by Anastasia Beaverhaus on Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:49 am
My apologies for not returning yesterday nor earlier today.
First, let me address those that questioned why I posted here and with a new name. This is my only account on the CK Message boards. I've read the boards here for quite awhile, though. And, I'm definately not new to the scrapping world. I posted on this board because this is where the previous thread were. This is also where Brian posted his statements previously regarding HoF 2007. Therefore, this (in my humble opinion) would be the most logical place for this most recent series of events.
Yes, the posts that lead to what I've researched and written are from another site, but it is all verifiable as being accurate. No quotes were taken out of context. I addressed each of these and kept my post to the business at hand. It was all done with the utmost respect for the parties involved, with no personal jabs. Just the facts, ma'am.
As for a screen name rather than my real name? Well, I doubt that "Whippet", "Betty Boops", "Scrapper Chick" or any of the other screen names on here are your real names. Why should I have to open an account as mine? Also, I do submit and have been published by CK as well as her sister publications, in addition to other scrapbooking idea books and magazines. Because others may (or may not) have falsified documents and have left a trail of conflicting comments, should I be chastised or "black balled" by the industry?
The second reason for posting here is because I e-mailed the information to CK. The first e-mail bounced back. I resent this to them with the other address that Cathy Smith (and thank you, by the way) listed here. I have not received a response yet. By posting here, I would have to assume that the powers-that-be will be informed of this thread. Whether they check the board or not, I'm sure that they'll be made aware of it.
And they should know. You see, we've seen nothing and heard nothing since the final statement regarding the disqualified scrapper. We don't know what has been done, what's being done, are they looking at each entry? Are they doing this on an honor system? If everyone signs their affidavits, will that be taken at face value? I would hope they learned from the first go-around that someone signing and saying they did the work themself, including the photography, does not mean that they did.
Bernadette just happened to be more vocal in her explainations than others. Initially, I didn't think much of it. But the more she talked, the more things didn't make sense to me, causing me to look a bit further. I wasn't the only one, I can promise you that. I just happened to have been the one that decided to take it away from a blog and bring it to the message boards.
And, I hope the CK is fully aware that scrapbookers are lawyers and doctors and accountants. We are factory workers, fast food servers, waitresses, store owners, professional photographers, computer software programmers, teachers, stay-at-home moms, and more. We would not accept the explaination of how this photo was taken from our children, so why should we just because it's HoF?
Anyway, that is why I'm here, that's why I posted on this board, and that is the reason that I posted what I did.
Now, there is further information. There was a response to another scrapper regarding the photos. We now know who took the photo, that the numbers are in sync with the mentioned photography company.
There were straight forward questions asked to Bernadette. She encouraged them, in fact, in her post. Unfortunately, she has not actually answered any of the questions. And that is not right. If she took the photo, as she has said, she should provide it. Provide it to CK, even. But, if it follows the numbers that I provided in the earlier post, just know that those numbers correspond to a professional photography company.
And her signature may be on an affidavit saying she took them.
And, claiming someone else's work as your own is copyright infringement, even if you bought the CD with the images after the rafting trip. That is punishable by law. If CK takes her word without investigating this further, they could also face legal issues.
So really, wasn't posting this a service to CK? It could eventually save them litigation time and dollars. Then again, if that photo was truly taken by Bernadette, she and they will know that everything was looked at thoroughly. It is the responsibility of the legal department to determine the results based on their findings. This post was an additional tool for them.
I'm sure I'll be back. I may even post a layout or something. :)
Respectfully,
Anastasia Beaverhausen
Anastasia, like Russian royalty
Beaverhausen, like where the beaver lives
