kckeesha In reply to MyOwnPostSecrets [2009-03-26 21:37:20 +0000 UTC]

no its not?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MyOwnPostSecrets In reply to kckeesha [2009-03-26 21:59:08 +0000 UTC]

I meant the DA-side.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kckeesha In reply to MyOwnPostSecrets [2009-03-27 02:11:17 +0000 UTC]

ooooooooooooo. haha sorry

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DeviantArtSecret In reply to JoonJoonJoon [2008-06-25 10:56:24 +0000 UTC]

You should come and check us out then. We are very much alive and not dead

-DAS

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DeviantArtSecret In reply to TrappedInABox [2008-06-25 10:55:44 +0000 UTC]

They just tried to copy what we had already started, but failed.

-DAS

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ILFMMFFMCaA In reply to DeviantArtSecret [2008-12-10 18:20:04 +0000 UTC]

What's with the hate DAS? Spread the love!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DeviantArtSecret In reply to ILFMMFFMCaA [2008-12-14 03:25:50 +0000 UTC]

No hate at all. There is more to it then meets the eye

-DAS

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ILFMMFFMCaA In reply to DeviantArtSecret [2008-12-19 01:00:26 +0000 UTC]

I've haven't been on DA for a long time, so I don't know about all this. It's strange to see drama between clubs . So what's the deal? It says that the person had to leave for personal reasons, so why did "Snowflake" fail? Just curious. Seems kinda harsh, but of course this is online talk...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DeviantArtSecret In reply to ILFMMFFMCaA [2008-12-26 07:55:46 +0000 UTC]

There is no drama at all.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DeviantArtSecret In reply to give-me-wings [2008-12-12 11:45:09 +0000 UTC]

DAS is a club similar to ~postsecret , but we are still very much active. You might like it

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ILFMMFFMCaA In reply to melissa3619925127 [2008-12-10 18:25:25 +0000 UTC]

Aww, it's like the Free Hugs Campaign! But would you settle for a ? I think it's extra special.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheHollister In reply to melissa3619925127 [2007-11-18 02:37:47 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

aoitenshi14 In reply to Yousry-Aref [2007-10-30 04:25:01 +0000 UTC]

The maker of the avatar says it's free to use for everyone, so I don't see why you have to make a fuss about it..

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PostSecrets In reply to Yousry-Aref [2007-10-26 05:59:03 +0000 UTC]

Calm down. It's just an avatar.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Yousry-Aref In reply to PostSecrets [2007-10-26 12:50:37 +0000 UTC]

if it is so......pls find another..!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

draconic-chaos In reply to Yousry-Aref [2007-10-27 00:48:26 +0000 UTC]

Erm... [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

draconic-chaos In reply to draconic-chaos [2007-10-27 00:53:40 +0000 UTC]

Well never mind you've already seen it.

It really isn't that big of a deal.. though similar, the avatars are different.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PostSecrets In reply to Alibootyjesus [2007-10-26 05:56:23 +0000 UTC]

I'm having some issues with the submissions that I need to clear up first. Sorry for the wait.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Alibootyjesus In reply to PostSecrets [2007-12-13 12:47:13 +0000 UTC]

Its been a long time. Whats the hold up?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PostSecrets In reply to Tepara [2007-10-10 06:43:25 +0000 UTC]

If that isn't one of your problems with my club, then what's the point of mentioning it on our page or in that other comment?

"Copied a club that is already running on DA." Hmm. Do you know that the whole Post Secret idea/concept was created by Frank Warren? And that this isn't some phenomenon that started on DA? And that before the other club that you support, there was another by the name of DASecrets? What’s the harm in having more than one? There are numerous other clubs that have so called “copies”. Some focus on B&W photography, traditional art, anime, digital art, music, etc.

To get it out there, I didn't know of the existence of DAS. Admittedly, even if I did, I would have still started my own club. This is a personal project for me. Being a member of a club is one thing, but actually starting one and maintaining it is a much more personal experience.

I thought that if Frank Warren would allow images from any source to be used that I could as well. The exception of course would have been with DA work. There is a rule for the use of stock with our members/non-members. If they know it's a stock and let me know (which they're required to, but who can always tell) I credit the original artist-that is, if he/she agrees with the use of his piece. I may not have done it to the rules of DA, which I was not aware of, but they were credited when I was aware of their use(s).

