom won't sell it off to a discount DP company or whatever. I have been trying to either buy Amazon licensed prints (through DAC), past copywrited prints, or AI art through the discount companies, just because I can't afford the licensed stuff right now.
I have been very impressed with your videos about this topic. You are one of the very few who have been brave enough to have a nuanced discussion about this subject that has not evolved into finger pointing, blaming or name calling which can be extremely challenging. You should not feel bad about "pressuring" a company to be transparent about their business practices. I did not get any sense that you were pressuring anyone but simply asking fair questions that we, as the consumers, do have a right to know about so we can decide if we want to continue to support them.
Again, hats off to you for having this discussion in a fair and reasonable manner that allows for public discourse.
I think a series about the FOMO and how it impacts us as consumers of the craft. It would also be interesting to look at how FOMO impacts the over consumption of the craft and "collecting" of canvases.
These are def things I'm going to have to research. Thank you for the kind words.
I'm here because I'm nosey 😅😂😂
Sameeee
Or an informed consumer 😊
I think they suck. Why don’t you do a video representing former dac customers who they banned. Report on how it effected people mentally. People who are scared to speak up, in fear dac will threaten with legal action. But since many do not have lawyer money, just let dac get away with all the banning.
@@amberlynn3712 they are horrible. They have spies in all the groups. I have never seen a company openly bash people and other companies the way DAC does. They have a cult like following. What people do with THEIR kits after they buy them is their business. People marking them way up isn’t right but it their choice. I don’t make mine up. I sell them for what I paid for them. I don’t see a lot of people buying kits that are marked way up. I think that phase has passed. I won’t buy kits that are marked way up. I’d be willing to do a video on people who have been banned. DAC has a part in the kits being sold super high. Do all the kits the same. Let people know if it is going to be discontinued. Let the people who want them get them and it would slow it way down. It won’t stop it completely nothing will. But it would help. Get me the info and I will do a video.
People are still afraid to speak up in the comments! Nothing has personally happened to me but i know I wasn’t comfortable commenting anything to Bella art de Nicole’s TH-cam video about their experience with DAC. I wasn’t planning on saying anything bad, just “wow” or “I can’t believe this!” because, wow- I couldn’t believe it, they worked closely together for years. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with anybody on this but I think it’s CRAZY that people are afraid of a company. Afraid of losing points, being banned, kicked off the FB VIP group. For … having an opinion? Commenting about drill quality? People are afraid to say anything that isn’t a rave review of them and I fear that this atmosphere is not an accident.
The quickness in which I clicked on this video! I’ll comment again once I finish watching
Dac took a bad bad road treating customers terribly, not allowing any feedback that is not positive in any form..I do hope their business fails by their own hand. Too late for redemption in my opinion. There are better things in life to do than get caught up in this drama. Plenty if other decent diamond painting canvases and companies without baggage and drama....
DAC renderings should be destroyed.
DAC couldn't sell HL canvases.
And all other companies that license with HL can make their own renderings.
good solution. i like it!
I would like to see one additional video if/when this has been resolved in actuality, whether legally, arbitration or by mutual agreement.
I completely stand with Hannah Lynn. I believe creating the renderings are part of the cost of business. It does not give them the right to hold hostage an artist work. Especially because DAC decided to end the relationship, I feel they are truly trying to destroy this artist. I cannot imagine they have not reaped great profit using the artists name and art. I see DAC continues to showcase Hannah's artwork in their promotion video on their website, among others.
Thanks for taking the time to make these videos. And for the person that asked why…..This is why…. Bc ppl want to know and want these kind of conversations.
I’m starting to feel a sort of way about Dac which makes me sad. Currently having an issue and waiting to see how it’s handled. I shall see what kind of response I get.
You aren't the only one.
@@diamondsandthoughts it’s so frustrating. Especially when you have invested thousands of dollars but not treated that way.
⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️Hey DAC, can you lower your prices or make an economy line so we all can enjoy certain artists' work?⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️
It’s completely clear that the renderings are close to the original art, there is no significant changes. They are copies of the originals that she owns the rights to. It’s obvious that DAC has shady business dealings and are using scare tactics to try to silence people that they have burned a bridge with and have no potential future income from. They really need to be taken down and I hope that Hannah’s case is the one to do it and it opens the doors for all of the other abused artists to get out of their shitty contracts and can get fair compensation for all of their hard work.
