southernliving26 & ImagineStudio

14 Jul

Brought to my attention by another Etsy seller, this shop is full of factory made items that can be easily found using a google search.

need your help to flag these listings & this shop to get the reseller off Etsy 🙂

http://www.etsy.com/listing/50961234/mens-cufflinks-copper-fashion-cufflinks

can be found here:

http://www.perfectcufflinks.com/Star-Trek-Cufflinks/M/B002J7XTGO.htm

And

http://www.etsy.com/listing/50812092/mens-cufflinks-copper-fashion-cufflinks

here:

http://www.perfectcufflinks.com/Iron-Man-Movie-Cufflinks-Cuff-Links/M/B003OYU41O.htm

There are many more.

This one on alibaba:

http://www.etsy.com/listing/51297249/transformer-cufflinks-autobot-optimus?ref=v1_other_1

here:

http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/262353062/men_cuff_link.html

Obviously they are coming from the same factory wholesaler.

____________________________________________________________________

P.S.- And guess who’s back from a long “vacation”- ImagineStudio!

Back up but still with stolen artwork-

http://www.etsy.com/listing/20491225/behind-those-blue-eyes is a painting by Amadeo Modigliani http://tedysweetescape.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/amadeo-modigliani/

Also from Amadeo Modigliani-

http://www.etsy.com/listing/11475307/carnaval-de-paris
http://www.libreriauniversitaria.it/modigliani-catalogo-mostra-roma-23/libro/9788876247255

http://www.etsy.com/listing/23311325/buy-one-get-one-free-see-shop?ref=v1_other_2
Artwork by Gustav Klimt (with Amadeo as well?) http://www.imageenvision.com/illustration/19063-photo-of-a-flower-garden-with-sunflowers-by-gustav-klimt-by-jvpd

http://www.etsy.com/listing/39692275/buy-one-get-one-free-see-shop?ref=v1_other_2
Painting by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec http://www.wooop.de/poster-kunstdrucke/b/bilder-henri-de-toulouse-lautrec/reproduktion/6105.html

http://www.etsy.com/listing/47400591/buy-one-get-one-free-see-shop is a painting by Bouguereau

http://www.etsy.com/listing/38657055/buy-one-get-one-free-see-shop
is a painting by Boulevard Haussman http://www.oilpaintingsgallery.com/gallery/oil-painting/item-CI-0720-KA–Caillebotte__Gustave__France_1848_to_1894-Paris-Boulevard_Ha.asp

http://www.etsy.com/listing/39328178/buy-one-get-one-free-see-shop is the cover of 2 books-
“Town Life In Australia” http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1406567981 & this Russian book http://mirknig.com/knigi/chelovek/1181275525-verlen-i-rembo.html

http://www.etsy.com/listing/41215545/buy-one-get-one-free-see-shop with a copyright notice on the photo & listing is a piece by artist Herbert James Draper http://www.salvatore-art.com/__herbert_james_draper_006.html

Advertisements

117 Responses to “southernliving26 & ImagineStudio”

  1. wahwah July 14, 2010 at 9:07 am #

    I have flagged sounthernliving more times than I care to remember.

    imaginstudio is going to go straight to hell for being a no good lying thief.

  2. bellacruz July 14, 2010 at 9:11 am #

    What a shame!

  3. windyR July 14, 2010 at 9:19 am #

    I don’t often comment on this blog, but do read it regularly. Lately, I have just been appalled at how blatant the reselling problem has become. Etsy needs to either deal with this problem effectively, which appears unlikely, or just admit that mass produced items are just as welcome as anything else. I certainly hope no one purchases something like this thinking they are getting a great deal on a “handmade” item. This is beyond ridiculous.

  4. tovangogh July 14, 2010 at 9:25 am #

    So, let’s get this straight. We can steal a photograph of an original piece of art, crop off the copyright/watermark and call it an homage and this makes it legal?

    Is it possible she got permission from Mog?

    *retching noises*

  5. Bootsy July 14, 2010 at 9:42 am #

    Someone should send the links to all those poor souls that have hearted those items. ImagineStudio is such a HACK! And her art style is horrible. If you are going to steal works of art at least make them look good. JEEZ

  6. Inspector Yuk July 14, 2010 at 10:02 am #

    As for southern living, I sent a shop flag with links to this site: http://www.cufflinkstrade.com/

    I imagine they are the wholesaler to a lot of places, and I noticed that some of the pictures are exactly the ones taken from this website…for example, the stop light cufflinks, if you look at the second page of the auto category, they took the picture right from there.

    As for imaginestudio, I don’t even know what to say. Because I’m not familiar with this type of art or the artists she is taking from, I wouldn’t give it a second thought.

