Lawyer Response- Diamond Art Club

Diamond Art Club responded and I am so happy we now have both sides and it's cleared up exactly what the problem was. Now we get to see what the courts say if it comes to that so that the rest of the artists and companies know what to expect from here on out.

Support the Channel

Amazon Wishlist

Email-

Companies- (I do not have any affiliates)
Diamond Art Club (DAC)

Dreamer Designs

The One With The Diamond Art

Amazon

Randas Crafty Corner

Mercari

PureBlissWaxCo - Etsy

Zodiac Shadows - Etsy

Paint Gem-

Yellow Dog Designs-

Enablers Outpost-

Flawsome Crafter

[hannahlynnart]

Answer and CounterClaims have been filed, viewable on my site and also where public records can be searched (Los Angeles County California)

[catarinasegadaes]

I'll preface my comment by saying I'm not a big fan of DAC's rendering style. Although i think it suits artists that do cartoonish images like HL, i prefer a more soft rendering style myself.

I am also someone that was banned by DAC for some mysterious reason ( i never got an explanation, i tried making a purchase after nearly a year of not buying from them and said purchase was cancelled, without explanation and my email went unanswered and they blocked me on Facebook messenger).

So i might be a bit biased. But i do think HL is correct that she owns the renderings and can use them as she pleases. As she states, all production costs are taken into account when calculating profits and royalties. Rendering the images is just another production cost imo.

Unless the contract specifies otherwise, she can do what she wants. What i see happening forward if the courts do decide in favour of HL is diamond painting companies adding something to the contract to prevent this situation. It will be interesting to see.

HL is totally right when she speaks about loss of revenue because of the black market, and DAC is hugely responsible for that, with their fomo marketing strategies. Lots of her kits came out as Limited Edition so that fomented that situation and she probably lost a ton of revenue whilst with DAC for that reason, i cant blame her for not wanting more delays and to lose more money because of them.

I would love for you to do a video about marketing strategies and the black market by the way.

Great video, i like your style!

[shellee]

Just because they created a copy of her work in another medium doesn't mean they own that copy ... or the rights to the image.

[barbarascrochetcraft]

I have seen some screenshot comparing DAC's and other company rendering of same image and it's not the same. In any case I don't think a rendering can be copyrighted by DAC, because it is made on an image which doesn't belong to them. I don't even believe that hand charting is taking hundreds of hours for a single image, because I've done it for myself and it's not taking so much time as they claim. HL owns her artwork, period. And once the contract with DAC has expired, she can do what she wants. And they can't even complain in which sizes she sells her DPs with other companies, because they don't even own the DP size. This is ridiculous. Did you read latest HL statement on FB? That they even pushed her to remove her agent because he was being difficult about terms on contract? He was protecting her and they got rid of him to manipulate her better. You can believe what you want, but they are not the good ones. They are not amazing. They are just trying to protect their ass.

[christopherkolasa]

IMO - legally and ethically/morally are different things and can be vastly different in degree. HL I’m guessing is correct, the artwork, including the renders DAC made are hers legally and she can do as she pleases with them. This is where contracts come into play and it’s a live and learn situation. It’s up to DAC to put in the contract with the artist that if they are to go their separate ways that the renders they created will be destroyed - so they don’t have any right to it nor the artist.

[amberlynn]

I think they suck. Why don’t you do a video representing former dac customers who they banned. Report on how it effected people mentally. People who are scared to speak up, in fear dac will threaten with legal action. But since many do not have lawyer money, just let dac get away with all the banning.

[crimsonfate]

Keep in mind you talked to a lawyer, not the company. A lawyers job is to try and make their client look good.
I think DAC is completely out of line. If she legally owns those renderings, it's her decision what she does with them. It's her artwork. All DAC did was make pixelated images of her work.
Also it just sounds like you're condoning a big company bullying an artist and that's just sad.

