You know, I'm not one to be a stickler but... [Umbreon Fur]

[Leothalis the Magus]

Dio Branded

The Xumbreon item is disgusting, regardless of whether or not it's a ticket item. I'm really hoping Nintendo sues this shitty site.

At best the item will be removed and hopefully all the money spent on it refunded. Rules on what users can submit for tickets will also be changed to (hopefully) prevent this from happening again.

It is a little extreme to hope for the site to be sued.

[Leothalis the Magus]

Dio Branded

Leothalis the Magus

At best the item will be removed and hopefully all the money spent on it refunded. Rules on what users can submit for tickets will also be changed to (hopefully) prevent this from happening again.

It is a little extreme to hope for the site to be sued.

It's a amateur mistake that this item was even allowed through. If they still had quality control I'm sure someone would have caught the potential for a lawsuit and sent it back. Wouldn't be surprised if Gaia refunds everyone who bought it, since 0.99 would literally be nothing to them.

I have nothing but antipathy for this site since they went into self-destructive GCash spam mode. Anything bad that happens to them they brought on themselves, although as I've been here for years it would be sorta sad to see the site go even though I returned little over a month ago. emo


On another note, doesn't Gaia have an item called something like Shinobi Naruto Headband in Loyal's which looks exactly like the headbands from Naruto? Although I'm assuming that's less of an issue because they're not selling it for real money.

Hence why the rules/guidelines will most likely see changes/amendments/revisions/whatever to make sure this happens less or not at all to begin with.

Well that's you but there's still plenty of users who still enjoy this site and it shouldn't be ruined.

Think so.

[Creeped]

Thief of Narshe

The name itself was like a kid created it.

"Oh man I love Umbreon so much so I want my gaia avatar to be it so just slap X in front and no one will notice. Xumbreon."

Well it was designed by a user so yeah that is probably exactly right xD

[Hop Step Instant Death]

Altough I think it's a bit too close to the original too, this whole bonanza seems kinda silly to me. sweatdrop
I mean, there was no big fuzz about 16-Bit Hero, and humans even had a whole hair rig based on the LoZ-series. Not too many people complained about those.
I guess it was because those weren't limited and anyone who wanted could get them.

[M00NDR0PS]

Hop Step Instant Death

Altough I think it's a bit too close to the original too, this whole bonanza seems kinda silly to me. sweatdrop
I mean, there was no big fuzz about 16-Bit Hero, and humans even had a whole hair rig based on the LoZ-series. Not too many people complained about those.
I guess it was because those weren't limited and anyone who wanted could get them.

" A Houngan is wandering, away from its swarm. "

||| No dear, this isn't "too close" to the original. It is EXACTLY the original. The color of the fur, the color of the markings, the shape of the markings, and even their placement on the skin is IDENTICAL to shiny Umbreon.

The 16-Bit Legend and the other recolors are referencing Link, but there's enough differences that set the item apart from the original source content. Same with the Animal Crossing items. They look close to their original counterparts, but there are still enough differences to skirt around the copyright (colors are different, some have clothes added where the character never originally wore clothes, etc.). The LoZ hairs also weren't identical copies of their original sources. Even [Animal] Spark Striker, while being a reference to Pikachu, has enough changes to make it still identifiable but also different from an actual Pikacu.

But this Xumbreon skin, as already mentioned above, has absolutely 0 changes. The fact that Paws are bi-pedal and that the skin doesn't automatically come with Shiny Umbreon's yellow eyes aren't enough to set it apart from Shiny Umbreon, which is copyrighted material. And the reason it's copyrighted in the first place is so that people can't take the exact design and profit from it without permission, but that's pretty much exactly what Gaia just did.

There's a good reason for the "bonanza" as you put it, considering the user who submitted the item does not own the rights to Umbreon, nor does Gaia, yet no changes were made to ensure the skin was different from the copyrighted design. There should have been changes.

" The wandering Houngan logged out "

[sqoobie]

There's literally so many things that could've been done to change the skin, and STILL pay homage to an Umbreon.
While I normally respect people's choices in their tickets, I'm slightly disappointed on how uninspired this one is. The other two at least show they had their own thought and idea.
It was like "gimme a shiny umbreon", like no "shiny umbreon, but maybe add some crescent motifs, maybe change up the ears, instead of making them antennas let's add ear holes"

There's a fine line that Gaia can do. The anime/video game hairs are examples that are basically borderline.
But you can't copyright hair or accessories. An actual creature, that was designed by another artists, that's like a huge ******** leap over that line.