I don’t see why Hannah Lynn would allow Diamond Art Club to own her image. Even if it’s only in pixelated/Diamond Art form. I agree new companies should do their own rendering however it sounds like to me that it wasn’t illegal since Hannah Lynn owns her own artwork. However, I’m not a lawyer or an artist. Just providing my two cents.
@@morissasweeneythat doesn’t make sense imo. They own the rendering that is Hannah Lynn’s image? Then why wouldn’t other companies just change a few pixels and or colors and claim it as their own, separate from Hannah Lynn & DAC? I guess we will have to see how it plays out in Court. I like both Hannah Lynn and DAC & I hope they can reach a resolution.
@@morissasweeneythey don’t even own her renderings, the artist, licensor (Hannah Lynn) shall retain copyright in her artwork and all derivatives which is what the rendering is
@@morissasweeney the legality of it and I’m speaking as someone who is in the arts myself and has extensive knowledge of copyright law, it doesn’t matter that it doesn’t make sense to you, DAC doesn’t own any derivatives of the art work, that would be like someone tweaking a photo I took in photoshop and then claiming it as their artwork and saying they have rights to sell it because they edited it for me. A rendering is essentially a glorified edit of a drawn artwork. Same premise, you wouldn’t be mad at a photographer for selling a photo they delegated to someone else to edit for them in a gallery just because they didn’t edit the work themselves so why is this any different just because someone charted a bunch of pixels
@@morissasweeney it is apples to apples, what diamond art club created is essentially a cross stitch pattern and put some glue on the final piece and then allow artists to stick plastic pieces on it. A cross stitch pattern is essentially a hand rendered piece of art work. It’s an edited form of a drawn art work
It's inappropriate and unprofessional for DAC and their legal team to be contacting you instead of making a statement themselves. I don't think your should stop or be scared to give your thoughts, and this is absolutely not your fault, but this is not how they shouldn't be conducting themselves, especially when they're in the process of litigating others regarding this matter.
I agree. I don't like that I was their mouthpiece but wanted to share that they did reach out to me. At least there's something about their side now but it diminishes the value in it. It would have been stronger coming straight from them.
I don't think they've "used you as a mouthpiece". Yes this video has had a few thousand views but you CHOSE to do that, they weren't holding you hostage 😂
Yes this is true. But they also aren't puting an actual statement out there imo they should so it's not on just on one small platform.
Marissa...You are an amazingly articulate & brave person. ❤ Ignore the ones that tell you "it's not your place" and to "butt out". Who are they to make that choice for you?! 😮 We live in a free country & have freedom of speech and if they don't like it, they don't have to listen or watch! You are not "benefitting" or gaining anything by doing this. The extra subs was a happy accident 😅....which you def. did not expect.
I think many human beings are so blinded by their materialistic need & greed & selfishness..(i.e. buying or selling a 100+% marked up dp is sooooo insane)...but to them $$$ is power & many think that having it somehow makes you "better" than others or "more entitled"....like being the only company in the world that sells a certain product (sorry, not anymore 😮) or being exempt from the laws that everyone else has to obey/live by...(until they get caught 😮)...
I have been privy to some really good comments (constructive/kind ones) from people with hearts for what is right....who get the value of a good, healthy debate & the positive changes that can often come from them. If some involved w/this situation don't change anything about themselves after this...then they truly just don't care about this community...the dp community, made up of individuals (wealthy or not) who have made "them" ridiculously rich over the past several years!
♡♡♡♡
Dac treats their customers like shit. Specially if they think you have done something wrong. I refer to them as the mean girls. They have awesome kits I can’t take that from them. But how they treat people is awful. I have also heard they treat the artists bad also. Can’t prove it just what I heard. I don’t buy from them anymore. Other companies have caught up with them kit wise and are so much nicer to the customers. You are walking a very slippery slope posting about this. I wouldn’t be shocked if you were banned. Just be careful what you say.
The only thing I do disagree with is I do not feel HL should have DAC canvases in order to resell some where else. DAC should destroy the ones they have of her work. Another company should do their own rendering.
But I will say I did not like the way DAC worded their email making digs at HL.
Thanks for the video.
In regards to the resale aspect it’s sounding like the concert tickets
It was illegal to resell your tickets (scalping) but now it’s ok to go through a resale site because NOW someone is getting their cut. It’s wrong IMO.
