Kylie Jenner & Mother Plucker Feathers: Infringement of My Victoria's Secret Wing Designs

*Update 3/20/2020
The legal dispute between Kylie Jenner and I has been resolved. For clarification, we have never done business together and there are no plans to do so in the future.

*Update 12/26/2019
This dispute has been resolved between Mother Plucker Feathers and I.

It’s Infringement Mother Plucker! They copied my wings for Kylie Jenner's Fairy Halloween Costume!

Left: Eniko Mihalik in my original Kira wings for Victoria’s Secret, which they ordered from me directly and paid full price for (photo by Paul Bayfield / Timesniper Photography)
Right: Kylie Jenner wearing a knock of that same copyright registered design (photo by SPW)

Mother Plucker Feathers Co Inc. is taking credit for providing the fairy wings above (above right) to Kylie Jenner for a Halloween birthday party this last week, just after contacting me a couple weeks ago asking for my materials resources. This is an original design I drew from scratch, NOT a design from nature.

They even came to me last year, with the request to subcontract the same giant Morpho wings that I made for the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show 2015’s Exotic Butterflies segment but in pink, sending my original product photo in the email. They were also for Kylie (I didn't know until after Halloween) but after extensive emails back & forth, apparently with requests from Jill Jacobs, Kylie’s stylist, changing the direction a few times, the whole thing fell through and Mother Plucker made a different set for her themselves without my involvement out of fabric.
I was told this celeb wanted my wings and loves my work last year when they contacted me, so they all seemed to be familiar with my designs.
I also sent them a lot of links to other designs in my web shop for examples of colors and such.
The question of access is no question at all.

Mother Plucker again came to me again a few weeks ago, asking for 3 sets of iridescent wings 'at a good price' with a tight deadline I couldn't meet.
They emailed later asking where to get the materials I use, so I directed them to my online tutorial, which ironically explicitly explains in the first 2 minutes how important it is to respect copyright (see video below) and not to use others’ existing designs. I was even promised that they would not copy my designs in their email.
That tutorial showed the creation of a very different design, wings from a real butterfly species by the way. So no, there is no implied permission granted to use any of my designs simply because I taught a technique.

Imagine my surprise when my fans and friends sent me links to Kylie Jenner’s photos in a copy of my Kira design - which I have the actual US Copyright certificate of registration for - when I had not been asked nor paid for the use of my design.
In fact, that design was worn by 2 different Victoria’s Secret Angels in their 2014 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show’s ‘Fairytale’ segment. I had 3 other pieces in that show and a handful of them in 2015 as well.
You can see all the pieces I created for them here: https://www.fancyfairy.com/gallery-2-celebrity-fancy-fairies

People were commenting on Mother Plucker’s and Kylie's posts calling them out for copying it before I even found out about Kylie wearing the knock off wings, because they are one of my oldest and known works and many of my fans recognized the design.
Both mine and the knock off have the same basic vein design as my own.

Every vein has been included in the copy, even the little squiggly downward curve at the tip of the antennae.
Photo on left © Paul Bayfield * Photo on right is missing the copyright info.
Images used here for the purposes of fair use, commentary and public interest.

The outer shape is a little more loosely copied, but still follow the same silhouette as mine with minor differences in the length and skinniness of the tip along the top.

The vein design is what I registered with the copyright office.

Jill Jacobs (Kylie’s stylist I mentioned earlier) seems to be credited as the stylist again, Mother Plucker the 'designers' in charge of fabrication.

It’s not yet certain which part of this team is the most liable, but that will be determined more clearly as my IP attorney reviews this case.

In addition to these wings being seen all over the world on two Angels as well as viewed on my site through the years, that design is currently the first item you'll see when you click on the Shop page of my website! See for yourself below and here: https://www.fancyfairy.com/shop
It’s hard to believe this was an accident. Someone in that team had to know they were copying an existing design, no matter who they thought it belonged to.

Although that is a digital overlay item, my terms are crystal clear in the download that it is only meant to be used in photo editing / digital art, never to be redistributed as stand alone wings whether physical or digital, and not for commercial use. Just in case anyone tries that baseless argument.