[krixkrax]

Hop Step Instant Death

Altough I think it's a bit too close to the original too, this whole bonanza seems kinda silly to me. sweatdrop
I mean, there was no big fuzz about 16-Bit Hero, and humans even had a whole hair rig based on the LoZ-series. Not too many people complained about those.
I guess it was because those weren't limited and anyone who wanted could get them.

^This.
I think the same.

[M00NDR0PS]

Braev Dullahan

There's literally so many things that could've been done to change the skin, and STILL pay homage to an Umbreon.
While I normally respect people's choices in their tickets, I'm slightly disappointed on how uninspired this one is. The other two at least show they had their own thought and idea.
It was like "gimme a shiny umbreon", like no "shiny umbreon, but maybe add some crescent motifs, maybe change up the ears, instead of making them antennas let's add ear holes"

There's a fine line that Gaia can do. The anime/video game hairs are examples that are basically borderline.
But you can't copyright hair or accessories. An actual creature, that was designed by another artists, that's like a huge ******** leap over that line.

" A Houngan is wandering, away from its swarm. "

||| My thoughts exactly.

" The wandering Houngan logged out "

[Sand Dancer Shaka]

Yeah. Well, I know people really love this item, but I really think that if an item isn't that different from the original then Gaia should compensate Nintendo for their property. I love parody items, but... I don't feel that they should look almost identical, they should look different. People shouldn't be able to cosplay to 100% accuracy a character. Most recent ones have been more "Inspired" than actual copies like the My neighbour items.

I've long since given up on asking Gaia to make "inspired by" items for money and leave "copied" items as freebies, even not-for-profit items are still copyright infringing but most companies will let you off with it.

The issue here is Gaia made money from essentially a copy of a character, and it sold out, instantly for money. Why? Because it's a dupe of it. It didn't sell out because Gaia made a cool skin, it sold out because of someone else's hard work cementing that property. I just don't feel like it's a morally right thing to do. Gaia isn't a doujinshi artist in artist alley celebrating their fandom, it's an actual retail business selling digital items for cash- a business with an actual business model aimed at making money, not creating site content. As such, these kinds of items don't sit right with me anymore as it did in the past.

This video about fanart and law is a good watch for any fanartists out there Link However, whether or not Gaia will get away with it will depend on whether they can actually prove they've transformed it in some way. Which I don't think they did that well in this case. Copyright is interesting, scary and dangerous at the same time.

In either case, I think gaia will probably just slap a fine for compensation if they chase it and issue a warning, I can't imagine they'll do much more than that. There's a fine line between protection of properties and still keeping fans happy (since Gaia consist of a lot of fans).

[M00NDR0PS]

Sand Dancer Shaka

Yeah. Well, I know people really love this item, but I really think that if an item isn't that different from the original then Gaia should compensate Nintendo for their property. I love parody items, but... I don't feel that they should look almost identical, they should look different. People shouldn't be able to cosplay to 100% accuracy a character. Most recent ones have been more "Inspired" than actual copies like the My neighbour items.

I've long since given up on asking Gaia to make "inspired by" items for money and leave "copied" items as freebies, even not-for-profit items are still copyright infringing but most companies will let you off with it.

The issue here is Gaia made money from essentially a copy of a character, and it sold out, instantly for money. Why? Because it's a dupe of it. It didn't sell out because Gaia made a cool skin, it sold out because of someone else's hard work cementing that property. I just don't feel like it's a morally right thing to do. Gaia isn't a doujinshi artist in artist alley celebrating their fandom, it's an actual retail business selling digital items for cash- a business with an actual business model aimed at making money, not creating site content. As such, these kinds of items don't sit right with me anymore as it did in the past.

This video about fanart and law is a good watch for any fanartists out there Link However, whether or not Gaia will get away with it will depend on whether they can actually prove they've transformed it in some way. Which I don't think they did that well in this case. Copyright is interesting, scary and dangerous at the same time.

In either case, I think gaia will probably just slap a fine for compensation if they chase it and issue a warning, I can't imagine they'll do much more than that. There's a fine line between protection of properties and still keeping fans happy (since Gaia consist of a lot of fans).