And I’m guessing that the someone is not the artist
At this point, I just need to know how did she even get the rendering 😅
I could be wrong, but I believe renderings are sent to artists for review before production.
They have to be sent to artists for approval before they release them
They are pictured right on website
I think DAC should have clarified all this in the contract they signed with HL. HL clearly insisted on owning the rights to any derivatives of her work. If DAC felt they should own the derivatives they made then that should have been in the contract from the beginning. HL may not have signed with them then, I suppose. Or they could have come to some compromise... but again, that should have been in the contract. I have no beef with DAC or HL, just my opinion.
Lawyers are there to make sure their clients are covered and look good. (But you should not be their mouthpiece.) That being said, just because something is legal doesn't mean it's ethical. If HL owns the renderings, then she should be able to take those renderings elsewhere, but as a customer, I don't think I'd feel good about buying a DAC render from a different company. This being a matter of contract law, its outcome will be important going forward.
Thank you for posting its good to hear both sides. I definitely see both sides of the argument and I think I agree with your analysis- while I think the law is on Hannah’s side and the renderings are derivatives and therefore hers I don’t think it’s morally or ethically right to share those with other Diamond painting companies. Each company has its own unique rendering style that’s part of their brand and using DACs work is wrong. That being said I’d almost put it the culpability on the companies that do copy DACS renderings in lieu of the artist (even though she is the one handing it off allegedly)
I think there's something ironic in the fact that HL is championing artists' rights, but just not for rendering artists. DAC may be problematic, but this boils down to someone taking others' work and giving it to someone else to sell
Yes!
Thank you!
Every single artist that gives DAC their artwork has to be rendered into a Diamond painting.. it’s still the artist art work.
If the contract is over no company has the right to sell any part of that image, I don’t care how it’s redone it’s still the artist image.
DAC images are all hand charted in order to fit as a diamond painting. So that doesn’t make sense when they use that as an excuse. They pay their employees regardless. It’s part of the business.
We the customers pay highly for their products.
Over the last 2 yrs I’ve seen DAC go down hill with the images they have now. It’s more a less images are for very young customers. They have pulled away from beautiful sceneries and other images. It’s very cartoony now. I haven’t bought from them in about 2 yrs.
I think banning ppl is very unprofessional as well. I can’t even imagine why they would to begin with..
other companies have caught up with quality, so I feel DAC is not top notch as they once was..
Thank you for your coverage of this situation. It's definitely complex. I can see both sides. At the same time, DAC does seem to have acted like a bully. I hope that they figure out that customers don't like feeling like we are buying from someone who would act this way.
Rendering is running picture through a program. Takes no skills. Handrendering just making few (bad) changes. The artwork still the same. So if I make a copy of an artpiece and take some markers and blackline it I have created this and is my art now.. Thats not how copyrighy works. Dac already took advantage of an artist by only making limited edition keeping the artist from making money. Now they want to own the art also.
Also a professional company is run by proffesional people. You do not ban customers for complaining. You as a customer spent money and expect a working good product. After a while you run out of customers. I seems to be like a highschool mentality with bullies. Influencers you said don't get paid. They first get a lot of paintings of which they sell and for inflated prices. They will not tell you the truth or they out. Nobody will invest so much time if they are not getting compensated. Its all very cult like and distasteful.
Dac does a lot of hand rendering and it is what makes them stand out and it shows when I do diamond painting from other companies.
I'd like to add that it takes skills to create the program that does the rendering, but if they own the program they likely paid the software engineer a certain amount, it doesn't translate to costs added for every different painting.
That's what they actually own and it would be illegal to leak it for other companies to use, but the resulting renders made with the program belong to the artist
Indeed morality and legality are two seperate things, and that is important to keep in mind.
THIS. What is right is not always legal, and what is legal is not always right.
It has been interesting to follow your reports and yes, you are brave! 🤣 I agree with you all the way. About high prices on discontinued kits I feel we as customers must make sure we don’t pay them prices, people will always try to make money on “fomo”! 🤗
If I ever sell DACs that I've bought, I just want to get what I paid or close to what I paid for them. I wouldn't try to price gouge anyone. I just want to free up space and recoup some of the cost.
Not the point of your video, but a valid point nonetheless: for those of you who are profiting off of discontinued kits-you’re hurting the community, artists included.