I first published this design in 2007, as you can see in this screenshot from my old, gaudy website (below left) thanks to the Wayback Machine Internet Archive. It’s also been around in Second Life™ for just as long (below, right), tho thankfully I think my aesthetic has improved since then!

I’ve frequently spoken out about copyright infringement and how much it hurts artists, when it happens to me and when it happens to others.
So much in fact, my friends have nicknamed me “the copyright fairy”.
I’ve been infringed upon by a very large photo editing app company, a child millionaire, craft supply companies, 3D asset marketplaces and more.
Infringements hurt artists, even more so when it involved someone like Kylie Jenner, one of the most visible and wealthy celebrities in the world. Millions of people will see her in my design, but not the quality I usually set my standards to, mistakenly thinking it originated from a different artist.
Please, support independent artists whenever you can. So much of what is churned out by huge companies gets built on the backs of lesser known artists who can’t fight back.
You usually get higher quality pieces, helping us continue to create our art, and you’re helping us pay the bills in a world where the gap between the rich and the low income is bigger than ever and the cost of living grows ever higher.

A lot of people have been asking how to help, one way is to subscribe to my Patreon if you wish to help out monetarily. I only charge when I release content for my Patrons there and it starts at only $1. https://www.patreon.com/faeryangela
You can also purchase my affordable digital wing overlays, clip art and cut files to use in your photos and digital artwork - NOT to make wings out of except for the Piera Clearwing Satyr file because that is a real butterfly design, I hope we’ve all learned that lesson by now to actually read the Terms of Use: https://fancy-fairy-wings-things.myshopify.com/collections/all/digital

To sum it up, I’m shocked at this violation of both my IP and my trust.
Infringement sure is a Mother Plucker isn’t it?

*Edited 11/10 to clarify that my Kira Wings design is my original design, not from nature, and to correct some minor grammar for easier reading.



Copyright PSA

I have recently run into some instances of improper use of my digital fairy wing overlay stock, and felt it was important that I make some clarifications about what is permitted use and what is not.
Below is an example of use that is in violation of my Terms of Use.

This graphic is just an example that I put together myself, due to the issue of printed fabric mermaid tails sometimes containing unlicensed images. Some well known tail makers have had their specific photos printed on mass produced mermaid tails, and recently the subject of using my wings on mermaid fins came up.
The terms of my stock licenses are pretty clear, and I did my best to plaster them everywhere I could - on the listings themselves, included in the downloaded zip file and even within the file info.
These particular wings shown above, the Bee Fairy Wings stock overlays, also require credit to me wherever posted publicly due to the extensive files included for the low price.
My terms require my permission to be used commercially, wherever using my work prominently on the product increases its value and will be sold wholesale and retail to the public, as would be the case if my wing stock was used as in the above example of wearable mermaid tails with my image printed on them as the primary aesthetic of the product.
The way it IS permitted, is in a larger body of artwork - a scene with a fairy in it where my wing images are added to a person or creature’s back, or, a scene with a mermaid where the wings are added as fins.
Basically if my work is the central part or the ‘heart’ of the work and removing them would remove the value from the product to a very large extent, it is not transformative enough to adhere to my license terms.
Even with these qualifiers in place, if more than 1,000 prints will be sold, it requires a commercial license.
If there is ever any question about the terms, please, ASK.

A commercial license would have an additional cost and may require a licensing agreement with royalties paid on top of an initial payment, especially if the agreement must be made after an IP violation is caught.
Even with stock that does not have the credit requirement, the end user must NOT take credit for the artwork or refer to it as being ‘exclusive’ in any way.
Violation of my terms could result in barring that person or company from using them again and a fee for unlicensed commercial use may be requested regardless of whether many sales were made.
I register my work and FYI, statutory damages can apply even if no sales have been made.

I hope that clears things up, please do ask if you are unsure and I will be happy to answer your questions.
And, just because it still happens, it goes without question that any use of my designs or images without purchasing the appropriate license is IP theft.
Violating these terms without amicable resolution or providing the requested fees may result in not only removal of permission to ever use it in the future, but you may also end up on the list of people or companies that I will not allow to use ANY of my work wherever my stock is sold.

