Uhh sorry. I know I'm interjecting here, and I agree with nothing plus this and everything (the credit/link thing whatever, that's an awsome idea), and this post of yours:

I know that Kristina rejected them all (*high five* ), but am I the only one that can uhh spot these ones out without even visiting DeviantArt? I mean.. I guess again, my bad with the lack of confessing this beforehand, but I guess I got inspired by the recent jocking of my current layout (AND MY GODDAMN ABOUT ME SECTION [/rant]). I don't know. Perhaps before accepting.. we should either do something about looking into the actual user? I mean, I understand that they could possibly be the actual artist themselves, but the chances are unlikely, as aforementioned.

You're probably thinking that I'm crazy, because you guys see so many submissions in one day (trust me, I've been there). I'm merely suggesting something in that route. I mean, my brain's a bit.. off at four in the morning, but I think we should look into stock photos or "graphics" that are submitted here beforehand.. or something. I don't know.. it's just that A LOT of those stock photos used in layouts and designs have the same kind of style to it.. and then they're submitted by absolute nobodies. That word looks odd, and there's no definition for it on Google, but you know what I mean.

So yeah.. I don't know.. did anyone understand that?

i spotted unoriginal one with credit. why are you including that?

btw, i did not read the whole topic.

Yet they aren't removed :(

i am assuming you are referring to my list... well. if i did happen to include one that did indeed give credit. it was because whatever image they used...was not meant to be used by anyone.

i know this was meant to be said earlier in the topic, but just because credit is given, you plan on giving credit, or you always give credit when you take images from other sites...it still does not mean you are allowed to take them. copyright is copyright. stealing is stealing. by giving credit, you are simply announcing that you are stealing to everyone. which brings me to this: the point of the credit field, once again, would be for people using available and legal materials to give the credit a majority of resource sites require. (and deserve!!!).

as for what kathleen had to say, yes. i knew absolutely right away that what i listed was from deviantart (the time consuming and frustrating part came with having to track down each original image). my sister and i both have accounts on da and have for a few years now. so i'm definitely familiar with the popular pieces. which is what people always seem to steal. which makes no sense to me, personally. i mean. if you're going to go right out and steal something without even thinking twice. you should at least think it out a little and steal something a little less wellknown.

and, i also want to reiterate that...being INSPIRED is not the same as taking an exact image. for anyone just popping in to get the gist of this thread and gets scared that their obviously inspired works are going to be picked on and deleted. i would never pick on a piece that is truly inspired. i think that is a tribute and admirable for the most part. to recreate part of something you admire, on your own from scratch, is a very rewarding task for most people. and i understand the urge to share that with others. i'm just not entirely sure where i stand on supplying such things to the general public under the false pretense that it came straight, 100% out of your own head. AGAIN, credit should be given and your inspirations should be listed. so other people may have the chance to experience them as you did. it is a good thing. it is just another part of sharing. what this entire community is about.

You can still see them? I removed those three yesterday.
---
I sometimes recognize submissions from deviantART. I don't browse through it as much as I used to before, but I've noticed that most deviations have a thick border with a name or website. I've seen a few like those in the queue and rejected them right away.
---
And yes, we have to stress that when you give credit, you should be using resources that are meant to be used. That as well as getting some form of permission allowing you to use it if the designer says something like 'ask me if you want to use it for ____'.

Yeah i can see those 3 layouts fine and dandy.



hah.

Okay, yeah I just read all of that. And uhh for the record, I've been on DA about twice in my entire life.. I was talking about how the popular pieces (as you said) are pretty easy to spot. Like I said, a NOBODY on this site who submits an ehh-ish layout that has.. not much actual design to it (other than copy, resize, and paste with some color) is obviously stealing someone else's.

yeah.. i imagine i tried to say that earlier. or something along those lines. but, the whole "big players on devart would never submit to createblog" thing came out first. it still sounds mean to me. but, i swear. i don't mean it like that.

I don't think it's mean if it's the truth. Createblog wasn't made for those people, cus those people are looking to get the word out on who they are..While createblog was intended for a resource site to get stuff from...I hope that doesn't sound mean either but, you know. :-/

Each site was created with different intentions, and those viewers go their for those intentions. :)

i agreed what you say.

Specifically, i was referring to this one; http://www.createblog.com/layouts/download.php?id=9579

as you mentioned, giving credit is announcing to everyone that you steal it, right?

I think if they credited free stock/resources to use, then it's okay but yeah..Crediting Artwork you used in your stuff is a good way to let people know where you stole it from