[sparklinbudgets]

To your point that it’s wrong of another company to sell DACs renderings or “steal their ideas” DAC also does that multiple times all the time. None of their ideas are original and they are not unique. All this talk about “ethics and morals” yet that is essentially the nature of the business. The point still stands that Hannah Lynn is the sole person who owns copyright on her paintings or renderings. DAC can claim all they want that what she’s doing isn’t legal when in all actuality it absolutely is

[heatherh]

To say a company owns renderings of one's art work is like saying if someone were to restore a person's art in a museum now owns copyrights to that art because they spent money on someone to restore it. I think renderings belong to the artist because it's their art. Just my opinion.

[eileenscraftycats]

I hope Hannah Lynn is able to move forward with other companies using new artwork and renderings created by the other companies. I agree that renderings made by employees paid by DAC should not be used by other companies. I still feel DAC tends to bully others and uses scare tactics to keep negative feedback about their company hidden. I am a fan of DAC and their quality of product but not their business practices.

[sharonporter]

My question is why DAC released most of Hannah Lynn’s kits as limited edition (one-off) going straight to archives when selling out within minutes. Meaning she was only paid for however number of kits DAC decided to release. I have not seen majority of their other artists kits going straight to archives as they have with Hannah Lynn. DAC is creating a black market predominately for her kits by not restocking her work thereby affecting her compensation for her copyrighted artwork.
Also, how many different ways can an artists colored artwork be rendered when all companies use DMC standard color codes?
Just asking…

[Mrs.Perez]

Thinking over it that’s a very legal lawyer response. The contract gives her the derivatives and if they made it impossible to get income I see the urgency in using what was already produced to get income. I mean if I was at the point of loosing my livelihood and can’t provide I’m going to go for the quick sale. The people who created the renders were already paid for their work. I mean is anyone questioning if Ghibli got paid for the paintings they are selling? Also the Sailor Moon knock off kits.

If they chose to make her life hard and decide to feed the black market over providing a profitable market for both .

They were legally hers to use. DAC is being smart by being quiet so we won’t confirm or deny their image.

Concerning their latest suit on the redditor I wonder where this will lead for you.

[missstarsineyes]

This really makes me think twice about purchasing from Diamond Art Club, it seems like they are bullying. I think Hannah should be able to use her renderings. It seems practical to for Hannah to use the renderings since DAC isn't going to be using them going forward.

[amberlynn]

What about all the people who were banned?

[lxbrix]

really weird that they are emailing and contacting you instead of making this statement public

[cynthiamoon]

I completely stand with Hannah Lynn. I believe creating the renderings are part of the cost of business. It does not give them the right to hold hostage an artist work. Especially because DAC decided to end the relationship, I feel they are truly trying to destroy this artist. I cannot imagine they have not reaped great profit using the artists name and art. I see DAC continues to showcase Hannah's artwork in their promotion video on their website, among others.

[jjacks]

I'm an artist and NOT a lawyer. According to the parts of the contract that was posted, the artists retains ownership of derivative works (the renders). The time and amount of money paid to the person/team that converts the originals to diamond painting charts is irrelevant because that is just the cost of doing business and that falls on DAC if they wish to sell kits. Those salaries, along with webhosting, marketing, etc. are paid for out of the upcharge that DAC puts on their kits when they sell them. BUT, if DAC chooses to fight about it, and apparently they do, I don't personally think this is the hill that I would choose to die on. Legal fees, time, and anxiety would not be worth it to me. Hannah Lynn is free to make her own choice about it.

[rantsofafangirl]

The problems with the reselling market is that DAC is admin on most of the groups. They know what their kits are going for. Maybe they need buyer limits or an inhouse resale site. But the problem is FOMO is their marketing. You kill the resale market, you kinda kill their marketing

[suemorris]

DAC renderings should be destroyed.
DAC couldn't sell HL canvases.
And all other companies that license with HL can make their own renderings.

[patricaporter]

I still stand with HL and all artists. I have decided to remove myself from the DAC world as far as not purchasing from them ever again. I, like many others, got swept into the I gotta have this one & that one right now. I'm taking back my enjoyment of this hobby by not stressing over trying to buy certain ones before they are gone. That's not enjoyable to me. This hobby started as a relaxing stress & no drama. I'm definitely not keeping a wishlist of DPs anymore and I will be supporting the smaller companies from here on out.