Pro tip - if you get caught stealing an IP or for unlicensed use, apologize genuinely. Remove whatever the artist wants removed, and pay what they are asking or negotiate a reasonable payment plan.
The artist gets to set the terms, not the infringing party.
Blocking me from social media accounts, lying about where the stock came from and throwing other innocent parties under the bus, and repeat infringements are all things that would earn you an indefinite ban from my work.

*Lovely scale texture brush from http://www.cassiopeiaart.com

*Update: 3/1/19
My initial plan was to leave out the name of the company that I had the recent run-in with, however, especially since it was my own digital wing stock customer who also happened to be a pro mermaid that notified me of this in the first place there were people who already had connected the dots and so now they’ve already been identified online by others who I’d been talking to for advice.
I didn’t intend to press for secrecy either though, since no attorneys are involved and therefore no NDA has been signed we are all free to express ourselves.

I’ll try my best to make this short as can be.
in 2016, Ryan Newman of Swimtails LLC purchased my Bee Fairy Wings digital stock.
Receipt screen shot shown below.

Swimtails Paypal Receipt Screen Shot 2019-02-25 at 9.26.42 AM (censored).png

This past Monday I was informed that the same company had just announced a printed fabric fairy mermaid tail for sale, and they actually used my Bee Fairy wing art on all the fins, and overlayed it on the body of the tail as well! This is commercial use, which I very clearly spell out in my Terms of Use that anyone needs permission for, but Swimtails never asked for it and neglected to credit me, another requirement for this particular digital asset.

Swimtails product with the my unlicensed art

Swimtails product with the my unlicensed art

I sent them a C&D email along with an invoice for penalties for unlicensed use equal to the cost of one tail, as well as a message on all their social media channels to make sure they were notified quickly.
They responded first to my Instagram message, even though my message there told them to refer to my email. Below is a screen shot of that, followed by our email responses.

There was no response for a couple days after my last offer of 10% royalties with one non-refundable advance on future payments of $300 up front, which I thought was a fair and maybe even generous offer considering the circumstances that brought it up, and in that time I learned a lot about the company’s past, which included a prior tail design infringement involving another well known company, Finfolk.
There were many complaints from their customers that orders were going unfulfilled since last October and some people had to resort to Paypal claims to get their refunds - after which, they removed the Paypal payment option or so I heard.
All of this made me wary, so I went ahead and sent that one last email rescinding the licensing offer and posted this copyright PSA.

Naturally, friends and strangers knew what I was referring to and shared the post, identifying Swimtails as having illegally released the fairy mermaid tails.
After that I got angry Instagram messages from Swimtails, which still seemed to be trying to convince me that I was losing out on so much money by not allowing them to continue selling tails with my artwork on a wing and a prayer, trusting that eventually they would pay me something for the commercial use with nothing up front.
Below are those complete messages, the first screen shot shows the few that were made early on after emails had been sent. After I put out my post and a few well known mermaids shared it I got the messages starting with “why are you spreading false information”.

It’s never specified who I am talking to on Instagram. After those messages end, I get a very WTF email from Ryan Newman, one of the owners and the person on the Paypal receipt for the digital stock.

7 Swimtails Ryan Newman Email Screen Shot 2019-02-27 at 7.38.58 PM.png

First, I LOL’ed at the promise of over $100,000 in royalties this year when they straight up told me they are unwilling to pay an up front fee and too many customers are still waiting on refunds.
Then I ROTFL when I noticed the ‘It’s a Shame’ subject header.

Gaslighting much?
They insisted to me they are an honest company but wouldn’t even pay anything up front AFTER they neglected my license terms the first time and expected me to trust them out of blind faith.
That’s not how it works, and for the record, any IP attorney working on contingency is going to want to get a couple thousand out of any settlement agreement at the very least, and had I attempted to litigate, statutory damages START at $700 and go up to $150,000.
In case you aren’t aware, statutory damages are what an IP holder can be awarded REGARDLESS of whether or not profits are made off the infringement. A judge would only need to determine whether or not the infringement was willful. Willful, meaning the party knew the content did not belong to them and used it anyway.

At this time, I realize nothing will be paid, I’m cutting my losses and moving on.