" A Houngan is wandering, away from its swarm. "

||| I'd like the item more if it differed from the source material. People are tying to pin the backlash on the fact that it's limited and therefore they're probably trying to indirectly accuse people of being jealous on having missed out, but I honestly wouldn't have purchased this even if it wasn't sold out by the time I saw it. It's kind of funny how people will automatically default to "oh you're just jealous so you're trying to ruin it for the rest of us," when that's actually not the case a lot of times.

Also, I agree with your third paragraph in a sense. I don't think it's right that Gaia's making money off of this since it's a copyrighted design. Yeah, sure. It's only 99¢, but there were also 500 copies. That's almost $500 of profit Gaia's making on this skin and I'm sure Nintendo's not seeing a cent of it.

I'm okay with Gaia making money off of exact copy items IF they're part of a sponsored partnership, but this isn't a partnered sponsorship and that's what bothers me. This is WAY too close to the original to be allowed as a user-submitted item.

Thanks for the video! I don't see enough changes myself to get away with it, but time will tell I guess. I really hope they don't get away scot-free though. Not saying I want them sued, but I do hope they get some kind of backlash all the same as a wakeup call.

" The wandering Houngan logged out "

[Sand Dancer Shaka]

A Wandering Houngan

" A Houngan is wandering, away from its swarm. "

||| I'd like the item more if it differed from the source material. People are tying to pin the backlash on the fact that it's limited and therefore they're probably trying to indirectly accuse people of being jealous on having missed out, but I honestly wouldn't have purchased this even if it wasn't sold out by the time I saw it. It's kind of funny how people will automatically default to "oh you're just jealous so you're trying to ruin it for the rest of us," when that's actually not the case a lot of times.

Also, I agree with your third paragraph in a sense. I don't think it's right that Gaia's making money off of this since it's a copyrighted design. Yeah, sure. It's only 99¢, but there were also 500 copies. That's almost $500 of profit Gaia's making on this skin and I'm sure Nintendo's not seeing a cent of it.

I'm okay with Gaia making money off of exact copy items IF they're part of a sponsored partnership, but this isn't a partnered sponsorship and that's what bothers me. This is WAY too close to the original to be allowed as a user-submitted item.

Thanks for the video! I don't see enough changes myself to get away with it, but time will tell I guess. I really hope they don't get away scot-free though. Not saying I want them sued, but I do hope they get some kind of backlash all the same as a wakeup call.

" The wandering Houngan logged out "

Sponsored items are a different kettle of fish, I think. Since a licensed has been acquired and it's not infringing as a result. So those are okay (though I do question some of the sponsor items quality sweatdrop ) ... Really I like homage/parody items on the whole, but only when it's obviously a bootleg...........

Since I'm not a fan of Pokemon and I can still tell what it is, I feel like it's crossing a line. I personally think if a non-fan can immediately recognise it, then it's probably a bit too close in likeness. I've been told that x,y,z items are parodies too, but if I feel like they're okay because a lay person like me didn't pick them up. Certain ones, are a bit iffy to me for that reason, and in front of a judge I'm pretty sure that they'd say the same thing.

[Doechi]

iTsunayoshi Sawada

Foxtrot Fallout

Nintendo is very strict when it comes to their brand name, characters and creations. If they found out, they'd probably ask for it to be changed or taken down. I doubt they'd sue but they'd probably ask for something to be done about it.

I'm sure Gaia could get a license, granted they'd have to pay a good sum and go through all the legal hoops to get it, but it can be done. I don't think they will anytime soon though.

Pffft, like Gaia'd actually spend money on trying to get a license with Nintendo to use their products. *rofl*

It'd be a shame if the item had to be taken down, but then again, it kinda falls on Gaia's shoulders for giving it the okay in the first place without making a few changes. Changes wouldn't be so bad though. It's a small price to pay to be able to keep the item if things get messy.

Sweeter than candy on a stick,

Huckleberry, cherry, or lime

I wouldn't so much call it a "small price" due to there most undoubtedly being backlash as well as them having to refund the 99gc to everyone that bought it; I personally don't see how this is such a big deal and I doubt nintendo will even care.

If you have a choice he'd be your pick

But Lollipop is mine

[Visionary Blend]

This can go either ways, really. But with the flow of s**t items lately, I expect some kind of word from a higher up since this is for actual money.