  7. box o' cookies July 14, 2010 at 10:05 am #

    I have that Klimt sunflower painting, in poster form , up in my apartment.

    I was thinking of taking it down off the wall, gluing a cat picture to it or something, and selling it in my etsy shop.

    I guess I’ll go ahead and do it.

  8. Inspector Yuk July 14, 2010 at 10:06 am #

    Am I being muted??????

  9. Blue Kitty July 14, 2010 at 10:20 am #

    Looks like If you want one of the more heinous copyright rip-offs previously sold you have to order it specially now

    “****Custom Orders**** I take custom orders using your photograph and making it into a unique piece of artwork. You can take a look at my sold items to see if there is anything of interest for creating your custom order. Just convo me for any inquiries and price quotes.”

  10. Blue Kitty July 14, 2010 at 10:22 am #

    Inspector sometimes it will only take one URL so you need to break up your posts.

  11. tovangogh July 14, 2010 at 10:24 am #

    Wow @#8. So she can still sell those illegal things that aren’t so obviously for sale, and practice fee avoidance at the same time – kewl. “Let me direct you to my really good art that I can’t openly sell because I ripped it off from a real artist, but I decorated it and now it’s MY art so I can sell it.”

  12. wahwah July 14, 2010 at 10:29 am #

    So, I’ve been playing around with “her” images all afternoon and will open my shop tomorrow.

  13. etsycallout July 14, 2010 at 10:32 am #

    Inspector- No. I don’t see any posts pending from you, what makes you think you are getting muted?

  14. Sara July 14, 2010 at 10:38 am #

    NOT HANDMADE – REPORT THEM:

    http://www.etsy.com/shop/wiccalillie

  15. wahwah July 14, 2010 at 10:38 am #

  16. detroit July 14, 2010 at 10:44 am #

    Haha. I’m gonna make one too!

  17. wahwah July 14, 2010 at 10:45 am #

    Sara, you’re right. All of those are easily found on google.

  18. wahwah July 14, 2010 at 10:57 am #

  19. detroit July 14, 2010 at 11:10 am #

    This one is an action image:

  20. detroit July 14, 2010 at 11:17 am #

    On a seriouser note, I think the ‘Old Masters’ stuff (what she’s using now – Klimt, Modigliani, etc.) is okay to use – right? Aren’t they in the public domain now?

    Not sure, don’t understand copyright law. But I do know you can’t copy living authors / artists for sure, which is what she was doing before.

    But then, where’s she getting the photos from? Like, did someone go take a picture of the Klimt, and now that photo is THEIR copyrighted material? Like, she could go take a photo of Mona Lisa and replicate it, or she could paint it, and use it….

    but it seems like she’s using others’ reproductions of the famous artworks.

    I’m hello confused, obviously.

    Anyone know the answers?

  21. detroit July 14, 2010 at 11:19 am #

    lol – we have a whole birdie series!

  22. wahwah July 14, 2010 at 11:20 am #

    I don’t know the answer to that, but your artwork is brilliant.

  23. tovangogh July 14, 2010 at 11:23 am #

    The copyright issue is certainly the huge thing, but almost as important is that she doesn’t even mention Klimt in that one piece and it’s so easily identifiable by any Klimt lover, but that TinEye so SO FREAKING FABULOUS!!!

    She’s still claiming that those are her creations without crediting even taking a portion from other artists dead or alive (let alone an entire image as a base)

  24. wahwah July 14, 2010 at 11:32 am #

    This is where she stole the bird image.

  25. Voice July 14, 2010 at 11:39 am #

    Detroit, you’ve got it exactly right — the copyright is on the photo of the piece of artwork, not the artwork itself. Getting a photo of a piece of artwork that is good enough to use for reproductions/prints is not a simple “point-and-shoot” process, so some real craft/equipment/time goes into taking the photo. Either the photographer will have the rights to it or the museum/collection/owner will have licensed the rights to the photographer (or someone who hires the photographer).

    I really do hope someone takes her images, reworks them a bit in PS, and puts them up for sale on Etsy. It’s not one bit different from what she’s doing in ripping off the images’ rights holders. Let’s see how she likes having her hard work stolen for someone else’s profit.

  26. Brian July 14, 2010 at 11:58 am #

    I just wanted to point out to anyone who hasn’t seen it already that in the “about” section here on ECO, ImagineStudio (as “Blight”) posted comment #152 that is truly insane. But hilarious!!

    (Also, I posted this comment in the “About” section by mistake! I meant to post it here.)

  27. etsycallout July 14, 2010 at 12:00 pm #

    She should mention the real painters of the work. And because they are famous paintings it is not as cut and dry as how old things are that you can assume they are public domain.

