Crediting Digi Layouts in Galleries & Blog...
 

... So, how do you do it? How do you keep track? And what are the "rules" about crediting designers for the products in your layouts?

I'm just starting to think about posting my pages in online galleries again and it's a whole different ballgame for digital pages. When I used to upload my paper pages I sometimes mentioned the company of the paper/embellies, but if I didn't it was OK. I have gathered that this is not the case with digital scrapbooking. It seems like people credit everything used on the page, right?

I have an assortment of digital supplies from the years I've been buying them as well as a good collection of freebies. A lot of my stuff is older (2009) since that's the last time I was really into scrapbooking. I tend to scrap pretty eclectic and I like to make my pages using a few things from many (many) kits. Even when I am using that kit alone, I will often "add" things from other designers to my page. I'm finding when I try to leave credit it takes me hours to track down everything I used. :blink: Help!

Do you always leave credits on all of your pages in galleries? :confused: Is this really something all digi scrapbookers should do or is it mainly something CT's do to promote their designer? I'm also wondering if at some point, credit isn't needed. For instance, if it's an old alpha pack that was long retired? Or if the designer isn't designing anymore? :p

Thanks for the help! :)

We always appreciate crediting us in the galleries. Most people credit major things - the kit, the alpha (if it's different than the kit), major elements if they use different ones, and fonts and templates.

There is no rule that you have to, but people like to see where products come from!

some folks create a layer for just the credits on their layered layout. I tend to just remember, but I don't go element mad, either, so I can usually remember which pieces I used from other areas. If you don't get every single piece credit, no digi-police unit is going to come after you, I promise! You could also leave open the element that you used, or rename your layer (of that element) with the info.

Some galleries even require that you credit, and are pretty specific about it. Other galleries are more lenient about it (so it's always good to check the gallery guidelines).

If it's just a staple or something like that, I tend to leave out the credits for that. But like Darcy said, everything major on a page deserves crediting (though sometimes I simply forget to mention something - usually something smaller, or if a page has a ton of stuff from various products/designers).

I think crediting is important, both for the designers and other scrappers. How many times have I looked at the credits of a page to find out what products are being used, etc. and I esp. appreciate if people mention the fonts they use.

I guess it also depends upon what the individual designer wants. Some of them specify that they want credit (in their TOU) and others don't. I try to credit everything, or at least to credit the main kit and say if anything came from another kit. That way if someone's looking at it in the gallery they won't assume that everything came from the main kit.

I have older layouts that I have no idea what kit I used. If I was ever inclined to post one of those older layouts (which I probably won't because they're pretty embarrasing!) I'd just say that I don't know which kit I used.

It's good to know there's no digi-police unit! :blink: *phew* I was worried. :p
But I guess I should watch for specific rules in whatever gallery and with whichever designer... it is still a bit daunting for a disorganized person like myself, I'll admit. LOL I've always put my stuff up at Two Peas, so I'll have to check and see if they have rules.

I definitely like the idea of adding a bottom layer and keeping notes about what's in the LO there... but I don't always keep my PSD layered files for every layout. Once that Layout is a flattened .jpg I've lost that info. It would be helpful if I'm posting my page in a gallery right away, though! SO I'll have to try to pick up that habit.

I'm looking forward to putting pages in this gallery, but I have to start scrapping with my SSD purchases first! :o

I put my credits into the metadata for the flattened JPG file. That way they stay with the file.

That's a good idea. I usually have a notepad beside my computer and just jot down notes as I go along and write down the title of the layout when I'm done. Not horribly organized, but it helps once I'm ready to post in a gallery. Once I get it into one, I just copy and paste when I post in others. I'm usually crediting the main kit and template, and any additional elements (i.e., stitching, alpha), I need to get better about fonts.

I keep a notepad document where I keep track of the credits. For non-CT LOs, I have a document that I use all month, listing 1 LO after another with their credits as I do them. For CT LOs I might want to find and post the credits again at some point, so I do those LOs in their own document and save them in a Credits file within my CT folder.