I initially wasn’t going to offer licensing at all to them, but mermaid friends let me know they had rough times & were trying to make things right, so I took a chance in contacting them directly to enforce my rights.
It’s a great example of why I usually don’t. I don't feel they took me seriously, & hope they respond differently in the future.
Even licensing agreements that don’t start out with infringement usually require an up front non-refundable advance on royalties. I don’t like that they're trying to spin it as if I tried to sneak in an up-front fee, when I requested a reasonable penalty fee from the beginning.
Their apology came with condescension & attempts to guilt me into believing I'm the one missing out by walking away, which cheapens the apology and leaves me feeling even more distrustful of the company. Telling me I'm missing out on $100,000 of royalties in the first year while simultaneously refusing to pay up front and expecting blind trust from the person they infringed is not a good look.

For the record, that digital stock is sold here on my site:
https://fancy-fairy-wings-things.myshopify.com/products/bee-fairy-wings-transparency-stock
Most of the terms are spelled out right in the listing, as well as in the File Info, but here is the actual Terms of Use file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1isuPtWlV-KWpDiSY2oSFzLk9fcqHvyMk/view?usp=sharing

Every screen shot pertaining to this, including an old screen shot of the previous infringement of a Blue Tang tail design and capture of my original C&D email can be found here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17Xq4Y18NJfnO3-dt4mJChnRqtgAyPLue?usp=sharing

*Edit 3/6/2019

Oh but wait! There’s more! Since my last update, There was an Instagram mer news account, @mermaidelite, that was taking public statements from Swimtails and I, with Swimtails’ statement posted in an Instagram story. I wrote one up but it wasn’t shared as far as I know, though my mother did come down with pneumonia and we had to rush her to the ER and deal with her recovery for about a week now so I may have missed something.
Soon after, I see that Swimtails had posted what appeared to be a public apology. It would have been really cool, however, they stated they were paying my fee, and the fee never showed.

Eventually I got an email from Kristie again, asking for my address so they could send a check. I send them a new invoice with more specific language written up to clarify all the reasons this fee was due for their violations - uniqueness of the stock compared to the rest of the market, the detailed layered Photoshop files included, their use of the word ‘exclusive’ to describe the fabric print design when that was obviously false no matter how it’s spun, the future impact this could possibly have on my brand and business, etc.

Today, I get an email from Kristie telling me they are having a release written up for me to sign after a meeting with their IP attorney, whose full name is still a mystery and who should be emailing me himself instead of letting these people continue to shoot themselves in the foot. I tried to do this without involving attorneys, if I had I would have been asking for thousands rather than a few hundred because attorney fees alone cost much more than what I was asking.
They wouldn’t tell me who their attorney is, beyond calling him Peter, and I know they were aware of the question soon after sending those emails because I had responded to their instagram message letting me know about their emails, to tell them I had responded and the message was marked as ‘seen’.
In short, it’s not worth the trouble anymore for $419 and I do not trust this company in the slightest. It all seems far too dishonest for me. I don’t have time to get jerked around for a few hundred bucks and I’d rather not have the money if it is at my extreme expense. Their apology seemed to be to save face rather than actually be accountable for anything.
This is why I don’t like dealing directly with infringers, they often don’t take the issue seriously and waste my time.

*Update 3/719 I really would love for them to just move on, but there are more comments from Ryan on Facebook posts, claiming I’m not telling the truth or missing information. Well, he was right about just one thing - I did forget something. The one additional screenshot above of Kristie telling me that since it’s a 2 party agreement (it’s not) that they would be sending the ‘release’ form anyway, and my response saying I will never sign anything from this company. Because they can’t be trusted.
But also, I forgot to show you that they also purchased the butterfly stock photo that was used for their butterfly tails, again WITHOUT a commercial license. The company they purchased it from confirmed in an email that they did not purchase a commercial license, required for that type of use.

Here’s a link to the original butterfly photo stock: https://www.123rf.com/photo_16866872_butterfly-species-salamis-temora-.html?fromid=M3l1U3doWFJtd0YwdnRHV3NoMjJwUT09

And here are their butterfly tails: https://www.swimtails.com/product/blue-butterfly-mermaid-tail/

And hey look! There’s the description of them as an EXCLUSIVE design again!

We done here? Because I think this is more than done.
*Oh wait, we’re not - because this company continues to harass anyone online who criticizes their bad decisions or speaks out about never receiving their order, I want to let all the unhappy mermaids know that there might be something we can do - report them to the FTC. https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/GettingStarted?NextQID=203&Url=%23%26panel1-6#crnt

You might also be interested to know that the Better Business Bureau has given them a big fat F!