    “The problem is not that the painting is over 100 years old, but that the image being used is claimed by a institution. Most claim exclusive rights over a image of the painting. The museum or gallery are claiming rights (or at least licensing fees).”

  28. Inspector Yuk July 14, 2010 at 12:16 pm #

    Eco, sorry about that. Usually if I post something with links I’ll see it with a ‘this comment is pending’ so I can see it but no one else can until it’s moderated. This time it didn’t show up like that, So I got all paranoid and thought I got muted.

    I see it’s there now. Sorry for the panic attack! :0

  29. Inspector Yuk July 14, 2010 at 12:33 pm #

    This was too good to leave on the ‘About’ page, and since it’s about ImagineStudio I’m c/p it here:
    ____________________________________________________________

    Blight Says:
    July 11, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    **************THE IP ADDRESS OF THIS POST IS THE SAME AS WHEN IMAGINESTUDIO POSTED. IMAGINE THAT 🙂 -ECO
    _________________________________________________________________________________

    Once upon a time there was this person who had nothing to do except Blog about others.
    This person invited everyone who was like-minded to join them on their blog to do the same. The only problem was that they all talked about others in a very cynical and negative way. They did this to a point where they feed each other a great deal of self-righteousness and indignation and they believed themselves to be upright and very smart.

    They went to great lengths to humiliate, take advantage and consume the people they talked about. They poisoned and construed every little parcel and morsel that they feed on to make sure it appeared as vile as they themselves actually were. But, they had to do so, because how else could they digest their self-indulgence in hating and provoking hate and notorious allegations about those they talked about.

    However, little did they know, that some not so like-minded people where made aware of their little tyrannical tea time parties and they decided to take suit …lawsuits… against those who participate in harmful gossip and destructive lashing out towards others. There are no greater offences than that of hate and open self-righteous willingness to grant and encourage others to do the same.

    History has seen your kind, time and time again! This time we are there. We have been keeping a close watch on you since you opened your Blog and we just want to let you know that you are not the only one watching offensive acts of conduct. We are also watching you and the likes of you.

  30. wahwah July 14, 2010 at 12:51 pm #

    Oh Yuk, you could never be muted. I would miss you too much.

  31. detroit July 14, 2010 at 1:15 pm #

    Thanks for the clarifications guys. That’s what I was worried about. I was thinking IS was still not in compliance with copyright law.

    IS – you need to use PUBLIC DOMAIN material! I’m sure there’s a shit ton available out there.

    And, I didn’t even know there was an ‘about’ comment section on this blog! lol

    She also posted the same batshit rant in the July 8 post ‘Readers Comments’ – not once, but TWICE lol. Starting at about comment #113. She claims she’s NOT imaginestudio.

    It must just be a very amazing coincidence that two different people from a small town in Quebec are commenting on the very same thing on this lil ole blog. Maybe it’s one of her PO’s amies.

  32. Disgusted July 14, 2010 at 1:19 pm #

    Hey Imagine Studio! Guess who is watching you? More people and entities than you ever imagined. Not in a good way.

  33. Blue Kitty July 14, 2010 at 1:33 pm #

    Did you notice the Creative Commons details with the bird photograph, rather involved so I only include this snip from it.

    “This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License. In short: you are free to share and make derivative works of the file under the conditions that you appropriately attribute it, and that you distribute it only under a license identical to this one.”

    It isn’t there for the taking with no conditions attached.

  34. detroit July 14, 2010 at 1:34 pm #

    THE IP ADDRESS OF THIS POST IS THE SAME AS WHEN IMAGINESTUDIO POSTED. IMAGINE THAT 🙂 -ECO
    _________________________________________________

    …They went to great lengths to humiliate, take advantage and consume the people they talked about….
    ________________________________________________

    Om nom nom. Me eat ImagineStudion! ImagineStudio is DELICIOUS!

  35. detroit July 14, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

    ^^^^^ Ooops. The way I copied and pasted that up there, I made it look like ECO was say I was ImagineStudio.

    I’m not IS – lol – I was just trying to quote some of her rant. It’s funny.

  36. Disgusted July 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm #

    Detroit – “Old Masters” is a school of painting style (Dutch) from before 1700s. Others are a different type of painting styles. Copyrights have expired on many things but not everything. Have to check case by case to find out.

  37. Blue Kitty July 14, 2010 at 2:01 pm #

    On photographs of works of art the copyright is owned by the photographer and/or client (Gallery usually).

    One reason galleries don’t allow photography even if you don’t use flash.

    If you paint a copy and don’t pretend it is the original you are OK but using the photograph is covered by the usual copyright laws relating to photographs.

