Commercial Lolita Patterns

At this point the horse isn't just dead, it's been dismembered and the remains have been scattered over 16 acres.

>>9565692
Nope still awful. Also this really belongs in Handmade General >>9514297

File: lol review.png (54KB, 1634x771px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1634x771px

Honestly I wouldn't have started this thread if it wasn't for this fucking review. We should spam it with "no" votes.

Isn't this the pattern set Simplicity yoinked from a bunch of vendors at Rufflecon by buying shit and then taking the pieces apart for their patterns? Or is that what >>9565695 means by beating a dead horse.

we've discussed this a million times, just go search the archive. no one cares about simplicity, fuck off
sage for bs

>>9565725
I don't think she knows what beating a dead horse means since I didn't know about this.

>>9565737
How did you not know about this? Its been plastered all over fb groups with people bitching about it and there were multiple threads arguing about it here

>>9565725
The accessories pattern was the one people got upset over not so much this one.

>>9565725
The macaron fabric was made by someone at Rufflecon, but they uploaded it to Spoonflower for sale, so anyone can use it. It was the accessories pattern that people blew up over.

>>9565693
wtf is with that two part jsk

>>9565692
We already talked about this. One of the designs is ripped off from Vierge Vampur.

>>9565933
Iirc she did state that her fabric was for personal use only.

>>9566056
That was from the accessories pattern pack.

>>9566094
>she did state that her fabric was for personal use only.
nope, she said it was fine for commercial use, she said she just didn't know at the time that "commercial" meant large companies as well as Etsy sellers. She intended it for the latter.

>>9565922
I'm upset about this one too because it looks like shit.

>>9566753
If you know a thing or two about sewing but dont like to draft your own patterns its not that bad. Definately wouldn't just use it as is. It's ok for modifying/practice.

>>9566586
JFC, if you make it available for purchase on spoonflower you don't get to control who buys it. Commercial use means a business can use it, you can't stipulate the size of the business.

>>9566874
Yeah major companies don't give a shit about whatever you put in the description as long as it adheres to the policies of the distribution site.

>>9566859
It's not okay for anything because you shouldn't throw money at a company that thinks lolita is a costume and you can steal ideas from actual lolita brands, when there are a ton of patterns available from actual lolita magazines and brands.

>>9566859
At that point you should just buy a volume of ONS.

>>9566968
If you know anything about buying patterns you know when to buy so that you're only paying $1-2 for a pack. Not sure exactly how the hell they get a profit margin with these kind of sales but they're still going strong.

Honestly I think the blouses are good for some cosplay stuff. Not a lot of places offer puff sleeves like that. inb4 draft your own I ain't got time for that

>>9567126
I can't even tell why you replied to me

>>9567201
Because if you buy them at $1-2 they aren't really getting much money from the deal. It's not really "throwing money"

>>9566874
Pretty much. I think it was mostly that she was surprised a large company would want to use it, and also probably feeling pressured by the drama surrounding the issue as well.

>>9566967
I was personally surprised they used a print from a lolita, when they keep ignoring the requests to ask lolita designers to do their patterns. It's a strange, mixed message.

>>9567527
I'm not that anon, but let me explain why that's bullshit.
Whenever you buy a pattern, even one, you are justifying the store's initial investment into Simplicity.
Simplicity doesn't make anything when you buy that pattern for $2 because they already made their money by selling the cases of patterns to the store at .20 a piece, and signing on the next contract for the next releases.
Simplicity's investment into a stolen pattern is in new photos, paying out the person that made their stuff for those promos, paying the model, and in printing.
In all, patterns are a dirt cheap item to produce when it's all you do, especially when you're not spending anything on development.
Throw some interns at the internet and they'll trawl up the creativity that your company needed, better still if you get in good with communities of people that use your products to draw 'inspiration' directly from the source.

I don't care what you do anon, just don't try to hide behind justifications.

>>9566094
If you make a fabric available for sale on Spoonflower, it is available for commercial use. I have uploaded a few designs and that's in the agreement.

>>9567541
Damn anon you just went in for the fucking kill lol

>>9567541
Get some perspective anon. Every pattern out there is based on something that already exists to some extent. I really don't care about them ripping off an accessory artist because even those were ripped off of existing brand items. Even places like Folklore are still based on traditional clothes but we don't consider that to be problematic.

I thought the general lolita consensus is stealing art = bad but stealing cuts = not worth the fuss.

>>9567633
So just admit you don't give a fuck about the lolita community from the beginning

>>9567633
Anon, you're pathetic, and not because I'm super hard on this topic, it's becasue you keep moving the goalpost to defend your right to be a lazy fuck.
Someone questions you on why you're contributing to Simplicity and you dodge it, trying to say that you're not helping them at all.
I point out that you're helping anyway and now you say that Simplicity isn't in the wrong here, the artists were ripping the Brands off snyway.
You don't want to sacrifice a little extra time or effort for your finished products, so you'll continue to support Simplicity, and when they release new lolita patterns, you'll continue to buy from them and defend them on the internet.

Corporations are like sociopathic narcissists, if we are to compare them to people. They'll rip this community apart if it's profitable to do so, with no regrets.
The difference between a big corp and artists that you're blaming for art theft, is that one will destroy everything we've built by diluting it and selling it to the masses, and the other contributes directly to the community voice and helps take the style in the direction of the lolitas funding it, by creating things that we enjoy that the Brands do not have the means to focus on.
You take a lot of this fashion for granted if you're deluding yourself into thinking Simplicity is acting in our best interests. They're in it for cash money baby, and if it brings down our Brands, then it's just all the better for them.

