2023: No more Mono/DA/DE for online purchase (?)

TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others

#21
excalibur said:
She’s now charging monthly fees for access to upcoming releases and use the copyright symbol on her photos.
Perhaps Corporate didn’t like that
Click to expand...
I think charging for monthly fees for something that don’t technically belongs to her is outrageous.

If you do original content that belongs to you and wishes to charge some premium for subscription, I would think that’s fair.

Im thinking, maybe the saga won’t even end here. Just taking away an insta account is not the end of the world (contrary to what many gen z and millenials might imagine). There are more serious fate that she could end up with - depending on how much of an example the original content owner (LV) wants to make of her.

There could be worst ways this could turn out, getting sue for every copyright ( c ) logo she watermarked. Compensating for charging $$ when the information was supposed to be distributed freely as marketing. I don’t know what other ways it could end, or it could just end with a stern warning and deleting her account.

I do not think she has malicious intentions to hurt LV at all, she just didn’t think too much out of it and made some mistakes.

I’m sure LV knows their content is being “leak out” whenever there’s a new launch coming. It’s intentional for marketing purpose to hype the new collection. They are the ones who will benefit from the hype. Distributing the images (copying it here and there) allow consumers to get excited and want to know more about the collection. But if one of them starts charging, more might follow suit and people gets put off by it. Then the marketing intention is no longer there. Also, if I’m the original owner, I would be pissed off too - I gave you for free and you make money out of it? I should be the one making money out of it!!! (Cue: toiletry pouches then and now)

That said, we all need to be a little careful of claiming content with watermark. Though I’m also not sure what exactly pissed off the person / corporate who reported her - copyright logo or charging for free content?
 
  • Like
  • Insightful
Reactions: Aliluvlv, MarryMeLV_Now, Sibelle and 4 others
#22
Jumper said:
I think charging for monthly fees for something that don’t technically belongs to her is outrageous.

If you do original content that belongs to you and wishes to charge some premium for subscription, I would think that’s fair.

Im thinking, maybe the saga won’t even end here. Just taking away an insta account is not the end of the world (contrary to what many gen z and millenials might imagine). There are more serious fate that she could end up with - depending on how much of an example the original content owner (LV) wants to make of her.

There could be worst ways this could turn out, getting sue for every copyright ( c ) logo she watermarked. Compensating for charging $$ when the information was supposed to be distributed freely as marketing. I don’t know what other ways it could end, or it could just end with a stern warning and deleting her account.

I do not think she has malicious intentions to hurt LV at all, she just didn’t think too much out of it and made some mistakes.

I’m sure LV knows their content is being “leak out” whenever there’s a new launch coming. It’s intentional for marketing purpose to hype the new collection. They are the ones who will benefit from the hype. Distributing the images (copying it here and there) allow consumers to get excited and want to know more about the collection. But if one of them starts charging, more might follow suit and people gets put off by it. Then the marketing intention is no longer there. Also, if I’m the original owner, I would be pissed off too - I gave you for free and you make money out of it? I should be the one making money out of it!!! (Cue: toiletry pouches then and now)

That said, we all need to be a little careful of claiming content with watermark. Though I’m also not sure what exactly pissed off the person / corporate who reported her - copyright logo or charging for free content?
Click to expand...
That's crazy, I had no idea! I get that influencers want to monetize their IG but there's a right way and a wrong way. Sounds like she made the wrong moves.

I personally don't feel the need to pay for info...crazy. That's why we have tPF! :lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarryMeLV_Now, joyfulone, excalibur and 2 others
#23
Luv2Shop1 said:
That's crazy, I had no idea! I get that influencers want to monetize their IG but there's a right way and a wrong way. Sounds like she made the wrong moves.

I personally don't feel the need to pay for info...crazy. That's why we have tPF! :lol:
Click to expand...
My comments are not entirely original too. Someone else had more insights previously on another thread (EU chat) and I only added that last bit about how LV feels about monetizing pre-launch vetted “leak photos”.

I only hope this would be the end of what LV wants to pursue with her, as she really did not have real intentions about claiming ownership. She was just upset that other accounts are ripping her “hard-earn” photos from her account without giving her credit.

I also draw the line about paying for information. Information that makes me want to spend more money!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luv2Shop1
#24
Jumper said:
My comments are not entirely original too. Someone else had more insights previously on another thread (EU chat) and I only added that last bit about how LV feels about monetizing pre-launch vetted “leak photos”.

I only hope this would be the end of what LV wants to pursue with her, as she really did not have real intentions about claiming ownership. She was just upset that other accounts are ripping her “hard-earn” photos from her account without giving her credit.

I also draw the line about paying for information. Information that makes me want to spend more money!!!
Click to expand...
That's what tPF is...info that will help us spend more money! :graucho:
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Aliluvlv, MarryMeLV_Now and Jumper
#25
Jumper said:
I think charging for monthly fees for something that don’t technically belongs to her is outrageous.

If you do original content that belongs to you and wishes to charge some premium for subscription, I would think that’s fair.

Im thinking, maybe the saga won’t even end here. Just taking away an insta account is not the end of the world (contrary to what many gen z and millenials might imagine). There are more serious fate that she could end up with - depending on how much of an example the original content owner (LV) wants to make of her.

There could be worst ways this could turn out, getting sue for every copyright ( c ) logo she watermarked. Compensating for charging $$ when the information was supposed to be distributed freely as marketing. I don’t know what other ways it could end, or it could just end with a stern warning and deleting her account.

I do not think she has malicious intentions to hurt LV at all, she just didn’t think too much out of it and made some mistakes.

I’m sure LV knows their content is being “leak out” whenever there’s a new launch coming. It’s intentional for marketing purpose to hype the new collection. They are the ones who will benefit from the hype. Distributing the images (copying it here and there) allow consumers to get excited and want to know more about the collection. But if one of them starts charging, more might follow suit and people gets put off by it. Then the marketing intention is no longer there. Also, if I’m the original owner, I would be pissed off too - I gave you for free and you make money out of it? I should be the one making money out of it!!! (Cue: toiletry pouches then and now)

That said, we all need to be a little careful of claiming content with watermark. Though I’m also not sure what exactly pissed off the person / corporate who reported her - copyright logo or charging for free content?
Click to expand...
I don't know anything about the background or why her insta has been removed. But if she really claimed original LV material as her own, then this could indeed turn out really nasty for her if LV wishes to make an example. I think LV does not take it lightly if people infringe their copyrights... However I hope she will be okay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarryMeLV_Now
#26
Sibelle said:
I don't know anything about the background or why her insta has been removed. But if she really claimed original LV material as her own, then this could indeed turn out really nasty for her if LV wishes to make an example. I think LV does not take it lightly if people infringe their copyrights... However I hope she will be okay.
Click to expand...
Some said they noticed the ( c ) logo next to all the bags photos she posted for quite a period of time before she switched to @ logo. I didn’t notice any thing most of the time. I may not like to pay for information, but I also do not wish her suffering from her lack of awareness. It’s a mistake for sure she would learn from it and not repeat. Just hope they don’t deem it a serious offense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luv2Shop1, Sibelle and Cathindy
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top