I am sorry that the dialogue that was opened on Moopy & Me had to be erased. I am sorry that Alimrose Designs still believes that her company did nothing wrong. I am sorry that Alimrose used someone’s blog space to write a lot about goodwill and manners, and also about dealing with vendettas, taking legal action against a blogger and denying breach of copyright. What a sweet little flower, that Alimrose.
And if you were too late to get a Spaceboy, for which Hillary was not compensated, you can still run out and get a Spaceboy Handsqueaker, ’cause those rattles inside are so totally dang original. Wish I would have thought of that.
Pop quiz time. Who do you think came up with the following original idea first? Mini Labo, or Alimrose Designs? Clearly, the Mini Labo critters speak French, and are therefore no relation. Right.
Have something you would like to say? I thought so.
42 responses so far ↓
Alex // April 2, 2008 at 7:33 am
Just for the record, it was me who invented the bell stuffed softie, my peko-bunny for BT3 way back in 2006 (!) had it. I’ve seen this copied many times since then, never given any credit.
Regarding the Spaceboy in general, I’d just be interested in how ‘designing a new toy’ or acquiring new designs is working over at Alimrose Designs.
bereginy // April 2, 2008 at 10:42 am
Yes, so original —-> http://www.cribculture.com/product.php?productid=16418&cat=0&page=1
I guess if it’s a squeaky that makes it okay. :/
I think the stock buyers should be told about this. Some companies are decent sorts and wouldn’t want to be attached to this mess.
Jane // April 2, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I hate the fact that the person who began this dialogue has been bullied into ending it. I’m surprised there isn’t more outrage in blogland! If I had a blog I would not be keeping silent. THANK YOU for giving me a place to vent my outrage about this.
Donna // April 2, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Wow, she even removed the second post, where she printed the response from Alimrose. I think Alimrose may regret the hole they are digging.
As of yesterday, this was still showing the space boy in stock
http://www.tenlittleindians.com.au/proddetail.php?prod=AlimroseRattleSpaceboy
Either it quickly sold out or some things are being pulled.
Georgia // April 2, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I’m so embarrassed that it is an Australian company that has done this. Perhaps they thought Hillary Lang’s work wouldn’t be so well known here and they would get away with it? I’ve bought quite a few Alimrose toys before, but certainly won’t be anymore.
Jennifer // April 3, 2008 at 12:01 am
I think the most embarrassing thing is that Susan wrote publicly that there was a “vast difference” between her Spaceboy and Hillary’s Spaceboy because, among other things, the fabrics were different and the size was different. She takes no personal or professional responsibility for it, either, and while she openly stated that she respects artists and their ideas, she offers not one ounce of apology to the original creator of Spaceboy. And I wonder what happened to that person who made those “line drawings” that ended up on her desk to use as Spaceboy? I wonder who made those magical fabric choices that looked so much like Hillary’s? Everything I read in the Alimrose statement, in Susan’s own words, which she willingly posted on Moopy&Me as a separate blog entry, sounded like someone who refuses to apologize in fear of serious legal action. But she went back to the blog entry comments and threatened legal action on Moopy & Me, over what people were saying in the comments. One commenter remarked that when she personally wrote to Alimrose, the response she got made her gasp.
Amy // April 3, 2008 at 7:02 am
Rather than bring out the lawyers to persecute a blogger (!) perhaps Alimrose should be using their energy to have a little chat to the person who ‘brought’ the line drawing design to them and mis-represented it as their own work. Changing the size and adding a bell schmell! If that is not artistic plagiarism then WHAT IS?
Christie // April 4, 2008 at 4:00 am
I was so sad to read Hillary’s post today & as an Aussie the fact that it was an Australian company made me feel ill…
I will NEVER buy an Alimrose product again & the next time that I am in a shop that stocks them I will make my feelings known. I wish I had had a chance to read the Moopy & me posts before they were removed.