It’s definitely the point because HL touched on this in her original statement
Very difficult situation. It will be interesting to see what eventually happens and how the legal process changes similar issues in the future 💜
Agreed
Thank you for posting this video. I tend to lean towards what you said. It’s definitely ok for HL to go to other companies, but I think the companies need to do their own rendering. Oh and speaking of the stories of why we diamond paint - I didn’t email you I left mine as a comment on your last video. Did you see it or should I email it to you? 💜💜
Can you email it and title it benefits so I can put it in the folder. I'm so ready to do normal content.
@@diamondsandthoughts I sure can. I can imagine that you are ready to go back to regularly scheduled programming. 😀😀
I so am.
Has anyone done a side by side of renderings (from a painter perspective) to see if they are the same?
someone on reddit did a side by side comparison of the renderings and they are not the same
@@lxbrix I will have to go look down that rabbithole. I'm surprised (but not really) that it hasn't been done on YT yet. I'm guessing anyone who would don't have a vested interest in doing it.
They’re not the same there are pics floating around of them side by side, the other company has softer and more muted colors
Thanks for making these videos ❤
Glad you like them! ♡
I am so happy to hear DAC come out and let us hear their side. I feel this is very important. I am so glad to see DAC come out and inform the community. I do agree that HL should not take DAC renderings to other companies. As a licensed artist myself, I personally feel she should redue them as each company has their own style in rendering artwork. But I do feel this might set up a dangerous precedence as there is a fine line to walk but that is what the courts are for. I am personally nuteral in this situation.
To be honest this just leaves me with more questions... From my own experience, rendering an image does not take as long as they are implying. Many companies get back to you with a cleaned up render for a custom in under 24 hours, I've played around with a rendering myself and it definitely didn't take hundreds of hours - I'd dare say an experienced pixel artist and the type of software they run their images through would make it a whole lot faster than a newbie trying their hand at it. Also the thing about the sizes being the same is a bit weird? I feel like diamond paintings in the 50x70 cm and 60x80 cm range are pretty common? They also seem to forget that the kits are being sold in the exact same size for both round and square drills, which would naturally require different renderings since the drill sizes differ. So while I agree she shouldn't have given them the exact renders - if she did in fact provided them with it - I still don't think it is the exact same renders being used. How many ways can you render the exact same image? At the end of the day the lawyer will show DAC's side of the argument and things that support their side (he's literally paid to make their case and make them look good), and Hannah will show her side. Unless it goes to court, we'll never know the full story. So until then, I think we should each come to our own conclusion and make a moral decision for ourselves.
PS: Please do the video on the black market! It fascinates me endlessly. As an international, from my experience it seems to be a very American thing. I'm from South Africa, and if we do destash our kits locally it's usually done at cost or lower. I also haven't seen such massive mark ups in UK groups.
They do hand rendering
@@jenniferwalsh1849 it still gets run through a computer program. That render gets cleaned up, colours altered a bit, lines made more obvious/defined, enhancement drills added, etc. That's how rendering works. There's not a person sitting there putting down one pixel at a time on a blank canvas.
@@some.craftz This has been discussed several times in the DAC VIP Group. According to DAC, yes, they hand render the entire canvas, pixel by pixel. That's why it takes hundreds of hours. I don't know if that's true, but that is what they say.
@@kelleywhite46 I'll believe they go through it and check each pixel, like other companies that offer hand rendering. But I do not for a second believe they have a blank canvas and reproduce each artwork pixel by pixel.
Thank you for stating the true facts about time involved. It has also been my experience that the industry grossly exaggerates the amount of time involved. Software is used and then a quality company would do a manual once over to fine tune any issues.
I can see where DAC is coming from. The other companies should do their own renderings, not rely on DAC’s renderings.
I don't know because I just got interested in the DP community. But if the contract states she was TOLD her artwork would be "adjusted" to their in house hand rendering and still signed the control then that's it, she signed knowing. If they didn't tell her then they're wrong. Most companies, well let's say any company that deals with Ideas, Inventions etc that's understood and in the contract.
I think you have done an incredible job with these last few videos regarding the Diamond Art Club versus Hannah Lynn subject. You’ve been very objective and have presented facts not fiction. When you have put your opinion in, you have been very clear that it is your opinion and not a fact. I really enjoyed watching these videos and look forward to other videos you put out.
