4 ms·

The original artist had licensed it freely, both 2600 and the Trunk author had used that freely licensed work.

• nsxwolf 9y ago
  2600 didn't mention that in their original post. Did they know that at the time they chose to use the image? The argument they originally used seemed to be that the original work isn't actually worthy of copyright protection because it's just ink splotches.
  • detaro 9y ago
    From the article: > But it gets even better. You see, not only are they trying to get us to pay them for using a few ink splotches, but as it turns out, the ink splotches don't belong to them in the first place! Our cover artist happened to keep meticulous records (probably not something they anticipated) and traced the source of the ink splotches to a Finnish artist at this page. [3] And as you can see below, the Loadus image (which is at least five years old) is a background to both our Spring 2012 cover and "Harry Potter in a Vest" or whatever Trunk Archive is calling their image (which also may not even be theirs).
    • nsxwolf 9y ago
      Here they are still expressing their willingness to infringe copyrights. They're still unaware of the license of the work at this point. They're only lamenting that the wrong party has lodged a complaint.
      • misnome 9y ago
        > They're still unaware of the license of the work at this point No, they actually link to the original work, which if you follow, it's licence is pretty clear. Not reading the article the first time is fine (and common), but repeatedly insisting that people who have are in the wrong is kind of inexcusable.
      • ghusbands 9y ago
        No, the page they link to clearly licenses it freely and they and their artist (who kept "meticulous records") were clearly aware of it. Though, their tone elsewhere does indicate that they would have happily copied it, so you are partially right.