Simone // April 4, 2008 at 5:02 am
I emailed them re this and was pleased to read that they have asked their customers to return the items as soon as they found about the items being Hillary’s. According to the email they have been getting the pieces back over the last two weeks and have emailed Hillary to let her know the status etc. They acknowledged their error and seemed to be fixing it as per the email.
movinghands // April 4, 2008 at 5:31 am
Hi, Simone. Nice to see you over here, after commenting at Moopy&Me about going on a “witch hunt”. Any affiliation?
Yes, it seems there has been a change in tone from Alimrose, considering that just two days ago the company was saying that it had no obligation to pull the toys off the market, due to vast differences between the dolls, and did so out of goodwill, against its lawyer’s advice. Susan also said that maybe she should have taken the lawyer’s advice and just continued to keep selling them, considering how the response to her has been, in general.
So my response to that is too little, too late. And my opinion stands.
Simone // April 4, 2008 at 5:51 am
Hi movinghands,
Yep, I am the same Simone that commented the other day on Moopy & Me. I do agree with you that they did the wrong thing! Dont get me wrong on that one!! I’m on your side. And everyone is entitled to their opinion ofcourse! If this is only an outlet for one type of opinion then Im sorry. I only mentioned the email I got from them before which seemed to explain what they have done since ’cause it did say they took the toys out of shops and more. For the record I am not affiliated as you may suggest, but i have bought quite a bit of their stuff in the past. i fear I may have kept them in business actually and was always a fan but when I first saw all this I thought the same as you. I was very interested in what happened with Hillary’s designs because I am aware of both Alimrose and Hillary well before this and they is why I also sent an email in protest.
Christie // April 4, 2008 at 7:47 am
I received an email from them too, as Simone did, however it appears that they have not removed (or will not?) the spaceboy squeakers & there is no mention of the product issue on their website… I would have thought that an apology on their website would have been nice…
Jane // April 4, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I too received an email but it did not inspire the jolly feelings Simone says she got. It was a marked change in tone from her initial attitude on Nest Studio but for me the damage has been done. Their combative attitude and law suit threatening nonsense has made me sick.
They have no shame. I wish Hillary could sue the crap out of them.
Jennifer // April 4, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Jane, that is the exact impression I got. I made this post in the first place because I had similar feelings as you. I was shocked that Susan (of Alimrose) would post her opinions publicly in such a nasty tone, and then follow up by replying in comments that the commenters were doing the blog owner a disservice because Susan was going to take further legal action against Moopy & Me. What in the world? Susan says that she was “horrified” to see that her dolls were the same as Hillary’s, yet continued to rant publicly about how there was no breach in copyright. Alimrose is an established company with a reputation to protect, and after the debacle on Moopy&Me, I think the Alimrose lawyer brought out a muzzle. I will be surprised if I ever see an apology from the company, on its website or elsewhere.
dorkyquilts // April 4, 2008 at 10:32 pm
So interesting to follow all this. I’m glad she’s changed her tune. I’ve been plagiarized before and let me tell you, it’s just devastating to the core. Thanks for spreading the word.
Karen in Wichita // April 4, 2008 at 11:12 pm
I find it telling that there’s no mention of where the design actually came from… no “this is the only design we’ve produced by this person,” or anything like. And no comment on the French bunny that’s an apparent ripoff, either. Not that I’d expect an “oh hai, we infringed elsewhere” until they’ve settled with the rightsholders, but *some* indication that they’re trying to make everything right would be nice.