I do a notepad document as well, but what I've started doing... I have a doc saved on my desktop that is called challenges. I go through the portfolio every month and c&p all the challenges I want to do in to there and then as I scrap, I type the credits in there and put my links and then I just save the whole thing.

I just keep a word document as I go....I almost always finish a LO once I start it and upload to at least 1 gallery :) then if I want to upload elsewhere I can always come back to the 1st gallery for the credits :)

I have a notepad file for each one of my layouts. It's saved in a credits folder, and each file is named the same as the layout so I can find them easily later. I open it when I start scrapping a page and add things to it as I use them. I tend to credit templates, kits, alphas, and fonts. If I use an element from another kit I credit that as well.

I have Notepad open as I go along. I don't scrap by kit and I don't organise by kit either. So if a designer doesn't have a the kit name in the filename I just credit the designer if I can't remember the kit. But I tend over do it with crediting because, honestly, I couldn't be bothered to read each designer's TOU (it could be up to 10 different kits per LO) before I post. So I just cover all my basis. If I use an item and can't remember it source... I just say so.

I do a lot of CT work, so I have a running Notepad file where I type up all my credits (although I'm pretty good at remembering, too). I have to admit that I usually forget or don't think to credit shadows and other tools of the trade unless that is what I am specifically highlighting on my page, but I always credit papers and elements. I direct link to my designers' work in all the open galleries, whether the designer requires me to do so or not, and in other galleries where it's not allowed, I list the designer's name.

If something that is old/retired is used once or twice on a page of mine, I don't usually bother, especially if the designer is retired, too, but if it's something I use over and over again that someone would notice (I can think of 4 or 5 alphas that I use on many of my pages) and might want to pick up, I will note the designer's name and then put (retired) afterwards.

I would say that if you are thinking abt picking up a CT or two in the next few months that you should consider setting up a crediting system now and direct link wherever possible. I'm not a designer, but I would imagine someone looking for a new CT member would look kindly upon someone who already knows how to credit 'correctly' and does so vs. someone who doesn't credit all the time or consistently, kwim?

This is what I do too, when I remember!!! I always credit everything when I post in galleries, I think it's important too, for the designers and ppl looking, so they know where to find something if they like it enough to buy it!!!

Can I ask one question? Why do we have to credit at all?

Don't get me wrong - I credit everything, it helps me to remember what I used when I come back to it later and I also appreciate when people do it so that I can see what they used.

But other than that - why are we supposed to make promotion for something we bought? It doesn't work like this with any other product, so I sometimes wonder how this rule came into existence (again, no complaints, I'm totally OK with it).

With SSD, since it's an exclusive gallery, it makes a lot of sense since there's no other way to know whether the products were SSD or not, but with general galleries I don't get the point (unless you're on a CT, that is).

And I emphasize once more that this is curiousity, not criticism. :-)

Well I think part of it is because so many galleries have a percent policy. You need to use X amount from the store to be able to post your pages. I think this is a way of being able to tell if someone does that.

But hey, I could be way off. lol

That's what I tend to think, too. It makes sense. But is it allowed to have no credits in store-unrelated galleries? I don't use any, so I don't know.

Thanks for all these ideas and info, ladies. I think I will use the caveman approach for now and just keep a notebook or sheet of paper on my desk and take notes as I'm scrapping. :)

I am also curious how leaving credit became a "thing" we all must do, as Adrianka has asked. It's a very interesting discussion. I can say that I personally love it when people do leave credits, otherwise I would have missed out on finding some great designers and wonderful fonts. There are just SO many digi designers and products out there. Without having credits, it would be impossible to track down a kit.

I usually only work with 1 kit or 1 extra element pack so its pretty easy for me to write out my credits. But if I'm posting a layout to my blog I link it to my gallery so I don't have to credit there as well. I always put a caption under the picture that says "For a list of credits because click on the picture". But I'm just too lazy to type out all of the credits again. If I'm posting it somewhere else then I make sure I post credits.