Thank you 😊 I really appreciate the kind words ♡
Thank you so much for continuing to make these videos and opening up your platform for open discussion!! which you’re right it is healthy to have open discussion!! And NO one should have to pay outrageous prices for kits they feel like they’ve missed out on. Love you 😘 💎❤️🩹💎
It's scary and I'm exhausted honestly and not thrilled DAC didn't make an actual public statement and used me as a mouthpiece. I took a full day, well honestly almost two to get my anxiety and thoughts together. Love ya 😘
What about the other companies that might be using DAC's renderings? Don't they carry some of the responsibility?
I'm so glad you opened this discussion and are showing both sides! this is important for the community and for artists. I agree that other companies should not use DAC's rendering
Well, I am glad that DAC stated their issue and like you I will have to see the legal outcome as I can see both sides. It should be interesting because if it is based off her original artwork, how many changes could be made in a completely separate rendering??? i guess it will ultimately come down to who owns the artwork...thank you for the video!!!
You're welcome. I really wish they would make an actual public statement instead of using me as a mouthpiece but I also wanted to be transparent with my audience that the lawyer contacted me.
I guess i misunderstood the earlier videos thinking that DAC wanted to own the rights to images. Now, i see its about the renderings. And yeah, HL should not be able to re use those regardless that DAC will "not need them anymore". The company she goes with has to do the work themselves
I have really enjoyed your videos on this. I agree with you. Thank you for sharing this ❤
It`s a good thing to show both statements.
I think it is not okay to put them in a good abd a bad side. Both have issues and I can understand both sides. The situation between them is bad, but I still hope they can find a solution that is okay for both.
Okay but HL acts like DAC continues to make money off of resellers whereas she gets nothing - she mentions multiple times that everyone got paid implying she didn’t - but she got compensated just as much as the company did when the kit was originally sold? The company isn’t getting a cut from these black market resellers that she isn’t getting, everyone involved got paid when the kit was originally sold on the DAC site
Someone said that DAC manages resale pages on FB also?! So they may get a cut if you post on their page?
I feel like you are slightly missing Hannah's point. She feels that by following their FOMO marketing strategy and only doing limited releases, they create a "black market" of sorts. This in effect takes compensation away from the artist, since they could have just restocked kits (for which the artist would be compensated) instead of making them limited edition.
@@PDXMomno, not on destash groups.
@@some.craftz I do get that. I’ve been a part of quite a few niche communities that do single runs of things and have huge resale communities bc of it. I don’t love it and some of that has turned me off different hobbies but the FOMO is what generates sales. Without that ‘I have to add it to be logged in before launch time, sitting and refreshing the page, payment and shipping info saved so I can check out before I even get the launch email’ panic people might think twice before buying to complete their collection or stop to think if they really want it
So while resellers may take some sales from them, it’s not enough that losing out on that FOMO would cost them. A business wouldn’t let resellers become more profitable than they are
Love your videos 🥰 vill definitely email and tell my short story 🥰
Thank you! ♡♡ and I'll keep an eye out for it.
I feel like all comments are on Hannah Lynn's side. But we actually don't know what exactly their contract said or what a court would think about it. Sorry, but I myself can understand DAC's view. Maybe they are not right but as already mentioned, we can not be entirely be sure that Hannah Lynn is right either. Maybe if she would not be as emotional about moving on, she would have never expected to just take the renderings with her. Personally, if I licensed with a new company I would expect them to do ALL the necessary work, that needs to be done. With diamond paintings, this includes the rendering. I would actually not like if the new company steels from the first one just "to save some time".
I agree with you completely. I feel the renderings are not her to sell. It is the same as a cook in a restaurant can’t sell their recipe created for their restaurant. The original piece of her art are hers to have but not the ones that DAC rendered. This is just my opinion. The facts are not all known so we will just see how it plays out.
Thank you so much for doing this.
Please do a video on licensed and illegal work . I am still learning as well.
Exactly my thoughts.
Agree..when I saw the other company post it with DAC watermark I knew this would happen..not to mention the other company was not doing hand renderings until now..basically using DACs..and the company pics are coming overseas it's not like they creating them in house by hand render..I heard she is also going dreamer designs and is taking a while because yes they are doing their own rendering..so I agree was a shortcut to get pictures pumped out quick
I agree. I recorded some unboxing and .y memory card I guess is messed up. So I have to redo them boooo. I'm so ready for normal content for a little bit. My anxiety is so high lol
I dont think the Ali market has or does effect artist sales as there are so many DAC artists on there unfortunately yet they are still popular on DAC because the product speaks for itself. I do wonder how they get on there in the first place though. If HL previously worked with other companies who have her designs and are cheaper ect, i totally understand why her DAC kits havent sold as hoped. Protection of your image is also important. You see this with the way Gucci licenced their logo and is no longer considered "luxury" or high end.