It’s also telling that those tags say “designed by,” not “designed for,” which implies that they really were done in-house. (And if they weren’t, implying it is a bit less than honest in itself.) I blogged on a possible cause for why the designer might not realize that was an infringing use… though of course even if they sincerely believed it was legal, they still had to recognize that using it was the absolute depths of discourtesy.
floresita // April 5, 2008 at 1:18 am
This is appalling. I’m glad you kept this discussion up.
adnil // April 5, 2008 at 4:21 am
You can learn more about Suans Shardlow and her company here:
http://www.mellimoomoo.com.au/shopping/alimrose_designs/154/1
Let your voices be heard!
twolimeleaves // April 5, 2008 at 8:30 am
I was the one who gasped at the email I received back from Alimrose. I was unimpressed to say the least. And then, this morning, at my local shopping centre, what did I see? Hillary’s robots still on sale.
And what about the other bloggers who’s work has also been appropriated? Has any apology been made to them? Have their designs been “recalled” too?
I promised myself to let this go, but it just gets my goat so much!
Christie // April 5, 2008 at 8:54 am
Has that link that adnil posted been removed?? I couldn’t find any info about Alimrose on their website…strange…
EM // April 5, 2008 at 10:44 pm
re: the link that adnil posted - try this URL (Goodgle cache):
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:Lheolo-IbsQJ:www.mellimoomoo.com.au/shopping/alimrose_designs/154/1+australian+company+information+alimrose&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=ca
CallMeKelly // April 7, 2008 at 2:55 am
What a cop-out. There is no question that weewonderfuls got ripped off. And on their blog mellimoomoo says they are against design theft … yet they still have a glowing description of alimrose up on their site with no mention of them ripping anyone off … if I read their descript I’d be running to the shopping cart to fill it up with their products, they make the company look so perfect.
One or the other needs to change… don’t blog that you don’t agree with co’s ripping others off and leave up glowing descriptions of those co’s… or don’t be hypocrites and take down the blog post. Either way, although I saw tons of boooootiful things on the mellimoomoo site I’m now dying to purchase, I won’t until a firmer stand is made.
The whole situation made me smile because they got caught, which is awesome and fantastic. Sick because someone got ripped off and so many people don’t seem to find it upsetting. Glad that the net can help fix the situation and spread awareness.
CallMeKelly // April 7, 2008 at 3:00 am
Also, I don’t have the time but I sure wish someone would contact all those magazines on the alimrose publicity page and let them in on the story. Maybe that would get them to offer and apology.
Barbara // April 7, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Here via LoobyLu… I was just devastated for Hillary when I saw her post last week. She’s been one of my favorites since I found her blog. It’s pretty terrible when bloggers are so generous with their talents only to have it backfire against them. Hopefully this is all resolved soon.
Mai // April 7, 2008 at 3:06 pm
While there are really no new ideas… people who are benefiting from someone’s original work should acknowledge and applaud the creator for their creativity and generosity. It is amazing to me how selfish and righteous people can be and if we can just be a little humble about things this world would be such a better place.
mar // April 7, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Have been a fan of Hillary’s for a long time. I can’t even imagine what she’s feeling about this. What do you think is the best thing we can do to voice our opinions in support of her, and of all artists?
Ward // April 7, 2008 at 7:00 pm
It’s not about no new ideas here, but the fact that there’s a glaringly obvious rip-off going on here, especially in the minute details for both the spaceboy and robot designs by Hillary. There’s one thing about being inspired by, but no, this is so so so obvious stealing of ideas and designs it’s outrageous. This makes me livid.
lauren // April 7, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I am huge fan of Hillary’s, her website, and all her products. I am in shock that someone would so blatantly rip off her ideas. I am so encouraged though that it seems Hillary has a huge support network watching her back :)
lucykatecrafts... // April 7, 2008 at 8:13 pm
i saw all of the posts by moopy & me before they were deleted. when it comes to accusing others of copying designs, it is unfortunately a huge grey area, i’ve read that just a 10% difference, is enough to avoid any legalities!!