Tales of Infringement and Fake Excuses

How Low Can You Go?

Pretty low, apparently. Gypsy Sport, an edgy designer label owned by Rio Uribe that prides itself on diversity and inclusiveness, tried with all their might to pin their infringement of my Guinevere fairy wings onto an innocent person - an innocent person who happens to be a struggling art student who is basically homeless in Puerto Rico due to the damage from hurricane Maria. 
I found out about the infringement when a follower tagged me in the comments of the image GypsySport posted (above left). I was not credited, nor asked for permission to use this photo.

I asked them via comments to remove the photo, and they commented back that they had found the photo on Tumblr on a Barbie and would credit me if I am the original artist. I replied that I wanted it removed and don't allow my copyright protected images to be used that way, that I sell different digital wing stock for that purpose, and didn't want others to think they could do this too. They eventually messaged me on Instagram, after I asked them to email me and specifically not to message me via IG because nothing can be downloaded from there, with a low resolution screen shot of Tumblr search results, one of which was the photo above in the middle that has my wings poorly edited in. They cropped out any identifying urls, the date, anything else that would prove what they claimed. They refused to email me the original or the screen shot. They told me they received the DMCA notice I emailed them with proof that I owned the copyright, US Copyright registration number and all, but they still would not remove the photo and I was still not being credited. They were also deleting my comments as well as comments from friends asking to remove the image. Thankfully my phone's screen resolution is high enough that I was able to faintly make out the Tumblr account name when I blew it up in Photoshop. I thought it was fake, because it's called ass--farts, haha! It turned out to be a real account with some beautiful illustrations actually, but that badly edited Barbie photo could not be found anywhere in her gallery. I also discovered that the artist, Ivonne, is a student who is struggling to survive in hurricane ravaged Puerto Rico and has been trying to raise funds to help with rebuilding her home. I got in contact with her about this issue and she told me she never posted that image, but she did post her original drawing of the Swan Lake Barbie and it had the SAME CAPTION. Rio of Gypsy Sport (the ethnic slur used in their name is a whole other problem too) appears to have FAKED a screen shot to make it look like Ivonne infringed on my IP first. 
Here is the link to her original post - also shown above on the right: http://ass--farts.tumblr.com/post/161679447989/swan-princess-o 
For some reason I can only see the full caption and hash tags when I open it in the app on my phone, and it's the very same photo. The exact image can be found when you search for #swan lake on Tumblr. He must have done a search for one of the hash tags, took a screen shot and simply replaced Ivonne's illustration in the screen shot with his own image he put together to fabricate a false story that would take the blame off of him.
To say it's infuriating would be an understatement!

What's more, they also implicated yet another person in this narrative! I had emailed the screen shot details to the main company address (before I heard from Ivonne) just in case it was some irresponsible employee I was talking to on IG since whoever it was wouldn't give me a name. Emily Morales emailed me back and told me "We have been granted permission from M. Repicky of Mattel® to use these images, previously found on tumblr." and indicated it was in fact Rio I'd been talking to on IG.
I wasn't given his full name or contact info, but he was easy to find although hard to contact as he doesn't publish his email anywhere. When they refused to give me the info I asked for, I called Mattel naturally, because if they were telling the truth I needed to get that taken care of right away. I couldn't have an image out there that Mattel was telling people they were free to use when they didn't have the right to my wing image! They wouldn't give me a link to the image so maybe Mattel would. They did finally credit me - after blocking me on IG - for the last hour or so that it was up, and then removed it. That didn't solve the problem of where the original came from if they had been honest with me.
Once I let Emily know that I've left a message with Mattel with all the details, I got an immediate response telling me to leave Mattel out of it, and "They did NOT grant permission to use that specific image, we have a great relationship with Barbie and assumed this was a Barbie photo."
So sounds like I was lied to in order to deflect liability. They were willing to soil Mattel's rep AND the reputation of a struggling art student who is homeless at the moment.
Well done Gypsy Sport. Super inclusive of you, how upstanding of people's civil rights to place blame on someone in Puerto Rico recovering from hurricane damage.