I know that there are some that are from google and such, but since the original was open in that way... and that I thought that the people would be only claiming the secret and not the image, it would be fine. I guess that’s not the case, and I will change things accordingly. But who can really know that just because you found something on google that it isn't from a member's own collection?

“They are images found on google or something.” Or something? Yes. They are people’s personal pictures or artwork. Why are you so quick to say that most of the pieces are from google? How can you know for sure? In looking through the gallery, many of the pieces include personal pictures or artwork or are only text based. There are some that may be questionable, but again, who can know for sure? And they definitely don’t make up the majority of the gallery as you made it seem.

Well thank you for the links to the faqs, as those will come handy in the present and future; and also for your concern.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

timmy64 In reply to PostSecrets [2007-10-10 23:41:34 +0000 UTC]

I know that there are some that are from google and such, but since the original was open in that way... and that I thought that the people would be only claiming the secret and not the image, it would be fine.
Clearly, you do not know copyright law at all. It is an illegal reproduction of someone else's work.

I thought that if Frank Warren would allow images from any source to be used that I could as well.
deviantART is NOT Frank Warren. There are clear guidelines on what can be posted because of legal ramifications of these actions.

The exception of course would have been with DA work.
Google =/= free domain. Saying you don't steal from artists on dA is like saying you only steal products from large stores. It's still stealing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PostSecrets In reply to timmy64 [2007-10-11 02:48:35 +0000 UTC]

I know that there are some that are from google and such, but since the original was open in that way... and that I thought that the people would be only claiming the secret and not the image, it would be fine. I guess that’s not the case, and I will change things accordingly.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Tepara In reply to PostSecrets [2007-10-10 08:04:16 +0000 UTC]

I mentioned that you have copied another club because. well because you did..
Yes the whole secrets thing is Franks Idea, this is correct. But its a diffeent kind of thing
Yes there was a secret thing on DA before. But again that was different that isnt a club where you send your secrets in. That is a club where you log on to the club and submit it yourself. So its a different thing all together.

You can see that a lot of those images are just random images found on google.
There is a form that can be filled out ( which was in one of those faqs in last comment ) that proves the image is owned by who it says it is. Are you telling me that when people send in secrets each one they give you prof that they own it or they show you the image on DA ( or a stock site) so you are 100% sure that it is a stock image??? Are you telling me that you do that? Or that if it isnt a stock image but someones image on DA. That you first ask the owner of the art if its ok to use?
If you look at at les 99% of the stock artist on DA they all say. If you use their stock you MUST add a link to their page on the image you submit to DA using their stock.. I am yet to see that.
Those donut secrets [link] astries stolen from there. and that burger.. I dunno about you but that looks a hell of a lot like a mcdonalds adverting burger.
All Im saying is. be 100% sure that the images used are stock photos.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PostSecrets In reply to Tepara [2007-10-10 20:05:40 +0000 UTC]

I'm just curious. Do you go to the other B&W clubs and say that they copied another? But you know what? I'm not going to let that bother me because I know that I'm helping people on here.

I wish that you had more proof as to which pieces are from google. I already admitted earlier that there are some that are questionable, but for the most part, many are personal pictures.

The donut link doesn't work, so if you have another then please let me see it and I will take the necessary action. However, if you look at the donuts, they aren't from some Borracchini's Bakery, but from Krispy Kremes. And can't you tell that the pictures aren't focused? That those donut pictures wouldn't be used on some site that sells them?

The thing is, not all pictures are stock photos. Some are actually so artistically done, that they could be considered art work by themselves. And yes, for the most part, people link me their pieces from their DA sites, or from their photobuckets/imageshack, etc.