  38. Blue Kitty July 14, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    Most likely chance is that the owners of those paintings own the rights to the photographs she is using.

  39. Marky Green July 14, 2010 at 2:50 pm #

    Paintings go out of copyright 70 years after the artist dies.

    Photographs of paintings go out of copyright 70 years after the photographer dies.

    However, a photograph that is an exact copy of a painting has no copyright under US law:

    ‘The 1999 United States District Court case Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (in which Bridgeman Art Library sued the Corel Corporation for copyright infringement for distributing copies of digital reproductions of public domain paintings sourced from Bridgeman on a CD-ROM) established that “a photograph which is no more than a copy of a work of another as exact as science and technology permits lacks originality. That is not to say that such a feat is trivial, simply not original.”‘

    (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_copyright_conflicts)

    ImagineStudio’s reworkings of other people’s photos of paintings are not a breach of copyright.

    They are, however, a breach of good taste.

  40. Inspector Yuk July 14, 2010 at 3:26 pm #

    The key words here are ‘public domain’. I see at least one of the links in the OP is from a royalty free site, so I would guess the use of that is ok.

    However, we must also remember she took current photographer’s work as well without their permission.

  41. tovangogh July 14, 2010 at 3:37 pm #

    thinking what about the fact that she bragged that syfy bought copyrights from HER? Not much protects her from the photographers, publications and models in her most aggregious photoshopped wares. Those CURRENTLY living photographers, models, actresses and major publications. Wonder if Vogue would have a prob

  42. tovangogh July 14, 2010 at 3:38 pm #

    crap, not my website, don’t know how it got there,

  43. detroit July 14, 2010 at 3:55 pm #

    Marky Green Says:
    July 14, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    They are, however, a breach of good taste.
    ___________________________________________

    lol – I’ve been trying to stick to the issue, and not make subjective comments, especially since a lot of people here said they liked her stuff, but, well, yeah, it’s not really my taste either. To each her own.

    It seems like the copyright issue is pretty hazy. And she crossed the line, and is now toeing it with a few items. Still, her listings are way better now than when she had Kate Moss up there, and other fashion editorial from the past five years.

    Though, I notice that already today she’s made a sale of her ‘old’ work. You know – she says, if you like something in my sold items, I’ll make it for you. And so she did.

    If she wasn’t still so obviously trying to skirt the issue, I’d be willing to give her a lot more credit for ‘trying’ to clean up her shop.

    I agree with someone above. Too bad I’m too lazy to make an actual shop of my own. It would be hilarious to make a REimagineStudio store, with small doodles on all her images. lol.

  44. detroit July 14, 2010 at 4:00 pm #

    If anyone does want to make a store though, I’d be happy to grant free license for my work above ‘WikiBirdie pooing on the wire.’

    I’m sure wahwah would also be amenable to her fantastic images being used in the shop too! lol!

  45. tovangogh July 14, 2010 at 4:29 pm #

    hey if you guys opened a shop, I’d buy! oooh, great fun!

  46. boots July 14, 2010 at 4:50 pm #

    c’mon!!! Imaginestudio you’re so tacky!

  47. boots July 14, 2010 at 4:56 pm #

    also bragging that Courtney Love bought your stuff…. please bitch is crazy

  48. tovangogh July 14, 2010 at 5:13 pm #

    jeez regarding sellers who have to try and play the pity card:
    “I have cancer”
    “My mom has cancer and now I felt a lump”
    “I’m currently undergoing testing for cancer” THAT one ticks me off the most – are you in surgery as we speak? Really?
    “I’m a victim of domestic violence”
    “I have a debilitating disease and can’t work outside the home”

    I’m all for helping people, and I do want to help when I can, but I will NEVER buy from someone who puts that out there in the shop policies or profile. grrrrrrrrrrr

    You know, so many people are in the same boat and would never ever think to stoop so low.

    none of that information should ever be in listings. I find it so offensive that people try and guilt others into buying anything, especially useless junk, under the guise of helping the seller.

    ah, ahhhh, bullshit!

  49. etsycallout July 14, 2010 at 6:10 pm #

    The key words here are ‘public domain’. I see at least one of the links in the OP is from a royalty free site, so I would guess the use of that is ok.

    Royalty free does not mean free. It means that you do have to buy the rights. It’s not a free for all.

  50. wahwah July 14, 2010 at 6:43 pm #

    detroit Says:

    I’m sure wahwah would also be amenable to her fantastic images being used in the shop too! lol!
    __________________________________________________

    It would be my pleaser, LOL.