File: a464c523-bce4-59d2-90e3-e2ab9719f322.jpg (51KB, 280x373px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 280x373px

>>9567633

No, stealing cuts = newbies need to stop reporting every single little thing that reminds them of some other little thing, because quite often they seem to think scalloped pleather is a strictly AP concept or they get all excited over brand copying taobao copying brand when in fact both of them are copying a cultural design so old, so generic and so specialised that it goes by its own name, has its own industry and is attached to a whole other country's culture.

You can't "steal" a generic pintucked dress design any more than you can own a generic kimono cut. OnS itself has no qualms making AP-style miniskirts with yokes because it's an old design and not unique to AP (except to clueless noobs). However, no one will touch AP's distinctive melty drip design. The last anon who asked if people would buy patterns to copy AP's drink me dress was advised against it. That's one of the very few examples where a design is so distinctive that design theft is immediately obvious.

>>9567558
>>9567529
>>9566967
>>9566874
>>9566586
>>9565933
I just went to the spoonflower website. A seller must state its for commercial use. Why are you guys lying? You are making simplicity and spoonflower look bad. Its under
"WHAT IMAGES AM I ALLOWED TO PRINT WITH SPOONFLOWER?"
She can sue for this cause she didnt say commercial. Also that fabric looks cheap.

Stop trying to make this simplicity thing happen. Its to the point where I dont want any of their patterns. I dont like the bullying thats going on.

File: $_58.jpg (53KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 480x640px

I can't bring myself to hate Simplicity because they're the only commercial US pattern company that seems to have a grasp what a kimono is supposed to look like.

>>9570751
They think it's a costume
If you spend money on simplicity I can't accept you as a lolita

>>9570751
Folkwear pattern is more accurate but you still have to add extra length to factor in the ohashori

>>9570751

Free resource is better

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~weyrbrat/Japan/yukata/

The page not only gives you calculations and tells you how to draft/make it, there's a running commentary on how the real thing is made, if you ever get your hands on a real kimono bolt this still doubles as a pretty good resource.

Only thing is this is for a yukata, not a kimono. So you're left figuring out the full collar for a proper kimono, and there's no lining, but you can easily double the measurements on the yukata collar and leave it at that. Lining is a whole different thing, but heh. Still miles ahead of any commercial pattern.

(I don't really care about the Simplicity pattern drama, just thought I'd help out those looking to sew kimonos).

>>9567633

>general lolita consensus is stealing art = bad but stealing cuts = not worth the fuss.

This is actually very accurate. For individual hobbyists copying from larger companies, presumeably to upgrade their own skills.

For a large company to come in and rip off a small underground indie brand, though. That just feels all kinds of wrong.

>>9570744
But she did say it was for commercial use. If you followed any of the posts she said "I made it for commercial use but i intended for it to only be used by small lolita sellers not a big company" commercial use is commercial use, you don't get to pick and choose like that.

>>9567633
I think it's different with something like Vierge Vampur's cat bonnet, which Simplicity ripped off. That is a very unique piece that no other brand has made anything similar to. I couldn't give a crap about things like rosettes or basic JSK patterns, but that was shitty, even if it wasn't illegal.

I don't understand why any lolita would defend this company. They literally think lolita is a costume. There are a lot of small businesses that are created by lolitas that we can buy patterns from, why would you buy one from a shitty non-lolita company instead?

>>9570744
Anon...
They are talking about finding images on the internet and uploading them for your own design. Did you just not keep reading to option 3?

>Find designs by artists who have made their work available to purchase in the Spoonflowermarketplace.


Read the TOS and the Seller's agreement. Both state you continue to own the copyright but when you make it for sale Spoonflower is allowed to print and display it. Nowhere does it state commercial business cannot use the marketplace. Ergo, once you CHOOSE to put it up for sale anyone can buy it for any reason and you can't control that. If you wanted to print custom fabric but control the distribution you would have to get it printed and then sell it yourself.

>>9571539
>>9570754
This desu.
Why not "Harajuku fashion" branding? Even if that's still a bit cringy/quirky/stupid, it's a lot better than lolita costume.

>>9571525
Actually, yes, you can. If you hold the rights to an image you can absolutely say who is allowed to sell it and who cannot.

>>9571550
She made it for commercial use on a public site, not her own site where she can question the company and then make a decision based on thier answers. (which some companies do, you have to be a business of a certain size to purchase certain things/ have the liscenses and paperwork given to a company above or below a certain number of employees)
On these sites commercial use does not get fined tuned to how big a company is. Commercial use is commercial use whether it be to create a garment for sale or to photograph a garment made with the fabric.

To take it further the fabric isn't what is being sold its the pattern to make the garment so her material isn't a part of a commercial transaction they are not making money because of her fabric, they are making money based off of the dress pattern for sale. She's just but hurt that she has to buy the pattern like everyone else. Which is stupid because she could have made this event increasingly profitable for herself by spamming the link to her spoonflower shop so people could purchase her fabric.

So what are we supposed to use as a pattern to make lolita dresses?

>>9571947
Otome no Sewing
GLB
Public free patterns
ETSY patterns for sale
Patterns from Butterick, McCall, simplicity that only need minor changes

>>9571947
There are lots of commercial patterns with bodices suitable for both jsks and OPs, so as long as you draft a full enough rectangle skirt to go with them you're good to go. If you don't know how to draft such a skirt, you have no business sewing lolita YET because you'll need more experience to make sure your stuff won't turn out like shit.

Blouses can be harder to find patterns for but even those exist and let's face it, the blouses in the above Simplicity pattern aren't super amazing either. Right is quite nice but left looks like a frumpy unflattering mess.

>>9565692
All controversy aside, why can they never get the shape quite right? Can't they hire someone who knows what things should look like, like they do with historic costumes?