Really? Gee. Thanks for the education. However, I must confess, that I am well aware of the ins and out of the legal aspects of intellectual property, licensing fees and copyright litigation. I happen to do it for a living. Do you?
Not to start a contest or anything, but check my sig. I've been an Entertainment lawyer for about 12 years, and also have an MBA in Sports & Entertainment marketing. IOW, I see the same stuff you see.
I'm not trying to "have his trial" here, but if you really are what you say you are, why post a factually incorrect post in your own area of expertise?
Yeah, the guy is probably so far below the radar that, in all likelihood, nothing will ever come of it. I'd go so far as to say that 99% of all IP violations go unpunished, even major ones. Most of the time, even if the infringer is caught, a simple fingerwave or warning is all that happens.
Remember how The Rolling Stones went after The Verve for "Bittersweet Symphony?" That same album contained an equally lifted song from Vangelis' first band, Aphrodite's Child. Nobody went after them for it, though, at least not in the courts, AFAIK.
... the man has not taken a single cent out of anyone's pocket -- to suggest otherwise is a crock. And you know it, too...but the great and exaggerated affront you seem to have taken on behalf of a party who isn't, in fact, you and has not, in fact, suffered any real damages at all, seems very misplaced.
I beg to differ.
Without seeing the actual source material for his inspirations, we can't say who has suffered damages. However, you of all people should know that if nothing else, he'd probably owe the photographers their little licensing fee for using their work, assuming he didn't land in some kind of protected "safe harbor."
It may not be
substantial damage, but it is
real. So what if the fee might have only been $200... or just $20? Or $10? That's real money out of the photog's pocket.
When it comes to gamers and technical violations of the Copyright Act, I'll wait for the sinless to cast the first stone, thanks.
I believe I pointed out upthread- and if I didn't, I apologize- all artists (especially in the visual arts) learn at least in part by emulating those who came before. Its part of the learning process. But you don't pass off copies as originals.
Besides, we're hardly talking "technical" violations. Besides the derivative visuals, we've had several posters cite some sizable chunks of lifted material, based on just the sample- who knows what is in the full version? Some clever redrafting...citation of sources...heck, "reskinning" in some way, all could have minimized the issue. As you well know.