Love they reached out i knew it girl congrats.
Me too but I also don't like being their mouthpiece. It would have been better for them to make a real statement. I feel like it diminishes whatever they wanted to achieve IMO
@@diamondsandthoughts Thing is i dont think they had any plans to just as much as i dont think they knew it would get this big and spred this far in the community. Sometimes it happens and yes being a mouthpiece can be hard but it was put out there and im sure they felt it was best to do this way. You were very brave to put it on a youtube and with that helped to make it more seen by the public. The video was huge and had a ton of views you were the first to voice it. This being said it put you on the road they were traveling on with HL. I hope you find peace in the situation and i hope for the best outcome for everyone involved. Keep up the great work i loved your video huggs......
I can say I have learned so much with this and am seeing where I am ignorant. Lots to learn still lol.
@@diamondsandthoughts All we can do is learn and do things in a better way for sure. Im proud of you anyways it takes guts to do what you have done.
Agree the renderings are DACs propriety. The original artwork and all its IP retains to HL. New companies should re-render to their own style. I just feel super blessed to have 3 really nice HL DACs in my stash - wish I had more.
If I understood the situation correctly, it seems that this lawsuit is about the rendering work done by the company (DAC). I think the painting artist (Hannah Lynn) has ownership over the image itself. However, the RENDERING WORK was done by the RENDERING ARTIST which was paid by the company (DAC), then the company has the right over the rendering work that was done. Rendering work was done by the rendering artist who has skills and knowledge about how to translate the given image into a pixelated image. The rendered painting has been CREATED based on the given image which is why Hannah Lynn takes royalty for DAC to use her image. It makes sense to me that she doesn't have any ownership over the rendered work. Also to note that the rendered piece was done by a rendering artist, she can't just take ownership over this in my opinion.
The rendering is a derivative of her work, and she has the copyright for derivatives of her work. Rendering an art piece into a chart is not significant enough of a change to make it a whole new art piece.
If companies could pixelate an art piece and then claim copyright over it a bigger company than DAC would have absolutely exploited that by now.
@@Alexis-q7lsomeone put time and effort into pixelating it, made conscious decisions about it, what colours go where, how to express it into pixels etc, it does not feel morally right for other companies to take advantage of it
@@minkyfulThat's a different story, legally they are not owned by DAC nor by their employees involved in hand rendering or the software engineer that wrote the rendering program
@@shuepsx652the company says they hand chart each piece and do not computer chart
@@minkyful Maybe they do have hand rendering in all canvases, but I honestly doubt that is hand rendering from beginning to end, as in not using any form of software at any stage. Because it would be really inefficient and unnecessary, to not use automated classification for the steps that don't need an artistic or aesthetic based choice.
I’m have been saying for a while there are three side to every story. This sad on story on both sides. But I have to say it’s a wait and see for me. I like DAC but for I rather support artists over a big company. I will be spending my money some with DAC just not as much as in the past.
Sounds to me like DAC reached out to you to try and get a positive spin on this via your channel.
Im not saying thats right or wrong but the publicity office is in over drive on this one. Its a lawyers response... try not to be too starry eyed over it. Its designed to manipulate you into taking sides.
.
Firstly I think this WILL have to go to court. This is a dispute regarding an artists right to maintain copyright and ownership over their images and 'derivative' formats of that image. That DAC decided to bully and coerce an artist into silence with a NDA after a contract has ended is besides the point here. That is all he said she said rubbish. The real issue is who owns the 3rd party pixellated images of an artists exclusive content produced by a mass marketing company for recreation of that artwork by the general public. That is what a court is going to come down to. Who owns the pixels.
.
The NDA and contract issues are fairly simple. You cannot impose a rule that isnt there after the fact just to keep someone quiet because your PR department threw threats around.
.
The renderings used by DAC for their licensed work remain HLs but she should NOT be giving them to another company to utilise for production of their kits under a licence with her. Maybe a new law will have to be made regarding digitalised art will have to be bought in that will cover this and AI art.
