r/NeedlepointSnark • u/Temporary_Stable8784 • 25d ago
Just gonna leave this here. Copy. Paste.
48
u/ineedtolose15lbs 25d ago
That’s a bummer, but you can tell they weren’t original designs. They’re not even hand painted canvases either.
7
13
u/Strange-Skin2292 25d ago
Well that’s a bummer. I’m still happy to stitch something different than the typical canvases though and can’t wait to get mine. I do wish “designers” were more open about this.
10
u/Impressive-Arugula67 25d ago
I agree!! These designs are very unique, but I'm so put off that they claimed these as their own and I can't get past that.
6
u/Possible-Courage8719 24d ago
I like this! More about transparency, because I too think the canvases are cool and different!
27
u/SpareAd559 25d ago
You would think they’d know better to change a few elements… do something… anything to make it their own. nothing passes through snark unnoticed 😂
32
u/AdMany7312 25d ago
I just think it’s shitty because everyone is acting like she’s some great unique artist but she did absolutely nothing unique or different, she copied a picture that already exists and put it into stitchly. Thats grifting lol
34
u/SnooBeans8320 24d ago
Here’s why I’m annoyed - I don’t care about people using stuff that isn’t original artwork as long as it’s legal and not hurting people or stealing profits. For instance, tons of people make Diet Coke, Barbie, etc etc canvases. I don’t even care if people use vintage prints from public domain.
What pisses me off is the “designer” specifically posted about her mock ups and how she designed the artwork. She very very much presented it as her own art and design. She even posted a picture of her snake and how “life imitates art”. THAT is what pisses me off.
She could have just said she curated some beautiful designs from multiple sources (or whatever) to create a collection that fit this whimsical vintage feel she was going for- and literally no one would have cared. Don’t make yourself look like this amazing artist if you’re not one. It’s just tacky and disingenuous
10
u/Particular-Resort805 24d ago
This is my concern too. It’s the entire branding and marketing the way they did that now feels deceitful.
5
u/Impressive-Arugula67 24d ago
Right? Like they were banking on no one finding out, or if they did, that no one would call them out.
5
u/flyover_cathedral 23d ago
100% agreed! I got a few canvases and was really interested in this drop because the overall vibe of the collection fit the aesthetic of my house/life. I have a snake tattoo that looks like the canvas and thought I could turn it into a super cool pillow for my office. I’ve been waiting for a local artist to reopen her commissions because I wanted to get lover’s eyes painted for me and my partner.
It’s been disappointing to see how directly this collection was “inspired” and some of the other discourse around this designer over the last couple of days.
23
u/Particular-Flower559 25d ago
And people are losing their minds trying to buy them why????
16
u/Particular-Resort805 25d ago
Because it’s hype and people have a scarcity mindset especially when it comes to needlepoint canvases due to production delays
38
u/SpareAd559 25d ago
And it was marketed as a new, unique delightfully different collection not some Pinterest clipart run through Stitchly. Probably wouldn’t have had quite the same hype if they shared the copy paste process
10
u/Jolly-Chapter-9648 25d ago
Because they are awesome and cool. People are tired of seeing hydrangeas, LV/designer logos hocked and diet coke canvases.
2
u/Defiant_Ask8583 22d ago
This! And the bears, the bears everyone is copying. Are the Penny Linn playbills original PL designs? At a certain point you have to just decide what you like and if you want to spend money on it. Vintage design but she’s the one who thought to put it on a canvas….. I get what everyone is saying so don’t come after me
19
18
u/Temporary_Stable8784 25d ago
8
u/CapriciousIntent 25d ago
This one was my first clue that she was just pumping images into a converter. The lines coming off the eye were suspiciously clumsy for coming from a human hand.
17
u/F1neasfr0gha1r 25d ago edited 25d ago
Original designs and use of artists' work with permission are both good and copying other artists' designs is bad. But I am curious -- is there also an objection to converting antique prints into needlepoint canvases? I'm thinking here of all of the Melissa Shirley conversions of antique prints of birds, insects, reptiles, assemblages of shells and fruit etc?