  51. wahwah July 14, 2010 at 6:43 pm #

    *pleasure

  52. Alli July 14, 2010 at 7:25 pm #

    On the FP http://www.etsy.com/listing/51300210/vintage-seaside-stripe-platforms

    I saw these at payless not too long ago. Can’t find them there, but here they are on ebay, New without box.

    http://cgi.ebay.com.sg/MONTEGO-BAY-CLUB-STRIPED-WEDGE-SZ-8-NWOB-CUTE-/290429406720

  53. Voice July 14, 2010 at 8:35 pm #

    Hey MarkyGreen, interesting info! I did not know that. Still…

  54. Toaster July 14, 2010 at 8:53 pm #

    I see ImagineStudio took down all of the listings where I’d found the original very much NOT in the public domain photos that were used without credit for her ‘art.’ I see a lot of contemporary-looking photos still up there – will have to take a look for the original sources tomorrow!

  55. PussDaddy July 14, 2010 at 9:09 pm #

    How does one see IP addresses of those who post? Google analytics does not let you see them

    http://www.google.com/support/analytics/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=86214

  56. PussDaddy July 14, 2010 at 9:21 pm #

    However, little did they know, that some not so like-minded people where made aware of their little tyrannical tea time parties and they decided to take suit …lawsuits… against those who participate in harmful gossip and destructive lashing out towards others. There are no greater offences than that of hate and open self-righteous willingness to grant and encourage others to do the same.

    History has seen your kind, time and time again! This time we are there. We have been keeping a close watch on you since you opened your Blog and we just want to let you know that you are not the only one watching offensive acts of conduct. We are also watching you and the likes of you.

    ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

    Really? History has seen time and time again people hating on so-called artists with such little artistic ability of their own that they have to “borrow” other people’s artwork and claim as their own? When did this happen? Show us some examples. Or are you comparing your “borrowing” ass to whole races of people who have been hated on for their race or skin color or beliefs or whatever? A bit melodromatic, don’t you think?

    I guess I better start practicing how to hold my little pinky finger up all prissy like when sipping tea. Hell I better start liking tea for that matter.

  57. PussDaddy July 14, 2010 at 9:25 pm #

    As far as the southern fuck up, I do believe that Harley Davidson has shut down people before.

  58. Life During Wartime July 15, 2010 at 1:45 am #

    $38 for those used shoes…and of course they sold.

  59. bellacruz July 15, 2010 at 4:17 am #

    I don’t get the supposedly “vintage” shoes selling for so much. Can buyers really be that _________? I just don’t get it. And how can an honest seller really live w/himself or herself by doing something like that. I have Salvatore Ferragamo shoes in my B&M shop right now that I can’t sell and people are paying that much for payless shoes?

  60. bellacruz July 15, 2010 at 4:34 am #

    I finally snapped. Sorry:(

    http://www.etsy.com/forums_thread.php?page=1&thread_id=6574987

  61. Laura July 15, 2010 at 4:40 am #

    WHAT! The vintage payless shoes tick me off! I’m totally going to see if the buyer leaves feedback and convo a link to her “vintage shoes.” I didn’t realize goldenvintage was a scammer. Dang. Just renforces what my vintage shopping on Etsy has all but stopped. I actually hit Ebay for vintage now, which I never thought i’d do! I bought a great Miami internationale shift for $15 on Ebay. Can’t wait to wear it!

  62. tovangogh July 15, 2010 at 6:45 am #

    If you convo the buyer, be sure and include then link to ebay’s $5.99 shoes. doesn’t matter is same size or not, just to prove “vintage” NOT and pricing

  63. windyR July 15, 2010 at 7:38 am #

    Please don’t mistrust all vintage sellers on etsy – some are trustworthy!

  64. detroit July 15, 2010 at 7:57 am #

    Life During Wartime Says:
    July 15, 2010 at 1:45 am

    $38 for those used shoes…and of course they sold.
    ______________________________________________

    Are you kidding me? The ones that are on ebay for 6$!!!!

    I’ve never shopped at Payless, but, based on the name alone I HIGHLY doubt they cost that much to begin with!!!

    Someone should convo the buyer. I’d be PO’d if I thought I was getting real, vintage wedges, and instead was getting used Payless from a couple years ago.

    MAN!

  65. wahwah July 15, 2010 at 8:05 am #

    I won’t even buy new from Payless. They have a bunch of crap.

  66. wahwah July 15, 2010 at 8:07 am #

    Up yours, Lisajune.
    “If you find an item on the Front Page that you feel violates our Terms of Use, which does ask that users accurately represent the product for sale in the items listing please flag it for our Support team to review.

    Please avoid calling out in the Forums. The best way for us to review and investigate a listing is to report it. ”

    Bullshit. Nothing gets reviewed no matter how many times it is flagged. Your support team is a gaggle of farking idiots who can’t tell their assholes from their dickholes.