Personally I feel the industry is at a cross roads here and it will be interesting to see where it goes.
I'm not to starry eyed. I don't like that I was used as their mouthpiece but at least there is something from their side and that's what I wanted. I was hoping for a real statement publicly from them.
I’m over this whooooole thing, to be honest.
My opinions on this after seeing it all up to this point:
Firstly, huge props and respect to you for opening up this type of discussion in such a neutral way. Either side is going to have their own story and perspective and you've provided the only platform that I've come across to represent each side fully and to the best of your ability. That's very cool of you 🥰
Secondly, I get where HL is coming from. She created her art and unfortunately derivatives of art are so often stolen and inethically produced and provide nothing back to the original artist, whether that be financial compensation or even being accredited. It's a problem in many industries, but from my understanding it's a constant battle for artists and it must be exhausting.
Thirdly, and I think this is where it gets murky for people. In my opinion, if a derivative is created with joint consent of an artist and a "distributor" then it should be co-owned/co-copywrited. Just as the artist has put time, effort and talent into creating the original art, so too did the distributor in creating the derivative. These things take time and a level of skill to be created in a way that is fit for a consumer. Anyone could try to pixelate an image, but it doesn't mean it's going to look good 🤷♀ I understand that the derivative wouldn't exist without the original art, but each distributor also has their own style to creating a derivative. It should only then be sold under agreement of both parties.
Just like you, when I buy from different distributors, I want their style and their take on the original art. That's why diamond painting is an industry which is allowing more and more small shops and companys to pop up. If you want to support an artist you love more benefitially, purchase their artwork from them directly. It might not be a diamond painting, but you can still get prints, stickers and all sorts and they will be getting a better percentage of that profit.
Unfortunately, I think this is going to be an ongoing issue with artists working with businesses to distribute their art in one way or another. The only other way around it for artist that are interested in having their work sold as diamond paintings, would be for them to produce it themselves. But that's time and money that may not be worthwhile for them.
I love how thoughtful this comment is. Thank you for an amazing response.
I don’t really know what I think. I feel bad for Hannah Lynn but I also feel DAC is in the right here.
They’re so far from in the right I have no idea how you could possibly come to that conclusion
@SeptimusHeap95 your not adding to the conversation but being combative and belittling. Please stop.
I think Legally HL might be in the right. But as a person and morally i dont agree with her tactics and explainations. "I want to get them out quick to make money" just doesnt seem to me that she cares for the quality of diamond painting or the craft itself. It makes her no better than DAC in that way. I would have rather she took a step back and released new canvas with hand charting by a company or took time to do a "relaunched return" marketing.
I just cant get behind using the rendering work morally.
She wants to get them out quick because DAC's fomo model has created an insane secondhand market for her paintings. People will resell her paintings for hundreds of dollars, and it got even worse when it was announced that she would be leaving DAC. Getting these kits out is her way of ensuring her fans don't feel obligated to pay this crazy prices.
Also even if it was just because of money, what's wrong with wanting to make money off of her literal job? Calling an artist greedy for actually wanting to make a living off of their artwork is wild. If someone was working a desk job nobody would call them greedy for wanting to make money for working, selling artwork is no different.
@@Alexis-q7l I never said she was greedy at all. But I would think quality would be higher on a list of priorities to protect her work and image. It's all good to get a canvas out there, but if it's trash people are going to be frustrated or go to the resale market anyway.
People who care to support HL will find other ways to pay for her art in buying prints or even doing the whole cross stitch conversions (Like Mandie Manzano fans for eg) while they wait.
@@Alexis-q7l can the customers not wait? As far as I know, HL already announced which company she would be working with and which pieces of art would be turned into kits.
If the customers already knew that and they wanted the kit, all they had to do was wait for the kits to be released.
Unless there is something I’m missing?
@@gabriellepacker7921 exactly my point. Real fans would wait. The fact is she had that option and could make a marketing buzz around that and dissuaded her audience from not buying the resale price. But is choosing not to, again because it's probably quicker/easier not to.
She may be legally entitled to not wait, but it doesn't sit right with me.
@@rantsofafangirl7000 I also think the company that used DAC’s renderings should be getting more focus as well. Legal or not, it’s not a good look to take the quick, cheap, and easy way by using a competitors work.