When working on a layout I copy the preview of what I'm used into a folder I have called "In Use". Then when I'm done with the layout I upload it & open the in use folder. :) Easy as pie to add the credits.

I feel the designers are artists... They work so hard to create the supplies they do and deserve credit for their hard work. I'm a photographer and require that my customers credit my pictures when posting them online. It's the same thing in my eyes. Plus, I've found many great layouts through galleries and people crediting what supplies they used.

I tend to disagree here. They do beautiful products. You buy them. You use them to create something. The resulting work of art is YOURS, not theirs. You don't have to credit your supplies if you do crafts, or paintings, or whatever art. Why should digi-scrapping be different? The photography example is not quite equivalent IMHO. If I do a LO, it's not like the designer did the work for me (with the photograph, the photographer deffo did the work).

I have to stress yet again that I have no problem with the crediting rule (I actually embrace it), it's just that it's interesting that it has evolved like this. And as I mentioned, I kinda see a difference between storeelated and open galleries (credits are a way to prove the "at least X %" rule).

I think the big difference is that because digital is well, digital, haha, you aren't actually buying a product, you're buying a license to use that product and as such are subject to the Terms of Use of that license. Most designers include in their TOUs some kind of crediting requirement for online galleries, so it's not just a nicety, it can actually be required per the TOU.

This is from the SSD TOU:
From what I understand, part of the reason crediting evolved this way is in the early early days of digi, most people made their own products. There weren't stores, etc, to go and buy stuff, so it was assumed that if you didn't credit your items, they were made by you. Obviously digi has changed a lot since then but the crediting remains - it's a way to give credit to the person who made those products.

Thanks for the explanation, Lynnette!

As I said, I don't find crediting a problem - there are many assets to it. I can remember what I used, I can see what other people used, the designer can see their stuff is used (I believe in feedback, and this is a good way of providing it), so basically the concept is very nice.

The licence thing with digi products (including music) always seemed beyond my understanding (I believe there should be no difference between digital and physical, but nobody asked me, hehe), but I do respect it, of course. :-)

And it's interesting to learn a bit about the digi history thanks to this thread.

Yeah, the license thing gets tricky sometime although there are non-digital products that have TOU licenses as well. Like sewing patterns - some patterns are personal use only. You can't use the pattern to make items to sell. How often that's enforced, I don't know, but it does exist.

This is what I do, too.

Believe it or not, patterns cannot legally be licensed this way: dis-allowing commercial use or not allowing the resale of items made from the pattern. A pattern maker does not have the right to tell a buyer they can't sell items made from that pattern. It doesn't stop pattern makers from putting that "rule" on their pattern, though. I know this because I sell original plush dolls and animals on Etsy and I am a pattern maker. Many Etsy sellers have TOU for their patterns that are not, and cannot be, enforced by law. I think it's better to just let people sell items they make from your pattern... since it is their labor that sewed the item and chose the fabrics & trims, etc. Spread the love. ;)

Anyways, I digress... This is why you see clothing knocked off by Forever 21 and other retailers all the time. A pattern can't be copyrighted, only the images and drawings cannot be copied, distributed or reproduced.

Just wanted to add that bit. The issue of "terms", copyright, and license, etc. is very interesting and complicated. :blink:

When we were all over at SBB as it was the only all-digi site at the time, everyone made their own items or shared them at SBB. You listed credits to be sure you weren't taking credit for someone else's item(s) since it was the exception, and not the rule, that everyone made their own stuff. Gina (of DDE) and Janice (of SBG) were the first two people to become full-fledged designers and sell their products to the masses (on CDs!), and it took off from there. Thank goodness because I can't design my way out of a paper bag! Creative teams took a little longer to become the norm.

I think it is a combination of all those things: a throwback to when everyone made their own items + being part of a small(ish) cottage industry so you feel like you 'know' the designers and want to credit them out of respect/love + a way to advertise.

