@WOKENJJT That post literally broke the algorithm.

@BattleByrd NPA, sheers, and burn ointment. I do not remember how to properly treat a sucking chest wound 😮‍💨 Back to it

my best advice to you martin is go ahead and produce the work, but if you plan to monetize it, just remember that the internet is forever, and you've given more than enough substantial arguments for the fact that your work is indeed a derivative and thus subject to infringement protections.

The Berne Convention upholds the US copyright standard and protections authorized to American works and their derivatives. Maybe under Denmark law what you are doing constitutes an original, but under American law it does not, and in Denmark they uphold the American standard per the Berne Convention when treating matters relating to US copyright materials.

The key fact is how similar your rendering looks to the Marvel version, and if you state you were inspired by Marvel. The problem is literally saying the words, "I took inspiration from XYZ", where XYZ is already copyright protected. Let me give you a totally different example to illustrate. Let's say I am translating a book from Spanish into English. I didn't write the book, I've just been inspired to translate it (which hasn't been done yet). Once I complete my translation, I cannot go and publish it without the author's permission. The author owns my original translation under intellectual property rights. Even though it was my work, my words and interpretation in the translation of the text, the original language author is legally entitled to my work. It doesn't only stop there. If I really love his book, translate it into English and then use that for a script to make a movie, draft up production sketches or character designs, landscapes or scenes inspired by the book, whatever I come up with is actually the intellectual property of the original author. Most people do not realize the extent to which copyright protection covers assets because they're not personally being sued by Disney or Nintendo every time they create something. Their impression is just too small to be noticed or picked up by legal teams. Once you start making sustainable works that are being heavily shared, you will be open to a litany of copyright complaints, and if you want to save yourself the headache, do not admit taking inspiration directly from a source and then attempt to render a near identical iteration of it. If you're going to recreate AND cite, then make it drastically different. No more, "hey I saw ABC on XYZ so I rendered it on my system" (near identical scene) And more, "hey I saw ABC on XYZ, so I made DEF on UVW. It's inspired, but you can see my work is substantially different and contributes to a significant reinterpretation." Or even better, "Man I love Amsterdam, check out this thing I made", and when someone else says, "hey that looks like COD" you can say, "well what a coincidence, but that wasn't my inspiration, never played the game!" The first definitely does not result in copyright, the second has a strong case to be demonstrated, the third is a viable copyright that can be later defended if you truly did not draw inspiration from another copyright.

Scenario 1) you draw up time square purely from the inspiration of your own mind, or from personally collected or created forms like photos, videos, drawings. Scenario 2) you're playing Call of Duty and recreate a scene of theirs featuring Time Square as a location. The inspiration came not from your mind, but from the video game's existing design. Even if it is modeled off a real place, you were motivated to transform an already copyright protected work. Can you see the difference? It might appear subtle or trivial, but legally speaking, when you claim inspiration from someone else's work, you have to prove that it has been sufficiently transformed from the original. It doesn't matter that it's a physical location in real life, you openly admit at least partially deriving the work from an already published source ie MW2 Amsterdam level design. That last bit is legally the issue at hand. You publicly acknowledged and claimed inspiration from an existing copyright.

@MartinNebelong This

@IterIntellectus 1984, The Circle, Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, We, and The Matrix.

@indigo_nakamoto First. Mover. Advantage. That's it. In fact, it actually has LESS than Litecoin. There, I said it. Litecoin is a better Bitcoin 🤷‍♂️

@MartinNebelong The designs are nearly identical. It is very impressive, but the threshold of transformation to warrant a copyright is extremely hard to argue.

@thechosenberg This isn't a philosophy of math problem it's a psychosemantic one.

Cassell Designs 😍

Cassell Designs 😍

Can you name this gemstone?