🫂🤗🫂
As far as i understood she obly owns the rights of the rendering dac created, because it would be too much of a hassle to check every pixel. So they went with the easy way. I think its moraly wrong. Someone put tons of hours creating the rendering base on her artwork. Isnt it kinda a creative prozess too? Especially when the dac rendering is so exceptionell. I dont think she should use it just because its speed up the prozess, from a pure moral standpoint. Since she is the rightful owner, its her right to use it. But i think, just because you have to right to, doesnt always mean you should do it. Anyway thank you for addressing all of it. Wa nice to hear both sides of the story. Also i hope for both side they got some exp out of it for future improvements.
I don't know, DAC would not even have profited in any way from her work if they didn't know she existed. OK, they put work into refining and converting the work so that it is acceptable to the world of diamond crafters. But I can't see because you put in the work to refine and which you per painting get paid for that DAC should interfere with her moving forward with what was originally hers. I agree that Ms. Lynn could have used her original that DAC first used to make it's refined pcs. But I see the DAC renderings as refinded pcs that they per pc get paid for. Diamond Clubs pcs are not cheap. They are the cost of a light bill, gas, bill, cable bill, etc. So they get excellent compensation PER PC that they put out but is not exclusively theirs I believe, because they refined it and made it diamond paintable. I hear what DAC is saying but if they never knew Hanna Lynn they would never even have gained from her what they've gained. And what does that mean that they have archived her work. Could not they in the future still use this work and perhaps she may not profit from this! They would have to let this work go forever if they will archive it. They could have some sought of memory pc (a photo of some kind of their refined converted work) but cannot forever use her work ever again. That is what I think Archive should mean. Because much of her work has gone into a Dark Market I think is not her fault or DAC's , It has simply gone into the hands of citizens who have gone rogue with her work.(that is a good thing and a bad thing) Neither of the two sides can be HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. Ms. Lynn must understand that.
So to me whether it's her original that she first gave to be rendered or the rendering that DAC did, it all starts from HER ORIGINAL WORK, so all Rights are hers. All that DAC gains in my opinion is financial which is substantial, and a memory pc when archived. Her idea for all her work should be hers as it naturally is. We will see what a court says as both sides see things differently and a middle man, so to speak, who is objective will most likely need to be used. This is all my opinion based on the facts of both sides.
I have no problems with DAC. I love Hannah Lynn's work, but she is taking a short cut using DAC work. I get she wants products out fast to earn income. She cut ties. Move on. Her choice. Start from scratch. She's doing exactly what artists complain about their work being copied and they get no compensation. She's now doing that to DAC.
When an artist makes music, that music is owned by the record studio, they have to buy the rights to said music if they decide to change studios.
If a food company has given a formula to a factory, and over the years said factory makes changes to improve flavor/texture, when the contract is over, the food company only has rights to yhe original formula.
I dont think its fair that HL lost so much money, and will have to wait to gain money again. But the law is the law. Even corporations like Disney will license out characters to other companies, but can not keep the companies "blueprints" to use for themselves. Thats why theres so many old collectible disney items, because they can no longer be produced unless disney buys the rights from the company they worked with.
TFS🎉 I Agree with your thoughts on the rendering. I hate drama it stresses me out! I feel bad for both sides however at this point I will still buy front DAC. currently working on 'We Can Do It!'. The upgraded version of Rosie Rivets. I think. Enjoying your channel. 😊
The renderings belong to DAC; Ms. Lynn is wrong to think she can take them and use them with another company. Her art is hers, but the renderings are not.
No, if Lynn owns the rights for derivative artworks she owns the renderings.
I would love to see you say the same thing if it was your own work. Without her there is nothing to render(!!) ... the whole point is to treat their artists better.
Seems that the disagreement is who owns the renderings.
Legally, unless stated specifically in their contract, DAC owns the renderings. They are DAC's intellectual property. HL can take her artwork anywhere she wants, but not the renderings.
I foresee problems for her in her future. The next company she tries to work with will probably be very painfully specific in their contracts. If she bulks, she will have trouble convincing reputable companies to work with her afterwards. No one likes losing money.
Legally does not mean morally. Just because she should have the rights to all copies of her work, doesn't mean she does.
She's already working with Art & Soul and designs are in the pipeline with Dreamer Designs so she's doing ok so far.
No. No they do not.
Why are you putting your nose in this gezzzz
Why shouldn't she?
I agree I feel like you should keep your nose out of it. If you get banned or demonized that’s your loss.