  67. Blue Kitty July 15, 2010 at 8:12 am #

    I was wondering what they could do about a flag on something that had already sold. Even if they did act quickly on items that haven’t sold (which is rare for them to do)

  68. detroit July 15, 2010 at 8:18 am #

    I just looked on the Payless website, and the Montego Bay shoes range from $10 to $23 TOPS.

    What a joke! Maybe someone should convo the seller, and give them the benefit of the doubt, and point out their ‘mistake’ and suggest they do the right thing.

    That seller had a ton of sales. As a seasoned vintage seller, I would think that, without even googling it, the construction details of real vintage shoes, versus current overseas factory items would be rather obvious to them.

    Guess not.

  69. detroit July 15, 2010 at 8:27 am #

    Does anyone know the history of Montego Bay Club shoes? Is it even possible for them to be vintage?

    I was lgoogling for the FP shoes, and came across other sold. ‘vintage’ Montego Bay espradrilles on Etsy:

    http://www.etsy.com/listing/46000183/vintage-french-stripes-super-high-wedge

  70. Laura July 15, 2010 at 8:28 am #

    I would have trusted that vintage seller! That’s why I very rarely buy vintage now off of Etsy, and I’m a big shopper! I don’t trust anyone anymore. I am postive she knew those were not vintage shoes.

  71. Laura July 15, 2010 at 8:34 am #

    http://www.etsy.com/listing/51099489/vintage-stlucia-platform-espadrilles

    I bet these weren’t $42 when they were new ohh..what like 2008?

  72. detroit July 15, 2010 at 8:37 am #

    OMG.

  73. tovangogh July 15, 2010 at 8:41 am #

    another source of IS’s “work” current photographer

    http://community.livejournal.com/foto_decadent/1660078.html

    http://www.mikediver.com/

    amazing difficult to find an email on his site (I never did find one)

  74. tovangogh July 15, 2010 at 8:48 am #

    uh, of course after searching forever (it felt) and googling and finally posting here I couldn’t find it – duh. I found it. *DOH*

  75. Life During Wartime July 15, 2010 at 8:53 am #

    I think I’ve seen fauxvintage from that seller featured before.

    Generally speaking — not about this specific shop — I wonder if some of Etsy’s ‘vintage’ sellers hit up clearance sales and outlet malls to supplement their thrift shop finds? If you can find cheap shoes marked down to like 5-10 bucks, and sell them for $38, that’s a good margin!

    I have to wonder because the last person I’d expect to MISTAKENLY pass newish merchandise in their shop would be a vintage seller with hundreds of sales on Etsy. If we can Google Montego Bay, why can’t the seller?

  76. Alli July 15, 2010 at 8:54 am #

    I actually convoed deargolden vintage to say that those shoes weren’t vintage, since I thought she might not realize.

    She did not reply, but immediately dropped the price on the shoes by $10! This was while they were still on the FP, and then they sold quickly. She probably wanted them to sell before anyone else could see/flag her junky shoes.

  77. etsycallout July 15, 2010 at 8:55 am #

    for some reason most people believe shoes went through 20+ years without a scuff! 🙂 What a joke. 99% of the time vintage shoes look used.

  78. etsycallout July 15, 2010 at 8:56 am #

    is this directed to us PD? If so, wordpress gives you the IP of every poster with their comment. It’s very helpful to say the least…

  79. uh-huh July 15, 2010 at 9:27 am #

    I wonder why they don’t show the inside of the shoes, I’d like to see the labels. They take nice photos, surely they could manage that angle.

  80. make me July 15, 2010 at 9:53 am #

    golden vintage has been called out here before. ugh

  81. Life During Wartime July 15, 2010 at 10:05 am #

    She dropped the price for the pair on the FP, but left another pair from Montego in her shop? The ones Laura linked to in comment 71.

  82. PussDaddy July 15, 2010 at 10:05 am #

    Maybe I should have chosen Word Press over Blogger then.

  83. PussDaddy July 15, 2010 at 10:10 am #

    WEll maybe what they say is true and that people love paying way more than what stuff is worth. I know it makes me feel better to pay $75 for a $15 pair of shoes.

  84. bellacruz July 15, 2010 at 10:40 am #

    I just convo’d the shoe seller—very nicely:) I do feel so, so bad for the poor buyer. Their money should be refunded.

  85. detroit July 15, 2010 at 10:57 am #

    Nevermind – ‘make me’ is right. Deargoldenvintage is a seasoned scammer.

    No ‘politeness’ is due her. She sucks.

    And, doing the ‘right’ thing isn’t lowering the price to ensure they sell. It’s taking the frikken FRAUD listing down.