in my experience (and i have come across this myself, someone copied one of my designs and tried to sell them on etsy) if you confront someone about it, they will never admit they have copied. all they will do is attempt to turn the tables, say firstly, they’ve never heard of you or seen your work, then try and discredit the original designer by saying all of your work is copied anyway, and then threaten legal action. basically, their only form of defense is attack. but at the same time, with a slide of hand, their product in question will be quietly removed, just to show goodwill obviously!!, not at all down to guilt ; )
Karen in Wichita // April 7, 2008 at 9:13 pm
lucykatecrafts: Nope, that’s an urban legend. There’s unfortunately no “bright line” between a derivative work (which is a copyright infringement, fair use excepted) and a new work. The added creative work has to be “significant,” but that’s not strictly defined… though there’s a specific legal definition for what is and isn’t “creative,” and what they call “sweat of the brow” work isn’t considered.
That is, no matter how much work you put into your duplicate, sourcing fabrics and drafting patterns and outsourcing the sewing, that doesn’t matter as far as copyright infringement is concerned.
It’s generally best to play it safe, unless you are very, very good friends with your legal counsel. And even then, if they’re any good they’ll regularly remind you that there are very few guarantees in copyright cases: you never know for sure until the court makes a ruling.
movinghands // April 7, 2008 at 9:23 pm
lucykatecrafts, you are spot on:
“basically, their only form of defense is attack.”
Yes, the person who copied ends up being the one threatening legal action against the original designer.
I won’t say more than that, due to, you guessed it, threats of legal action (not against me)
megan @ mellimoomoo // April 8, 2008 at 8:08 am
Hi, I wanted to respond to Call Me Kelly’s comments: I’m glad you love http://www.mellimoomoo.com.au - please do come and shop :) We would love to serve you.
We stand by our principles which are quite clearly stated in our blog.
The link that Call Me Kelly went through is an old link that my limited website management skills can’t seem to wipe out. (I’m still learning content management on my site, so give me a bit of forgiveness please…)
I invite everyone to visit http://www.mellimoomoo.com.au and inspect our site to find children’s products that are produced in ethical ways, by fair trade or lovingly hand-made by the designers themselves; to find children’s toys and gifts that are natural, non-toxic and safe; to find products that are made with consideration of our environment.
The above reasons are why I created mellimoomoo… and that is what I continue to support.
Hope that answers any queries Call Me Kelly has!
Cheers,
Megan @ mellimoomoo.com.au
movinghands // April 8, 2008 at 11:42 am
Thanks, Megan, for clearing up a question that was raised. I think we should all be fair to the owners of companies that do/did stock Alimrose products. Callmekelly, I hope your question was answered about mellimoomoo, and that people who are customers of that site or potential customers of that site understand that mellimoomoo really does back up its business philosophy.
floresita // April 8, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I’ve been following this story for a week now (as a big Wee Wonderfuls fan) and I’m happy to see that the Spaceboy links in the post above no longer link to toys for sale.
I really think it was pressure from all of Wee Wonderful’s fans that helped bring this about and I’m proud to be part of a community that values originality, honesty, and creativity.
Katie // April 8, 2008 at 7:22 pm
This whole debacle just makes me sick. I cannot stand creative theft. The misrepresentation on behalf of this Susan….I’m just dumbfounded. Clearly, she has never had an original idea, or she would have been more sensitive to gravity of her error.
Lily // April 8, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I agree! I went to Hillary’s site las week and was so upset on her behalf! I went into her shop site and bought one of the original Spaceboy and Robot patterns - my little way of showing some support. :)
Cherry // April 9, 2008 at 12:59 am
Katie: “Clearly, she has never had an original idea, or she would have been more sensitive to gravity of her error.”
Such a perfect point.
Some people are in it for the love, and some only for the money, and I would like to think they all get sorted out in the wash (but I know they don’t).
There are so many emotions which would stop me in my tracks: respect, guilt, fear, pride….I wonder what overrides them in Alimrose’s case?