Hey Gypsy Sport, we ALL deserve an apology. Not a faux apology filled with more lies, but a sincere apology and compensation. Ivonne has a link on her Deviant Art site with info about her situation and how to support her, so why don't you show us that you actually walk your talk by donating some cash so she can fix her house? Here's her link: https://ko-fi.com/A2201D5B

Infringement is against the law, and infringement of work that has been registered with the US Copyright Office like mine has carries statutory damages up to $150,000 for each work, regardless of whether or not any profit was made directly. What's more, my Copyright Management Info was removed from my photo. That's the copyright statement I have written along the bottom panel of the wings in that photo (below), which anyone with half a brain should know means it's not free for anyone to use when it says 'All Rights Reserved'. The removal of Copyright Management Information, or CMI, is a violation of the DMCA Section 1202, and carries an additional penalty on top of the ordinary statutory damages for infringing on registered work of between $2,500 and $25,000.

SideGuinevereGrnGold_973.png

Below are more screen shots from my phone of the back & forth between me and Gypsy Sport, if you need any more evidence that their whole story smells like a heap of BS. I didn't realize the images weren't opening up when clicked, I fixed that as of May 14 at 11:04. You may need to turn off popup blockers for this page, as they will open in a new window.

Oh right, but what about her emails? Screen shots of that convo below.

Oh but there's just a little more. They aren't the first ones to have done this, to put blame on an innocent third party (fourth and fifth too) for their infringement.
Ellie Paisly, who now goes by @ellie.paisly on Instagram and used to go by hazypaisley, was the first to do this to me. She used a few of my wing photos in a bunch of her selfies she posted on Instagram and was telling everyone that she drew them. How anyone could believe that she really drew them is beyond me, but for quite a while she was taking full credit for my work. She also had done a promotional photo or two for clothing companies using my content, and meanwhile she's racking up social media followers and exposure for her art business while doing so.
When I found out due to a follower tagging me in her post, I politely asked if she would remove it, and even let her know that I do sell legit digital wings for this purpose. But she blocked me, and I saw that she was taking credit for the wings on other posts and was leaving some up, so she got dragged. She came over to my post to whine about it, and then, she told me that she got the images as public domain from her art school's image bank. 

Just in case she was telling the truth - I should have known that liars continue to lie but just to be sure - I emailed her school, Moore College of Art & Design. They then put me in touch with the only two image banks they use, Artstor and Art Museum Image Gallery, and I contacted them about the issue. Eventually they both responded to inform me that they never had my content in their banks, that they only use content from verified sources for educational purposes only. Even if she did get my content from them, she did not have the right to post them on her Instagram account anyway.
She lied about it, putting her school and the 2 image banks in the legal line of fire just because she didn't want to own up to her mistake. That is not okay. It's completely unprofessional, especially for someone trying to sell themselves as a pro artist. She also has an outer facade of being a loving fairy spirit that sympathizes with the underdog just like Gypsy Sport, but she completely disrespected another woman artist, her school and two other companies without seeming to care in the slightest. She's never paid me the invoices I sent her for the penalty rate for unauthorized use and yet I've seen public evidence of her commissioning things costing thousands of dollars. Many of the portraits she paints also look like they were traced from well known photos online, whether she had permission from those photographers I don't know, but I wouldn't bet any money that she has.
Below is a mound of screen shots of the whole mess, and my original Instagram post about it is still up. It still shows up in the top results of Instagram search for the #elliepaisley hashtag. Click on the photos for links to my original wing images or to see an explanation about what's going on in it. Most are self explanatory, and she obviously had always been telling people that she drew the wings, or 'art'd' them. Maybe she didn't learn anything in art school about what drawing is? Or maybe it's lies? Yeah, it was lies.

That's all for now folks. Remember, just because you didn't sell your infringements it's still against the law and you can still get sued for it if whoever owns the copyright can afford to do so, which reminds me to tell you all to ask your government reps to support the CASE act that would allow artists to fight infringement in small claims court.
Feel free to share this. I think it's really important that social media influencers and large designer labels are honest with the public, and when they aren't I think we all need to know so we can make the decision whether or not to support them and their businesses.
Obviously, my vote would be not to. Support honest artists that don't steal other people's work to further their careers. We really don't need anymore corrupt people in any kind of power.