It's not as if you can go to a B&M Joann's or Walmart or wherever and pick up a Kristin Cronin-Barrow digital kit, kwim?! By listing credits (and direct linking), you give fellow scrappers the opportunity to discover new designers and further grow and support the industry/hobby that you love. In an online-centric industry, word of mouth (mouse? :p) must be the most powerful (and easiest) way to spread information to the masses.

Oh interesting! I don't do much sewing, I just knew I'd seen some TOU type things like that for patterns. I know Amy Butler has one in her FAQ - it explicitly says no commercial use.) I guess they're just hoping to keep the honest people honest?

And yeah, Forever 21 is an interesting case but they've also taken it to an extreme level with straight up reproducing copyrighted textiles and then settling when sued. They're probably not the best example of a company following copyright. :D

Haha, that's true about Forever 21. Not the best example, definitely... but it was the only one I could think of. Their fabric copying is another issue, and not legal. Copying a designer's fabric is completely un-lawful.

If you're interested, I have this bookmarked concerning Amy Butler: Trademark and Copyright Abuser's Hall of Shame

If you have an Amy Butler pattern and you want to use it to make something to sell on Etsy or at a craft fair you CAN without any guilt. She uses the "Terms" on her patterns unfairly and to make more money herself (if you can't buy the item already made from a seller, you'd be more likely to buy her pattern for yourself).

:blink: Have we gone completely off-topic? LOL! :p

LOL, perhaps! But I think it just shows why copyright is so confusing. Even the copyright holders don't even always know and/or follow the rules. :D

Totally OT, but I sometimes have the feeling that if it was possible, people would get copyright for the letter A and ask for money whenever someone used it in a word. Copyright law is in a lot of ways out of bounds (and I say this as someone who has respect for copyright and for the work others do).

This is a great discussion, BTW, both in its in-topic and off-topic parts. I learned something about copyright and about the beginnings of digi-scrapping - lovely. :-)

I keep track of the products I use in my layered file. I add the previews of everything I use in a group layer named "CREDITS" and hit "save". When I post in the galleries, I just look inside my .psd file for that group layer w/ all the previews of everything I made use.

P.S. It's was nice to know a little of the digi scrap history and learn a bit more about copyright. :)

I design crochet patterns & for awhile I had that bit about not for commercial use because I saw it in other patterns & assumed it must be true. Then I learned differently & changed it to a request that if it is used for sales I'd appreciate a mention somewhere.

That's kind of how I take giving credits for layouts, as a mention somewhere in the description. Courtesy to the person who provided me with the pattern that I used to create something.

I'm old school about tracking credits - I use a pen to write on paper - in shorthand- in a binder I've been using since 2005. I created a spreadsheet but quickly found typing or copying & pasting tedious so I print out the blank spreadsheet & write in it in shorthand

I use the sticky notes app on my desktop. I just copy and paste the part of the layer name that says designer_somethingkitnameish onto a sticky note.

This is what I believe too! :thumbup: I've heard this debate so many times and seen people very passionate about crediting/not crediting. I guess for me it's simply this: Crediting is a nice thing to do. I want to do nice things, especially for a designer who helped make my memory/story extra-awesome with their creations. I want to be nice to people who may stumble into my layout and want the same awesomeness for their memories. Because I myself have discovered LOTS of awesomeness from people's crediting. I've even gone the extra step and ASKED a scrapper through PM where they got a kit, element or even a font they used. It's precisely because someone had credited a kit that I found my way to SSD :)

This is such an interesting thread! I like to credit because I, too, have found stuffs and designers I love through crediting.

I use a spreadsheet to keep track of my credits. I have designer, kit name, any links I need, plus the whole credit post with all linking wordage (with the url= blah blah). I hate doing that, so once I do it, I make sure to always have it, very handy, just in case I need it again.

