Search

Results
Topic: James' announcement in News Forum 11/13/19 10:46 pm
RoyK_is_a_She Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 1:51:57 PM
ZingerBug wrote:
I probably wouldn't use them all the time, but honestly, if I need xyz element to complete a design, and it's something I can't easily create myself or find through the public domain, I'm more than happy to pay another designer a tiny slice of my royalty for the use of their work.

Just for the record, I suggested a Designer-supplied library that was optional for fellow Designer use some 16 or 28 pages ago. In my opinion, the better business model is to let SC Designers set their prices for digital assets with one option for a flat fee and one for a Royalty Share, in the truest sense of the word - voluntary sharing. Such a model, in my opinion, would likely yield a higher monetary return for the SC Designers because many Primary Designers would choose the flat rate option, which would be paid outright whether a Published Design sells or not, and it would absolutely yield a higher goodwill return. I would happily support such Designers before going to outside sources for assets.

Under these current circumstances, not on board.

Topic: James' announcement in News Forum 11/13/19 10:46 pm
RoyK_is_a_She Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 1:51:57 PM
ZingerBug wrote:
I probably wouldn't use them all the time, but honestly, if I need xyz element to complete a design, and it's something I can't easily create myself or find through the public domain, I'm more than happy to pay another designer a tiny slice of my royalty for the use of their work.

Just for the record, I suggested a Designer-supplied library that was optional for fellow Designer use some 16 or 28 pages ago. In my opinion, the better business model is to let SC Designers set their prices for digital assets with one option for a flat fee and one for a Royalty Share, in the truest sense of the word - voluntary sharing. Such a model, in my opinion, would likely yield a higher monetary return for the SC Designers because many Primary Designers would choose the flat rate option, which would be paid outright whether a Published Design sells or not, and it would absolutely yield a higher goodwill return. I would happily support such Designers before going to outside sources for assets.

Under these current circumstances, not on board.

Topic: James' announcement in News Forum 11/13/19 10:46 pm
RoyK_is_a_She Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 1:51:57 PM
ZingerBug wrote:
I probably wouldn't use them all the time, but honestly, if I need xyz element to complete a design, and it's something I can't easily create myself or find through the public domain, I'm more than happy to pay another designer a tiny slice of my royalty for the use of their work.

Just for the record, I suggested a Designer-supplied library that was optional for fellow Designer use some 16 or 28 pages ago. In my opinion, the better business model is to let SC Designers set their prices for digital assets with one option for a flat fee and one for a Royalty Share, in the truest sense of the word - voluntary sharing. Such a model, in my opinion, would likely yield a higher monetary return for the SC Designers because many Primary Designers would choose the flat rate option, which would be paid outright whether a Published Design sells or not, and it would absolutely yield a higher goodwill return. I would happily support such Designers before going to outside sources for assets.

Under these current circumstances, not on board.

Topic: James' announcement in News Forum 11/13/19 10:46 pm
RoyK_is_a_She Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 12:37:38 PM
ZingerBug wrote:
just have to say that I think your anger toward Create Designers is misplaced.

Your comment makes the assumption that my decision is out of anger toward those Designers. It's not. They are following a business model I don't wish to support, and therefore, I won't support their businesses.

ZingerBug wrote:
You'd be free to set your percentage higher on designs …

And be penalized for doing so.

Quote:
lumping them in the same category

The "category" is business models I don't wish to support.

@Colorwash – Everyone will have their own interpretation of every word on every screen, as seen through their glasses. I can't help that and am not going to try to account for it. I won't deny my sarcasm, but as I said, in the very quote you quoted, "If you're satisfied with the response, I am happy for you."

Thank you for your feedback. I am trying very hard to not debate, as from my perspective, the points have been well-enough debated. I posted my points and opinions, as have many others. If that's still a permitted use of the Forum, I'd like to just leave it there.

northwest4art wrote:
Zazzle should purchase and manage their image library if they're going to have a library.

Agree and/or an optional library where I may well be happy to add utilize elements at my choice AND agree to pay for them of my own free will.

If Zazzle did have their own library for which they were responsible, I would guarantee there would be no licensing leaks. Just like Icons, the terms would be airtight in their favor.

Topic: James' announcement in News Forum 11/13/19 10:46 pm
RoyK_is_a_She Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 12:37:38 PM
ZingerBug wrote:
just have to say that I think your anger toward Create Designers is misplaced.

Your comment makes the assumption that my decision is out of anger toward those Designers. It's not. They are following a business model I don't wish to support, and therefore, I won't support their businesses.

ZingerBug wrote:
You'd be free to set your percentage higher on designs …

And be penalized for doing so.

Quote:
lumping them in the same category

The "category" is business models I don't wish to support.

@Colorwash – Everyone will have their own interpretation of every word on every screen, as seen through their glasses. I can't help that and am not going to try to account for it. I won't deny my sarcasm, but as I said, in the very quote you quoted, "If you're satisfied with the response, I am happy for you."

Thank you for your feedback. I am trying very hard to not debate, as from my perspective, the points have been well-enough debated. I posted my points and opinions, as have many others. If that's still a permitted use of the Forum, I'd like to just leave it there.

northwest4art wrote:
Zazzle should purchase and manage their image library if they're going to have a library.

Agree and/or an optional library where I may well be happy to add utilize elements at my choice AND agree to pay for them of my own free will.

If Zazzle did have their own library for which they were responsible, I would guarantee there would be no licensing leaks. Just like Icons, the terms would be airtight in their favor.