#gypsysport #stopiptheft #arttheft #copyrightinfringement #arttheives #elliepaisley #hazypaisley #elliemiller #copyright #artistrights #fairywings

Copycats in Fairyland

Infringement Among the Fae

*Update: in 2023, Ashley started a new fantasy accessory business called The Flora Mystica

I wanted to address an infringement that's happened to a dear friend of mine who also happens to be a wing and crown maker. Angelia of On Gossamer Wings is someone who I have come to respect very much over the years, and even though we haven't met in person as yet, I consider her a good friend. We have even had to deal with a group infringement together (it was a pain, but we won).
Some years ago she was also friends with Ashley Ormaza of Freckles Fairy Chest, who, after getting wing making advice from Angelia, mysteriously blocked her on social media without explanation. Angelia was given the silent treatment, except for an email out of the blue at one point where Ashley claimed she has forgiven her and moved on - forgiven her for what, we don't know because Ashley refuses to respond to Angelia's inquiries as to why. Since then, Ashley started her wing company, making product that would seem to follow Angelia's work. At first, nothing exact enough to make a fuss about, just enough similarities to take note of. 
However in 2014, Ashley approached a very popular fairy artist to procure a license to sell wings made after the wings in her Paisley Fairy painting. The problem is, the wing design in that painting was Angelia's.
Jasmine Becket-Griffith was not aware that someone already was selling that design as she found the wing design in line art form on a tattoo parlor website. Being on the back of a fairy in a painting, Angelia did not have any issue with the painting and in fact was flattered. I had tagged her in the comments of Jasmine's post when I saw it and we both thought it was cool, but an artist with thousands of comments can't be expected to keep track of every single one.
Ashley was not unaware of who that design belonged to in the slightest. She was very familiar with Angelia's work, having gotten personal help from Angelia, and she had shared photos of the wing style in question in the past as well. Below, Angelia's Crystal wings created in 2010, and a screen shot of Ashley sharing a photo of a necklace of the same design via her public Freckles Fairy Chest Facebook page when they were still on friendly terms.

In 2014, soon after the Paisley Fairy painting was posted on Jasmine's site, a new post showed new licensed wings would be available that look like the wings in the painting - not licensed to Angelia's company as they should have been, but instead to Freckles Fairy Chest. I was floored, this really looked like a blatant attempt to steal another artist's IP. Thankfully, Jasmine had the contract dissolved immediately, and we found out that it was in fact Ashley that had approached Jasmine to produce the wings. 
Angelia did not speak out about it, due to the large following that Ashley had gained, but it was definitely hurtful and I was impressed with her ability to keep it under wraps. At least the wings weren't being produced, at least as far as we know. Below, the post about the licensed wings (deleted from FB since the contract dissolved) along with a screen shot from Ashley's public business page showing a photo of one of her friends or employees wearing an even closer copy of said wings. Was the more accurate copy what she had planned to ship out to customers, assuming that very slight changes to the ones in the license announcement would make it okay? We'll never know, but even if that is not the case, the only person with the right to that wing license would be Angelia.

After that, Ashley launched a new makeup business, and wing making seemed to not be a focus anymore, though she still sold crowns. 
Angelia had made a crown that she included in one of her wing photos on a mannequin in 2016, but had not yet listed for sale. Some time later, Ashley made a strikingly similar crown which she would then sell through her Etsy site, before Angelia even had a chance to. It's one of her simpler designs, however in that case making it unique should have been easy to do. A few variations popped up as well, including on the cover of Faerie Magazine, however the first one is the most similar. Below, the first and second posts Angelia made of her crown in 2016, alongside the post from Ashley's public business page of the one she made.

Angelia has finally now offered it for sale (the first one sold but more will follow) and made clear that she had made hers first, and that another artist had been selling a copy  of it. 
There is more to this story, but I'll leave you with this - please purchase this crown style from the original artist if you like it. You can find her Etsy shop here: https://www.etsy.com/shop/OnGossamerWings?ref=shop_sugg
It's unfortunate that Ashley has cut off communication with Angelia, even more unfortunate that she felt compelled to act out in this way, but it is my hope that maybe someday she will come to acknowledge her behavior in the past and present and perhaps offer an apology. As of yet, there has been none and I'm sad to say I have my doubts that one will be offered. I would be happy to be proven wrong.
Personal and professional integrity is important. Artist's rights are important too, and I have always been vocal about that.
I decided to make this post with all facts included, because I was accused of lying about the matter and challenged to prove the allegations by a family member of Ashley's. 
This should be sufficient.