I also think this is a great reason to credit as a regular scrapper because occasionally someone looking at your layout will want to get that product and if you have credited already - it saves you and her the time of a pm or email. (Which I have done myself as well). I've even seen a kit credited in a layout, realized I already have the kit sitting around, and then gone to scrap with it after getting inspired!

I just KNOW I saw something - on the Daily Digi maybe? - about a program or plug-in that would keep track of your supplies in Photoshop and list them at the end if you wished to credit them. I always meant to check it out and forgot. Now I can't find it anymore...

Wow! Now THAT would be awesome. :thumbup:

Hahah! Here's the TDD post:
http://thedailydigi.com/all-about-credits/

I think there is also a free tracker mentioned in the comments somewhere. But I think it was for PSE...anyway, hope it might help. And I do believe that CS5 itself can keep track of file names of everything you add. Just haven't taken the time to research that feature and see if it's already in my CS4, too.

I think someone mentioned it on one of The Digi Show epsidoses. I have an action called "Credit Tracker" by Anna Forrest Designs. It takes a bit of work initially, but makes generating the credits very easy. I don't remember why I stopped using it.

LOL, you beat me to it, Ginger!

Drove me nuts, I KNEW I saw it somewhere... LOL

That would be cool if PS could do that... I admit I tried the tracker and I didn't like it, but I know at least two people who love it. I could write a novel about why it didn't work for me, but I don't want to bore you. I ended up by renaming layers by the kit name (for example: FLOWER designer-kitname, LEAF designer-kitname) and doing my credits in Word anytime after based on the layer names. Since I'm doing lots of mixing and matching, it's necessary to keep some kind of trace. Too bad the tracker wasn't to my liking - as I said, other people love it, and it's so cheap that it even doesn't matter that it's not free.

One reason I haven't tried using the tracker again is that when I drag papers and ellies into CS5, the layer name becomes the file name of the paper/ellie. I just have to make sure that all my files are named with the designer/kit and I do that when I buy them, so it's not much effort. If I have to rename anything, Bridge has a batch rename function that lets me do it all at once. Once I'm done, I generate my credits the same way that Adrianka does, except I put them in the metadata instead of a Word document.

I've been inspired to buy kits based off layouts before. I realize I have the perfect picture(s) for that kit and so I decide I need the kit too. So crediting means the world to me. I use CS5 and when I drag and drop in my papers/elements it keeps the file name. With this I just scan through my layers and get the kit names/designers. If it doesn't show up in the layers, I open the preview of the kit in Windows Viewer and leave it miniumized. Then at the end I have all the kits/alpha's I've used right in the viewer. :)

I've used the credit tracker by Anna Forrest and I raved about it in the beginning. I used to be an eclectic scrapper as well and use stuff from many different kits, so it helped me a lot. But the main problem with it is that it slows down my scrapping process tremendously. Especially when using templates. I ended up uninstalling it. Like Milmomma I now drag my stuff right into PS and the layers keep the filename, so I keep track of my credits that way.
I will probably still use Anna's script when I want to make a layout from scratch (no template) with stuff from many different kits. But lately I tend to make more pages from 1 and the same kit so for now I keep it unplugged.

Kim, how did it make the process slower when using templates? I don't remember it doing that - and I use templates frequently. (could just be my faulty memory - or that I use templates so frequently that I didn't realize it :p)

Well, everytime you delete a layer, it renames all the other layers in your document. I mainly use Cindy's templates and they have a LOT of layers! :) I also frequently change the papers in all the different paper spots on my templates, so everytime I did that, I had to wait for like 10 seconds until it was done. Maybe it's not so bad when you use only one kit, I don't remember. But it was a pain when I used multiple kits.

This is one of the reasons why I strongly disliked it. The other one was opening all elements/papers etc. in the first layer of the LO instead of in a separate file (I scrap at 8x8 so I resize anything before inserting in in the LO itself). And since I had to rewrite the credits anyway because I didn't like the format of the script, I had like 3-times more work with it than without it.