    She has been called out here before:

    https://etsycallout.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/vintage-misuse-deargoldenvintage/

    Selling Steve Madden shoes, but calling them SM New York, to try to trick people, since everyone knows Steve Madden isn’t vintage.

    Steve Madden is also known as a notorious copier. Oh, the irony!

    https://etsycallout.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/vintage-misuse-deargoldenvintage/

  86. detroit July 15, 2010 at 10:58 am #

    Oopsie, Messed up my next comment:

    Nevermind – ‘make me’ is right. Deargoldenvintage is a seasoned scammer.

    No ‘politeness’ is due her. She sucks.

    And, doing the ‘right’ thing isn’t lowering the price to ensure they sell. It’s taking the frikken FRAUD listing down.

    She has been called out here before:

    https://etsycallout.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/vintage-misuse-deargoldenvintage/

    Selling Steve Madden shoes, but calling them SM New York, to try to trick people, since everyone knows Steve Madden isn’t vintage.

    Steve Madden is also known as a notorious copier. Oh, the irony!

  87. bellacruz July 15, 2010 at 10:58 am #

    Received a very nice reply from the shoe seller. She did not realize her mistake and has said she will offer the buyer a refund.
    That certainly makes me happy:)

  88. detroit July 15, 2010 at 11:05 am #

    bellacruz Says:
    July 15, 2010 at 10:58 am

    Received a very nice reply from the shoe seller. She did not realize her mistake and has said she will offer the buyer a refund.
    That certainly makes me happy:)
    ________________________________________

    No, she’s fully aware of what she’s doing. This isn’t the first time around the block with goldenvintage.

    Any vintage seller worth two cents KNOWS Steve Madden and used Payless aren’t VINTAGE.

    So, either she’s borderline mentally challenged, or she’s knowingly deceiving people.

    I’m pretty sure it’s the later.

  89. Ross Stik July 15, 2010 at 11:39 am #

    I notice that Imagine Studios is backing posting in the forums too, like nothing ever happened.

  90. Life During Wartime July 15, 2010 at 11:51 am #

    That original callout was about her passing off used shoes as vintage and — a year later — she’s still doing that!

  91. Alli July 15, 2010 at 11:56 am #

    Sadly, if she’s done it before, and been called out on this site even, she’ll be doing it again as soon as no one’s looking. It’s upsetting because I really liked her site. I don’t like deception though.

  92. kitten July 15, 2010 at 2:22 pm #

    bellacruz Says:

    Received a very nice reply from the shoe seller. She did not realize her mistake and has said she will offer the buyer a refund.
    That certainly makes me happy:)

    ____________________________________________

    Oh she’s going to “offer” the buyer a refund? Why offer, just do it!

    DearGoldenVintage is a fraud, a scam, a flim-flam artist.

  93. uh-huh July 15, 2010 at 2:26 pm #

    Hope it’s legit and the unfortunate shoe buyer is offered a refund and that’s it’s not just lip service from the seller. Though one would think she’d know better in the first place than to list them as vintage.
    But as typical on etsy, when it doubt, throw a “vintage” on it. And possibly a “steampunk”, too, for good measure.

  94. Laura July 16, 2010 at 7:48 am #

    Oh…this is the Steve Madden seller gal! Didn’t she make a bunch of posts how it was an “accident?”

  95. wahwah July 17, 2010 at 8:51 pm #

    http://www.etsy.com/forums_thread.php?thread_id=6577421

    What a twat.

  96. amused July 17, 2010 at 10:25 pm #

    The Twat linked to ECO in that thread to quote wahwah, she is clearly very thick!!

  97. Ross Stik July 17, 2010 at 11:10 pm #

    @#95
    she left out the part about how she daily steals images and cuts out watermarks and pawns off work of other artists as her own creations in between all that quaint coffee-drinking and working with the homeless bullshit

  98. amused July 18, 2010 at 2:29 am #

    No kidding! Details, details!

  99. amused July 18, 2010 at 3:17 am #

    First thing, before coffee even, I steal images from other people and modify them to call them my own. Then I post in the forums to pretend that nothing is at all wrong with my shop.
    https://etsycallout.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/memoirs-of-a-geisha-imaginestudio/

    https://etsycallout.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/southernliving26/

    It is a good thing though that I have been called out because otherwise I would have continued to rip off great artists with my ‘photo shop’ capabilities and would of course have to continually brag in the forums about how great I am.

  100. uh-huh July 18, 2010 at 6:07 am #

    “Wake up, steal shit, make a promo thread about it.”
    Yep, her day is complete!

  101. callheronit July 18, 2010 at 1:55 pm #

    I so want to post that I start my day by incorporating my dreams into my own original art, not cruising the internet for images to steal, decorate and then sell as my original creations. How sad for IS to post an apology to the forum readers – just like her stealing and lying, you can’t unring that bell, honey! That post links back to the same forum, doesn’t come here anymore.

