The comments here are not intended to be a negative reflection of the person or the products made and/or sold by the person but rather their terrible habit of posting misinformation.

Paperika, a.k.a. Lauren Z., joined Etsy December 3, 2007 and is located somewhere in or near Posen, Illinois. Paperika specializes in "Cards for All Occasions, Scrapbooking Supplies" and giving bad information on the Esty boards. We wonder what Paperika in Los Gatos, California (incorporated 2003) would think about their name being stolen by a crafter in Illinois?

Paperika says Popondo, that info is wrong. I have been told PERSONALLY by manufacturers that you cannot use licensed products to make things to sell. This goes for fabric, rubber/clear stamps, paper, ribbon, embellishments; all of it! Posted at 11:02 pm Sep 11, 2009 EDT

Point 1 - Paperika has been told PERSONALLY so it must be true. This makes it gospel. End of argument. Paperika walks on water so do not dispute what she says. Point 2 - Paperika, honey, the manufacturers lied to you. Point 3 - Paperika wants to believe the lies so she does not do any investigation into what she was told. The manufacturers think Paperika is a good little girl.

Paperika says Popondo, just so I am clear--you quoted all that from the Tabberone site, right? If so, then I believe that's hogwash. When I first started selling my work, I called and emailed tons of manufacturers and EVERY single one that is LICENSED to make items with Disney, Peanuts, Hello kitty, sport teams and all those told ME that I CANNOT use those items in my projects for resale. I was also told by Hobby Lobby that their House Mouse Designs and the Born to Shop series are also licensed and I cannot USE those. Sorry, but I tend to believe someone who is a manufacturer than some woman who claims to know the legal ramifications. Posted at 11:17 pm Sep 11, 2009 EDT

Point 1 - Ohhhh, "hogwash". We think Paperika really wanted to use stronger language. Point 2 - Paperika, honey, again, the manufacturers lied to you. We sued Disney, Sanrio (Hello Kitty) and United Media (Peanuts) over the use of their licensed fabrics to make and sell items. All they wanted to do was settle and make the case go away. Not because it was a problem. They have billions of dollars and legal fees are chump change to them. They wanted to settle because it was a losing case and they did not want their name attached to a lost case like Precious Moments got. Point 3 - Paperika wants to believe the lies, so she does. She likes those lies. They make her feel warm and fuzzy. Paperika also believes in the Tooth Bunny and the Easter Fairy.

Paperika says CraftsbyCarolAnn, See that's where the confusion lies. Using those characters is actually trademark infringement not copyright infringement. It would be a copyright issue if someone drew Mickey Mouse based on a picture. Trademark infringement is using the character as a way to sell the work. So for example in my avatar, if I put Mickey Mouse on the card, instead of the penguin, and called it a Mickey Mouse card, I am using Mickey Mouse to sell my work! So basically the fact that my card has a Mickey Mouse is what is selling it, not my work! Posted at 4:29 pm Jun 24, 2011 EDT

Point 1 - The reference is in reply to "a handmade product that includes official images of a character". It is not trademark infringement but rather fair use and is covered under the first sale doctrine. Point 2 - Trademark infringement is counterfeiting someone's trademark or their goods in an effort to confuse or deceive the consumer. Using "official images" that were purchased is not infringing. Point 3 - Printing Mickey Mouse on your card without permission from Disney would in fact be copyright infringement as well as trademark infringement, since Mickey is also a trademark.

Paperika says Mia, I totally agree with you! I wonder how many people know that they have been "dissed" on a website, that in my opinion, is not very credible. Posted at 12:29 pm Aug 24, 2011 EDT

Point 1 - Dissed? We quote what they say and how they are wrong. We quote federal law and court cases to support our arguments. All they do is whine. Point 2 - Credibility is in the eye of the offended. Considering how long the web site has been up, how many references and comments that are made, both pro and con, do you not think that if we were wrong someone would have been able to shut the web site down? Point 3 - We do not give a flying fig about your opinion. Especially since it is self-motivated and in your personal interests. Some of what you post is valid and accurate. Some.

Paperika says Tabberone says: As far as images from google go there are a ton of them out there that are infringing. If it's a trademarked character you can't use it. __________________________________________________________ And how is this different from using anything else with a trademarked character/logo to make something to sell????? Posted at 12:37 pm Aug 24, 2011 EDT

Point 1 - Because the referenced use is about someone downloading images. When you download an image you are not purchasing it and consuming the purchased material when you make something. Point 2 - A federal court ruled buying someone's copyrighted cards and mounting those cards on tile was protected by the first sale doctrine. The court also said that a copyrighted item that is consumed in the making of another product lacks economic significance. Point 3 - "Artists", like you claim to be, have the irritating habit of saying using copyrighted and/or trademarked material to make and sell things is unethical and illegal. Neither of which is true.

Paperika says Tabberone, what does having a website have anything to do with this discussion? I never said you sold anything to Etsians. You have said that you have never been disrespectful toward people, and I've challenged that b/c you have many Etsians listed on your website and you say disrespectful comments about them. Of course anyone who wants to fight back, can. However many of us don't have the resources to do so. And just because the companies asked what you would take to make it go away doesn't mean you are right and can do whatever you want. However, since I wasn't there, and I am reading these things on a website, where the person is not a legal professional, it's kind of hard to "believe" it. Posted at 2:47 pm Aug 24, 2011 EDT

Point 1 - Actually Tabberone has not been disrespectful. Mr Tabberone maintains the web site and writes most of the material on it. Tabberone agrees with it but is generally more polite. And since there are two of us, comments are usually made in the third person, not the editorial or royal "we" that most assume. Point 2 - You would be surprised at the emails we receive from people who like how we are "disrespectful" in our comments about the Misinformation Mavens. The Mavens are a klatch of narrow-minded "artists" who bash those who do not agree with their views. We are not disrespectful. We comment on their pig-headedness and their inability to process the truth. They find this insulting. Good. Point 3 - Fighting back does not require huge resources. We fought billion-dollar companies in federal court representing ourselves. We fought back because they were attacking our livelihood. Our resources were not money but rather determination. When we were sued by M&M/Mars in 2003 over the use of licensed fabrics, M&M/Mars was more than willing to litigate until we fought back. Then M&M/Mars folded their tent and settled. Point 4 - Why would billion-dollar companies like Disney and Major League Baseball want to settle if we were not right? You so called "artists" keep insisting that the companies desires to avoid court has no bearing on the issue of our rights to use their licensed material to make and sell thing. That is because you do not want to believe otherwise. That is why we become insulting and say, Paperika, you are stuck on stupid. Because you are.