Don't piss off the faeries! Infringement, Copyright and Owning Up

After being a few years of being mostly absent and taking a creation break from Second LIfe™, I've finally started revamping my store and digital merchandise starting with Bento animated wings. Content creation in SL is something I've really enjoyed, but couldn't manage while I was stuck with a slow computer incapable of handling new viewer updates as it made for a miserable experience. I finally got a new (used) iMac that could run SL with most of the bells and whistles, but I had been gone so long that the idea of learning all the new techniques and 3D applications seemed so overwhelming that I found myself a bit lost.
Until I found out that the new materials enabled viewer could show real-time iridescence! 
True iridescence inworld, that was the shiny that got me to fall down the SL rabbit hole once more.
However, while browsing their marketplace listings for things I needed and checking out what else is out there I found quite a few pirated designs of mine being sold. In fact there's another one I found  just this week that I haven't even had the time to file a DMCA notice for.

One DMCA I filed that infringed on one of my older designs, the Teasel fairy wings, back in June was taken down. And then this last month I noticed a very similar design had taken its place in the infringing party's store, similar but changed just enough to probably avoid a report.
That didn't surprise me so much so as the note at the end of the revised wing's description.
The seller stated "This is 100% my own creation. My previous pixie wings were removed due to a malicious DMCA report. I have all the original blender and PSD files that show the creation of these wings step by step. If this gets reported again, I will take legal action."

Really now. I created that design from scratch, the first set to Gypsy Tripsa, the originator of the Faery Crossing lands in SL. I registered it with the US copyright office to protect my IP and had been selling that design since 2007.
Except for pop culture designs like Tink's wings, I don't use existing designs in my work. I browse, I get inspired - and then I put it all away and start sketching. I don't WANT to use an existing design because why offer something that already exists? The creation, making something that had not been in existence previously is most of the thrill of art.

I bought a set of the new wings, and left a mediocre review with a comment about the previous design and how it was not at all a malicious DMCA but absolutely justified. After a few denials I then got the most bizarre explanation - that she admittedly was lazy and used the design from my physical wings, didn't realize I was in SL, and that it was "just the veins" anyway.
Sometimes, the ignorance is baffling. As if the vein work wasn't the core of the whole design, the thing that I registered with the copyright office. Along with this laughable admission, she also argued that I don't own pixie wings and that design has been around since before 2007. She provided some links that were downright ridiculous, probably the most different you could get from my design in every way - wrong shape, wrong veins, no similarity at all besides the fact that they are also wings.
My review has since been removed, but the statement claiming that my DMCA was malicious is still there. So this blog post will stay up as long as that petty little note is.
If I felt like wasting that time, I could have taken legal action myself as I know that willful infringement of registered intellectual property could not only incur actual damages, but up to $150,000 in addition for statutory damages. An admission of copying the work was captured in a screen shot.

 

Screen Shot 2017-09-22 at 6.44.42 PM.png

Now, here is the Teasel wings photo that's been stolen more times than I can count, from before I knew to watermark the hell out of EVERYTHING. It's no longer on my website but photos of this design in various colors are still in my galleries and social media pages, and unfortunately probably in places online they shouldn't be. 

Teasel wings side.jpg © Fancy Fairy Wings & Things, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Now, the reported wings below that she called Pixie Bento Wings. *Ahem* It's a pretty exact copy except for the smoother edges and different colors.

 

Infringing fairy wings

I don't need to say much more, except that this is just to make sure that anyone who sees the pirated design on the SL grid knows that this person profited off of my work and my property without permission or compensation, and the infringer is still amazingly adamant that somehow they were doing nothing wrong. Unfortunately SL no longer removes infringed items from the grid because they don't want to have to deal with potentially thousands of people pissed off that they no longer have a product they paid for.
So I'm re-releasing this design now in a new Bento animated, materials enabled format that's better than ever, and I didn't have to lazily steal someone else's work to do so.