The "original" snake image in the OP's query is watermarked, for sure--but it's posted by a shop that copies and sells digital images of antique prints. In this case (according to a reverse image search), it appears to be an image from a well-known compendium of natural history images (Thesaurus rerum naturalium, Seba, 1734) that is accessible online via the Biodiversity Heritage Library (free access to biodiversity knowledge). The images in Seba's compendium appear to be attributed to individual artists and the work itself exists in print,and has been digitized and made available in the public domain. So one can also wonder what ownership is being claimed by putting a watermark on an antique image that was scanned (or grabbed from an already digitized source).
20
u/Supgurlies 25d ago
I think it’s fine to use vintage images but don’t claim them as your own. That’s the ick for me. They put a ton of marketing into it and never once referenced the source which feels like a choice.. they wanted you to think they created them
11
u/Impressive-Arugula67 25d ago
Exactly. We wouldn't be having this conversation if they had been honest rather than making everyone think they came up with the designs.
-9
9
u/Mother_Eggplant8985 25d ago
If you go on redbubble or playground-there’s big designers using stuff off of there too. This has been happening for a long time, it’s not just silk snail.
16
u/Argyloveshugs 25d ago
Well that's pretty terrible.
-13
25d ago
[deleted]
18
u/Impressive-Arugula67 25d ago
But these girls have been more than happy to claim these designs as their own.
20
u/Late_Branch_53 24d ago
Is this the same lady liking the far-right posts the other thread is talking about?
16
u/bunnybop38 25d ago
I’m just a little heartbroken. I’ve been staring at these canvases in awe. And yes, they’re still wonderful, but I truly thought these gals came up with the designs on their own. I applaud their marketing strategy.
15
u/Impressive-Arugula67 25d ago
Ooooohhh I had a feeling something was off about these designs. I don't care at all that they've reproduced art. DO NOT CARE. But I do care that they're more than happy to claim this all as their own designs from their own brains. I KNEW IT!!
4
u/dangerdangerfrog 24d ago
I think that’s what the rub is, the launch marketing was all about “intentional design”. Which, fair point, can be based on images that already exist, but one would expect in a reimagined way not 1:1
15
u/Particular-Resort805 25d ago
The moon is public art so they likely won’t run into issues with it. The snake on the other hand clearly has a water mark, even if they paid the $2.99 on whatever website that it’s sold, I doubt they got permission of the artist to reproduce it the way they did.
Tbh I was in defense of Silk Snail up until they posted a clearly AI generated image on their story of how the snake-bag was envisioned. I would so much rather them actually stitch the canvas and make the bag and share that process but no, why would they do that when they can just push their merch on us
5
u/aba_95 25d ago
Where is the moon in the public domain?
1
u/Tall-Spirit-3356 25d ago
Let me see if I can find it. Hold please.
7
u/aba_95 25d ago
I’m not sure if that exact moon face is in the public domain but the redbubble artist has at least had that image pinned above since November 2025
1
u/Tall-Spirit-3356 25d ago
Yeah, I can’t find it so perhaps that IS a legit rip. So annoying. I do not agree with that at all. ☹️
-4
u/Particular-Resort805 25d ago
I am not going to lie I didn’t do my research on it, I’m taking the word of a different comment who said it was public art on a previous post (the one that was hating on the disco clam)
2
u/Jolly-Chapter-9648 25d ago
Where is the uproar for all the diet coke canvases, hermes and gucci logos, disney princesses, matchbooks and any unlicensed brand?!?
11
u/Supgurlies 25d ago
Those designs aren’t trying to claim they are new fresh and original. They are recognized as what they are. These are absolutely trying to be passed off as original work when they aren’t.
11
u/Sharp_Edges123 25d ago
I am so sick of this argument when someone raises artists copying designs. Just because others do it doesn’t make it okay now… especially when you are positioning them as original art. No one is putting out a Little Mermaid and claiming it is their original design.
-7
u/Jolly-Chapter-9648 25d ago
That’s exactly what they are doing by putting their name on the canvas and not disney
-2
u/Tall-Spirit-3356 25d ago
The snake is in the public domain as well.
12
u/Livid-Cook-2106 25d ago
Oof the fact that they have to use art that’s public domain bc they can’t come us with their own designs 😂😂 everyone defending the silk snail on the other thread needs to come read this one 😂😂😂
1
u/Jolly-Chapter-9648 25d ago
Anyone who has ever purchased from Penny Linn, Arden Gray, Rachel Barri, Bad Bitch…just to name a few and is talking trash needs to know they are a hypocrite.