    Twat calling twat a twat… (not you wahwah, the twat link links back to iself round and around we go)

  102. RocksInMySocks July 18, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

    Imagine just got called out in this thread:

    http://www.etsy.com/forums_thread.php?thread_id=6577421

  103. callheronit July 18, 2010 at 5:43 pm #

    Google this:

    wahwah Says: July 17, 2010 .. says: ImagineStudio

    don’t know about anyone else, but on the first oage if results it returned included 6 links to this site … heh heh heh I didn’t go any further

  104. fobs July 18, 2010 at 7:41 pm #

    IS can eat shit and die

  105. tineyeferart July 18, 2010 at 8:26 pm #

    ah gotta picher fer us

    http://s1041.photobucket.com/albums/b415/artresearch/

    ah kinda borryed it, but i do homage, so okay?

  106. detroit July 19, 2010 at 2:59 am #

    Ooh, great! Another ‘original’ creation for the IS ‘homage’ store!

  107. tineyeferart July 19, 2010 at 7:49 am #

    God I love TinEye!
    God, I hate shameless self-promotion and attempts at manipulation by IS always mentioning what she supposedly does in her day job.

    So many people do such good works and would never think of exploiting people who need social services. It’s distasteful.

    I do give her credit for the amount of self-marketing she does, but not the sleazy way she does it.

    She’s also sleazy for stealing other’s art and taking credit for it. I know, just repeating things, but that self-aggrandizing post yesterday brought it all up again. Like a belch.

    I just wish her fans would be able to see the original artists’ work and compare it to hers, and I wish they could also see all of her posts – especially the posts she started because those are the most eggregious, shameless and transparent bragging.

    What an ego. Nothing subtle or tasteful about her.

  108. Ross Stik July 19, 2010 at 10:10 am #

    if I didn’t care about getting muted, I would copy and paste the entire call-out post into that thread of hers about her coffee and her husband and her sainthood in looking after homeless people or whatever she claims to do. that would be priceless.

  109. amused July 19, 2010 at 11:03 am #

    I am waiting for comment #99 to be approved which if I had a trigger finger would have been posted in that thread 2 days ago 😉

  110. tineyeferart July 19, 2010 at 3:15 pm #

    How long does being muted last? What exactly does that entail?

    I might be interested in sacrificing an ID

  111. amused July 19, 2010 at 3:32 pm #

    I honestly don’t know but I’m admittedly too chickens**t to find out for myself.

  112. tineyeferart July 19, 2010 at 5:35 pm #

    don’t know if this will work, but here’s a tineye for her
    NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC’s Through the Lens, Greatest Photographs

    HOLYFREAKINSHITTHAT’SBALLS!

    http://www.tineye.com/search/8cea22292413aa242c5d6337785ab2b60c0c1ddd/

  113. Ross Stik July 20, 2010 at 12:58 pm #

    I bet National Geographic would love to hear about that one

  114. PussDaddy July 20, 2010 at 3:00 pm #

    OMG this all just confused the shit out of me.

  115. lovefortineye July 23, 2010 at 7:24 am #

    that tineye link with the expired search was for one of IS works that she neglected to credit for the photograph she used. The photo was taken from National Geographic, blah blah blah. In essence, all she did was crop and clone the bottom (removing NatGeo, et al) and add color to the background.

    IS: http://www.etsy.com/transaction/16090423

    NatGeo: http://www.amazon.com/Through-Lens-Geographic-Photographs-Collectors/dp/1426205260/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279898592&sr=8-1

    It’s actually the cover photo

  116. Blue Kitty July 24, 2010 at 5:18 am #

    She has spoiled that National Geographic photo, it looks much better with the plain background above and behind the figure than with the photo she has added above.

    Had the original looked like that I believe a good photographer would have cropped out the building, in fact they possibly did.

  117. eyefortineye July 25, 2010 at 1:36 pm #

    So self-serving is she. She’s still trying to justify using other Artists’s ART as the majority of each of her collages. It’s unethical that she does this to begin with, but to further aggravate the issue, she denies the acknowledgment they deserve by rights. Even if she uses them with permission she still needs to state that in the description of each piece, but doesn’t law come into this at the point where the original photograph or drawing or painting is taken without the rightful owner’s permission?

    “ImagineStudio’s Shop Announcement

    Welcome to my shop of fine art Giclee prints of my photomontages and digital collages.

    To learn more about these techniques please have a read on the following link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photomontage. *Also of interest: the many artists using these techniques: http://www.collageart.org/photomontage

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: