Any business has the right to protect the names of anyone they do business with. Tons of businesses do it. So they didn't know the image was taken, here on this thread there were multiple people pointing out multiple other places the same logo or a version of it was used by other people. Have you ever asked anyone at the company about it? If they gave you an answer why is that not good enough? Instead you run around making accusations. OOOH you did a screenshot. That's not evidence, that makes you look like a douche. The source is on their page. I looked. Maybe this is the sort of thing people can expect.
A Google Image search takes half a minute. And after that, you should know whether there is a copyright on the image or not. In fact, assume that an image is copyrighted until you can prove otherwise. Anything else is just highly unprofessional.
Except DPP was NOT "protecting any names." WildSpiritWolf has outright said on this very page that he hadn't given permission and wasn't aware of the usage--he/she actually used the words "copyright infringement." That's not an accusation, that's a fact directly from the artist. The horse is out of the barn, over the fence, and down the road, so you are FAR too late to try and get the horse back in by portraying it as something that was already in the works, Mykal.
I like how this Mykal sockpuppet ignored your post here. The actual proof that he stole the work as the actual artist said they had never given him permission to use it. Can't spin the undeniable truth so he avoids it.
"Everybody else was doing it!" isn't a valid excuse. Responsible businesses make sure that everything they use is properly licensed. Finding unattributed art on the Internet and wanting to use it in a published product means locating the original artist - something which took me *five minutes* to do in the case of WildSpiritWolf's piece using a combination of Tineye and Google Image Search. Five minutes. At that point, I'm sure she would have told you that you can't use this piece, but she'd gladly take commission for another. Instead you couldn't be assed to do that much and had to be forced to remove the logo - which you still haven't done in many places. This includes PDFs that have already been sold - any responsible publisher would be sending out revised PDFs and requesting buyers to delete the version with the unlicensed art, which has *not happened*. Either you have no idea how publishing works (unlikely for a company that's been around since 1999), simply don't care or both.
No one asked for a "everyone was doing it" rant. I guess I'll have to message them since you won't to see what's going on with that. Should I screenshot the message for you since you seem to be one of those people who desire proof from everyone so you can rant some more?
Sure, that would be fantastic.
BTW, the term isn't "rant", since a rant is an angry, incoherent post with no focus or point. My reply was neither angry nor incoherent, and had a perfectly clear point.
BTW, the term isn't "rant", since a rant is an angry, incoherent post with no focus or point. My reply was neither angry nor incoherent, and had a perfectly clear point.
Except that the artist has stated here by the artist that he/DPP was to stop using the...ahem, 'misappropriated' art as well. It has come down off facebook, but remains in use by his company, on the website (home page) as well as in the latest preview (with a link posted at the Facebook page). I bring this up because the artist has stated they were to be removed, and he agreed to it, and she should know it's not been done yet. Of course, if things have changed, and the artist has new information I am happy to stand corrected. But by the information already provided, he's still using the art for his logo and therefore is absolutely now willfully using the artist's work wrongfully (especially as there remains no credit for the logo on the company site or preview).
Take care
Don
Take care
Don