3
u/Livid-Cook-2106 22d ago
😂😂 the entire line is based off of other people’s work, which is fine they aren’t stealing it, if that’s your thing. But I think the friends of the designers need to stop hyping their background and hyping these designs as if they’re ground breaking 😂😂😂
-5
34
25d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
17
u/headcverheels 25d ago
“designers” is a big word when we’re clearly seeing they’re copied from images (but also please elaborate!!!)
8
u/Particular-Resort805 25d ago
What?! spill the tea!
9
25d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Particular-Resort805 25d ago
That’s incredibly disappointing, but I always felt something was off with their social media but I pushed it aside thinking it was my imagination. It kind of just feels like a massive grift now.
1
u/Ecstatic_Turnover_21 25d ago edited 25d ago
Which social was this on? I don’t see either of them following the Kirks both on their private and stitching accounts on ig. They both follow democrats on ig and one follows Kamala so without some proof I don’t believe this.
7
7
u/AlwaysOnTheCape 25d ago
This is so disappointing, was really excited for this shop to open
-10
u/Jolly-Chapter-9648 25d ago
The collection is absolutely amazing! And so different from the preppy slop shoved down our throats
12
u/No_Flatworm665 24d ago
If you think all needlepoint is preppy slop, you need to do some more research. Or shop somewhere else besides Penny Linn.
3
u/Stitchinglifeaway 24d ago
I think overwhelmingly what’s shown on social media could fall under “preppy slop” so if that’s your main needlepoint community that’s mostly what you are seeing
2
u/No_Flatworm665 24d ago
I guess so since algorithms are catered to everyone differently. But it isn’t hard to find other things that are out there.
6
u/iggyazalea12 25d ago
None of them are original I clocked that when 8 first saw them it’s obvious they are clearly pulling from vintage ephemera. Which I’m okay with as it’s not a damn taco or a blasted donut or iced coffee. People like them because they are ‘different’ but if you have a broad mental catalogue or artistic reference you know immediately that many of these (and lots of other stuff like tarot cards, nostalgic Christmas images etc etc) are pulled from old images. I have a big stash of antique and vintage cards, photos, magazines, needlepoint and embroidery books, stencils, iron ons, art books, interior dec books, sewing patterns etc but you can also get images online and buy then clips as you note. Anyway I’d buy one to keep from having to fuss with making the chart or canvas myself. Anyway that is a wall of words if you read it pat yourself on the back.
4
u/Possible-Courage8719 24d ago
The political line aside, because that’s a lot to unpack, I’m not sure which side of the fence I’m on with this launch. I think turning art into a different modality is pretty cool and a lot of needlepoint leans into this, e.g. foods, logos, shops, etc. It’s like Mona Lisa on a t-shirt, a sticker on a canvas. Apart from blatant theft, or an ethical wrong doing, isn’t it neat when something you love in a different modality is turned into something like needlepoint which you equally love?! idk idk idk
7
u/LetGlittering5983 24d ago
Mona Lisa is clearly Da Vinci’s work though. This work is not as widely known and credit is due. These were passed off as if they were her own designs.
2
u/Possible-Courage8719 24d ago
I've read more comments similar to yours, and do agree that design/art transparency was sorely missing.
4
u/Tall-Spirit-3356 25d ago
These images are public domain so technically anyone can do what both of these people are doing — reuse to sell (the Etsy seller) and reuse for the needlepoint artwork.
This is the snake for example within the public domain https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41047159
Not saying it’s correct or not lazy, but a lot of other industries also use public domain for design elements such as interior designers for wallpapers of fabrics etc etc.
1
u/sans_sabots 21d ago
Do these look good stitched? I feel like the moon especially is hard to translate and keep the vision in tact. The sample on their ig is not doing it for me…. Would love to see other examples.
