like damn, shame you don't care if the website gets obliterated by the legal teams of bigger games if the site admins allow skins that are copyright infringement to continue to exist.
Seeing the skin that was in question literally the only copyright infringing thing on it were two tiny badges that were like 30 pixels in total. Everything else on the skin was fair game at least to me. I can understand why the rule is in place but at least to me it's stupid how inconsistent they are about this, there have been at least a few cases where people got denied for copyright over skins that have only extremely vague things in common with copyrighted material.
okay but if the skin mods and site owners took it down then it clearly wasn't fair game lmao like sorry but you, as a user, cannot be the one that decides that is reasonable for copyright infringement and how far staff wants to go to cover their asses. bet there are plenty of reports that aren't acted upon because staff doesn't consider it to be a problem, but when a report results in something being taken down it's a very clear statement that the user who reported it was right in doing so lollll
DA They said everything else was fair game nonny, but parts weren't. Isn't that just the fucking same thing you agree with. They never said the whole skin was fair game
AYRT i read it as "staff took it down because of these two tiny details were copyright infringement, the rest wasn't and should've been fine" (cuz of the "at least to me"), implying that staff overreacted for this skin since the copyright infringement was "two tiny badges that were like 30 pixels in total"
so not sure if fair game = "fair that staff said please change this" or if fair game = "this should've been allowed and isn't copyright infringement"
Yeah I guess it can be interpreted that way. Imo they probably meant those badges should be taken off? I don't know if they meant this was an overreaction and the skin should stay or if they mean staff should just let them change the infringing parts. If it's the former then I disagree with that. If it's a copywrite risk for the devs then ofc they should have the artist change it
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Re: 888 and guns in skins
(Anonymous) 2025-03-12 04:44 pm (UTC)(link)Re: 888 and guns in skins
(Anonymous) 2025-03-12 04:48 pm (UTC)(link)Re: 888 and guns in skins
(Anonymous) 2025-03-12 04:53 pm (UTC)(link)Re: 888 and guns in skins
(Anonymous) 2025-03-12 04:56 pm (UTC)(link)Re: 888 and guns in skins
(Anonymous) 2025-03-12 04:57 pm (UTC)(link)Re: 888 and guns in skins
(Anonymous) 2025-03-12 05:03 pm (UTC)(link)I can understand why the rule is in place but at least to me it's stupid how inconsistent they are about this, there have been at least a few cases where people got denied for copyright over skins that have only extremely vague things in common with copyrighted material.
Re: 888 and guns in skins
(Anonymous) 2025-03-12 05:07 pm (UTC)(link)like sorry but you, as a user, cannot be the one that decides that is reasonable for copyright infringement and how far staff wants to go to cover their asses. bet there are plenty of reports that aren't acted upon because staff doesn't consider it to be a problem, but when a report results in something being taken down it's a very clear statement that the user who reported it was right in doing so lollll
Re: 888 and guns in skins
(Anonymous) 2025-03-12 05:24 pm (UTC)(link)Re: 888 and guns in skins
(Anonymous) 2025-03-12 05:38 pm (UTC)(link)i read it as "staff took it down because of these two tiny details were copyright infringement, the rest wasn't and should've been fine" (cuz of the "at least to me"), implying that staff overreacted for this skin since the copyright infringement was "two tiny badges that were like 30 pixels in total"
so not sure if fair game = "fair that staff said please change this" or if fair game = "this should've been allowed and isn't copyright infringement"
Re: 888 and guns in skins
(Anonymous) 2025-03-12 05:52 pm (UTC)(link)Yeah I guess it can be interpreted that way. Imo they probably meant those badges should be taken off? I don't know if they meant this was an overreaction and the skin should stay or if they mean staff should just let them change the infringing parts. If it's the former then I disagree with that. If it's a copywrite risk for the devs then ofc they should have the artist change it