Obviously you haven't looked through all the secrets. Because I can remember one, which a stock image from DA was used, and I actually asked the stock owner if the image could be used. Since the secret holder didn't feel comfortable, I was the one that noted the stock owner. Here's the secret: [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Tepara In reply to PostSecrets [2007-10-11 00:28:10 +0000 UTC]

Noone has said you have stolen anything though.. or copied anything. The secrets that have been sent into you on the other hand have been yes..
And the difference between a B&W club and what you are doing, is the images in a B&W club are from an artists on DA each image submitted to a photo club is linked back to the artists images in their account. and the username added so all credit goes to who made it.
You don't do that. Yes you have a few where you have credited the artists. But what about all the rest?
If they are stock photos the secret you add should have a link to the stock artists. That goes without saying.
You should know that just because a person says its their photo doesn't mean it is theirs. Unless they show you a photo of it being there own on DA then you shouldn't believe them.. Its so easy to just right click save as an image from google or DA. change the name of it. add it to photobucket, or some other place like that. That by all means does not mean that they own the image does it?
Look all I'm saying is. Before you submit something. be 100% sure and have prof that the image does belong to them. and if its from stock, be 100 sure it is a stock image and link and thanks to the stock owner.
and about the donut link it may not have worked in here. but you or someone did remove the image that it was ripped from. if you google donuts you will see all those donut "secrets" in there.
And the burger if you google it and look close enough.. I mean its a McDonalds burger anyone can see that. even the BG is from there. its the photo they have on the umm food tray thing that give you you food on when you dine in. Anyone can see that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PostSecrets In reply to Tepara [2007-10-11 03:27:20 +0000 UTC]

Well you've accused me of copying the idea of the club. The fact that I didn't even know about DAS and thought that DASecrets was dead anyway, I don't believe I deserve people's comments about how I've copied them. But I need to get over it… I know. This was something that I've always wanted to do ever since I found out about the project. I never said you accused me of stealing or such, because you'd definitely get a worse response from me as I'm not one to do so, and they are definitely unfounded.

I wasn't asking about that sort of difference. You pointed out that since there's already another PS community here in DA that it doesn't seem to catch your fancy that there's another one. So why doesn't it bother you that there are other b&w clubs?

I thought the reason that the artists aren't credited would be obvious. This is all about anonymity. For those artists whose pieces I know were used (stock wise) they were credited. However, if a deviant sends me a link to a piece in their own gallery, I can't add a link to that (which they are informed), as that would ruin the whole anonymity of it all. Their watchers may know, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’d want the PS community to know.

I know that it's easy to steal art off the web and call it as your own. However, with my earlier policy (before you informed me of the rules I was breaking) it said that they could use any image outside of DA. I had already told you that I would be fixing that, but it may take a while for me to possibly remove certain pieces.

but you or someone did remove the image that it was ripped from. Are you serious? Are you that desperate to prove your point that you'd actually accuse me of that? I'm not one to run away or cheat my way out of an argument. If I were wrong I would admit it, and I wouldn't "destroy" evidence against me. Goodness. Btw. I checked the donuts secrets and umm… there’s information as to when they were taken. You know, the camera info next to the description box? Damn, and that was after I googled “donuts” and looked through 10 pages.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Tepara In reply to PostSecrets [2007-10-11 06:23:34 +0000 UTC]

I did not accuse you of copying another club at all. You just assumed I was.
I couldn't care a less if there was 20 "secret" clubs. The point was your submitting art that doesnt belong to the artists. It really is that simple. And that your not giving credit to the owners of the stock photos.
As you said some of the secrets are photos from the owners. If that's the case that's fine and dandy You can still credit them. Noone needs to know its there own photo. The people reading the secrets don't know that the user linked in the secret is the secret owner. All they know is the image used in the photo belongs to who ever is linked.
Just because a secret shows the details of a photo it doesn't mean that they own the photo. a lot of photos show that. Most stock photos ( and normal photos) have all the information unless saved different. then edited then resaved. ..
I really don't care about our club I have no problems with the club its self. Its the copyrighted secrets themselves that are submitted that gets to me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PostSecrets In reply to Tepara [2007-10-11 23:48:39 +0000 UTC]

she stole the idea from to start with when will she learn

Can't you understand that if I were to link a picture to the owner, and a deviant were to click on the link, and he were to look through the gallery, then he'd most likely discover the secret?

But really there's no use in repeating ourselves, hmm? Things will be taken care of.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Tepara In reply to PostSecrets [2007-10-12 02:34:20 +0000 UTC]

No because they arnt to know they are the owner are they. As far as the readers know, you noted the artist and asked on behalf of the secret teller if it could be used.
very simple really.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1