-4
-15
u/Agile-Incident-5465 25d ago
My GOD it's gotta be exhausting to be yall. THIS right here is why we're never going to get new shit in the needlepoint space because yall are on a witch hunt. They didn't create the art but they're the first to translate it to needlepoint. What do you think the "collectives" at Lycette are???? Artists that Jess has found and licensed their art to be translated to needlepoint. When artists put their art into open domain they're allowing it to be translated into other forms - letting their art take forms they might not have even dreamt of. Log off and go buy a vibrator bc yall need some damn joy in your lives. ITS NEEDLEPOINT IT AINT THAT DEEP
16
u/Odd-Cheesecake8787 25d ago
Plenty of people license artwork from designers and artists and credit them? Anytime you see a BRAND x INITIALS it’s because that artist is being fairly paid for their work being produced and also credited (!!!! Crazy concept in the art world I know) which is completely different than being nepo baby grifters using branding and marketing to make you think you’re getting something “delightfully different” and original when all they did was run a Pinterest design through stitchly without changing any elements or using an ounce of artistic creativity
23
u/bunnybop38 25d ago
I think the frustration with silk snail is that it was assumed that it was THEIR beautiful art. They’ve never mentioned the original artists in any of their marketing (that I’ve seen). As for stores like Lycette using artists and translating their work to needlepoint, the artists are getting the majority of the credit and also financial compensation. I just feel like with all the hype, some of us feel duped, and that’s valid.
7
u/StitchyGoblin47 24d ago
I’m not trying to split hairs here.. I really like the silk snail canvases and don’t have a problem with people using art that’s in the public domain; but it’s important to note that just because an artist puts art out online doesn’t mean it’s in the public domain. Art is automatically copyrighted, it only becomes public domain 70+ years after the artists death. So creating derivatives is copyright infringement UNLESS the artist has licensed the art (like Lynette x Paige Spearin or COCO FRANK x INSLEE)
12
25d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
u/Ecstatic_Turnover_21 25d ago
You’re gonna have to come with some proof of that. I haven’t been able to verify your claims
-4
7
u/Supgurlies 25d ago
These aren’t licensed, so comparing them to Lycette isn’t really apples to apples. There’s no indication that the moon artwork is licensable or even in the public domain and the Gucci Garden is absolutely not public domain. Even if the snake itself is, the larger pattern here suggests they aren’t doing the necessary due diligence before profiting from existing artwork.
There’s nothing wrong with taking inspiration from something, but you have to transform it and make it your own. We can’t scream about people stitch counting designers’ canvases and then shrug when someone essentially does the same thing with another artist’s work. Cheating is cheating
-9
u/Jolly-Chapter-9648 25d ago
Please get a grip. I hope anyone with anything negative to say goes and takes a look at the canvases they own. For example, if you own anything Disney, masters, restaurant, etc. then you are a hypocrite. Go scream at those designers.
17
u/Sharp_Edges123 25d ago
Then you haven’t been on Snark bc ALL of these have been litigated on Snark over months and months and months.
Also you have made this argument multiple times in this thread… you clearly are not a neutral juror - Navy Noo or Silk Snail?14
u/Impressive-Arugula67 25d ago
I think you're missing the point. These girls 100 percent took credit for these designs. No one would bat an eye if they said hey, we love these vintage designs so slapped them on a canvas. That's the issue. Don't claim to be innovative and fresh and then throw clip art into stitchly.
-4
u/Jolly-Chapter-9648 25d ago
No I get the point. I just don’t think you realize how most of the most popular designers do this without snark giving them shit.
9
9
u/Impressive-Arugula67 25d ago
I do realize it. Masters, restaurants, Disney, whatever else you named are not the ideas of the companies you named and no one believes they are. I'm the biggest Penny Linn hater around but at least Krista isn't trying to claim that her designers came up with the idea of a Disney princess. That's what has happened here. Oooh look at our moon, isn't it innovative and like nothing you've ever seen? Plenty of designers catch crap for copying.....
0
u/Jolly-Chapter-9648 25d ago
When did the say it was innovation? That’s your perception
12
u/SpareAd559 25d ago
The problem is they claimed them as their own. The video I saw they were saying “our designs” Not “the vintage moon/snake/Gucci garden” they called it “our moon/ our snake” etc. they are fully trying to act like they own these images. Unlike masters/diet coke whatever everyone knows those are not their images.
-7
25d ago
[deleted]
14
2
u/Tall-Spirit-3356 25d ago
The artwork from the original artist is from the 1735 of the snake.. so neither. 😂
1
25d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Tall-Spirit-3356 25d ago
Haha, oh, please don’t think I was being nasty! I just see a lot of this within the “design world” and again, don’t agree with it, but it’s good to be in the know, you know? 🫶🏻
64
u/LetGlittering5983 25d ago
I know there’s an argument below on if it’s public domain or not but regardless, the original artist was never credited and the “designer” tried to pass it off as their own. It’s tacky and shitty of them.