
Originally Posted by
Alhanelem
Actually, I do have a clue about copyrights, and I'm not mixing anything up, but thanks for being insulting anyway.
In fact, what we are really dealing with here is better described as plagiarism.
This "owner" is commonly said to be the "copyright holder", which I described before.
A link to a similar looking image on google would not hold up in a court of law. You need to know who holds the copyright and provide them proof that it was infringed on so that they can pursue a case against the infringer.
No crap sherlock, I know this. But thanks for the unnecessary lesson. In the situation you describe,, it is up to the holder of the copyright to exercise his rights and bring a case against the infringer.
Yes, they did. It's up to them to either decide someones rights may be being infringed on, or up to the copyright holder to complain to SE to get the entry pulled. One of those two things needs to happen. somebody making a ruckus on a forum saying "this ring looks like that one!" is not really sufficient grounds for that. However, if someone wants to provide some real actual proof, or if the copyright holder wants to stop up, either of those parties should be contacting SE directly, not making a scene on a discussion forum.
This sentence is a bunch of garbledygook that doesn't make any sense. "it doesn't matter who made it first that it already exists" What? try making some sense before you attack others.
So... who's the one who doesn't know anything about this now?