Anna Yamaura // April 9, 2008 at 2:28 am
Hi, I came via Loobylu and I was the one who wrote about the 10% change/variation in a pattern. It was legal advice given to my mother about 3 years ago who designed quilts/patterns for sale and as part of classes that she taught in her now defunct shop (retirement on her part). She faced the same problem as Hillary and a few students would go to her classes, get a pattern and then go to their local church group and teach the same class (with mum’s pattern) for $5. The lawyer said their needed to be a 10% difference. I asked the legal eagle I live with and he said that the definition had since been blurred and a copyright infringement is defined on whether the changes are significant or not. It also depends on whether you can make a considered risk to threaten legal action. (I see that to mean as do you have the financial clout to take it to court and withstand a lengthy legal battle…)
After teaching for many years at high schools and a stint as a Tech college teacher, I often saw students plagerise. Which is the academic version of stealing. I would often fail a student for not acknowledging where the orginial thought came from until I got into serious trouble with the powers that be… (Was shocked because it clearly stated that if a student failed to acknowlegde sources within the written piece, that it was an automatic fail. And to be fair to me I had warned the student is several drafts that the were ’stealing’ other people’s ideas, just tell me where you got if from.) So it is a huge issue in the academic world as well (I hate to bring my work up here).
May be if we are inspired by other’s designs or a design from a certain time period we should acknowledge where the inspiration came from???
Kate // April 9, 2008 at 2:43 am
I’m pleased to say that I was one of the people from Australia that emailed Hilary about this. I was shocked when I saw the toys in my favourite online baby shop, and emailed her right away.
charm // April 9, 2008 at 12:06 pm
This whole situation is just horrid.
I bought the pattern last year and have since made a few of them for myself and my nephews and nieces. A few people i know said they thought i should sell them, to which i replied, “NO! its not my design. I’ll work out a pattern of my own and sell that instead.” I guess thats not what the folks over at Alimrose thought…
I wasnt aware that these toys were being sold online but what i was aware of is that they are being sold in stores…
I live in Melbourne and have seen them in two boutique stores in the last few weeks. I’m trying to recall the exact stores so I can pass the info onto Hillary.
Thanks for keeping this discussion going!
elizabeth // April 9, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Hi, came via Loobylu too and as an Australian lawyer wish to respond to Anna’s comments. I don’t know what actually happened, esp. b/c of the take-downs. This isn’t legal advice, nor can I give any legal advice to any of you. (1) Copyright doesn’t protect ideas, only how they are expresed in material form. (2) Copyright laws are different between countries: what’s OK in USA may be an infingement in Oz, a defence under Oz law might fail in USA, even if both sets of laws use similar words. (3) Court action costs big $, esp if you have to cross national borders. However, one can get a lot of traction with a carefully drafted, and justified, letter from a lawyer. (3) Under Australian law, you can copy up to 10% of some types of copyright works for specified purposes, eg photocopying bits of a textbook at uni. The type of copying under discussion here is whether a design drawing, industrial object or work of artistic craftsmanship reproduces a substantial portion of a prior work or other copyright use has been made of the source without authorisation, eg commerial application of a copyright work. It’s usually quality more than quantity: the idea that you can avoid breaching copyright simply by changing 10% of a work is legally, nonsense, a bit like saying “But my one’s green!” and expecting that to work. The copyright owner’s barrister will verbally flay the defendants to convince the court that the essential element of the work was pinched and the judge is going to have some very choice, very expensive words to say if s/he is satisfed that it was. (4) If works have been commercialised, industrial design law rather than copyright might come into play: different Act, different rules, and some tricky crossover. (5) In Australia, try the Arts Law Centre for good FAQs, simple cheap contracts etc, referrals & occasional seminars/free advice sessions. (6) I wish I could actually make something half as good as the fabulous, beautiful things I see on craft blogs, or even just make anything, however awful! Bloggers please don’t give up because of this nasty situation…
movinghands // April 9, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Thank you, everyone, for contributing your ideas, feelings and legal interpretations to this discussion. I will close comments to this post for now.