Ok, let every person who claims to own the copyright and/or intellectual property to a specific piece of information/knowledge step forward; with real name and contact information, and specify the contested information and provide indisputable proof that he or she is the ORIGINAL author and sole lawful proprietor of said information.
If you can't do that... you might wanna keep the legal threats at a minimum!
(I'm dying to see who among you will claim ownership of different pixelart techniques...)
information as information is free to everyone. Art techniques are, letters are.
"Charts" crafted by persons aren't.
Sentences written to charts by persons aren't.
Lawful threats aren't spoken so far.
Just naming the possibilities doesn't imply anything.
Naming stuff doesn't mean to actually handling it like that.
Example:
Given that one would take a palette - one you put work in first and released for free - and would advertise it then on pixeljoint for hard money how would you act?
I can't imagine that you are completely ok with that, if that person also states how much experience work and effort was put in said palette, that youself made originally for the same community but for free.
It might be useful for Cyangmou to post some comparison images to prove that he's violated copyright. Legally speaking the issue is not that people are claiming ownership of the techniques but that he's stolen and modified the specific expression of people's interpretation of those techniques. Of course people seem more annoyed about the stolen ideas but in law sometimes you have to look elsewhere for justice. I will leave the discussion on the ethics of all this to others though.
If I would post here I would distribute the work which won' tbe alright.
Everyone may buy the production (or maybe priate it yarr) and look it up.
If it'd be just me I'd love to do a visual overview, sure.
The information I provided here can be counted as review.