They cry wolf so often, and so readily, it makes me wonder sometimes if they can lay 100% claim to every single photographic representation of a plant that they own and use. If that's the case, then they must travel quite a bit. I also wonder if they got the plant owner's permission to photograph the plant and turn it into a texture for use in their products.
If they took ANY of their photographic source from the web, then the original photographer holds the IP rights. Not Heart Botanicals.
Why does this creator, out of all, bother me with their rants about copybotted content? Two reasons. One, they sound off in popular forums, but never ever follow up with news about whether they used DMCA to have the content removed. Two, they always blame the grids they find the stuff on, like it's the grid owner's fault it's there.
Got news for you, ladies. It's not the grid owner's fault, and as Misty Harley said in that post, you should start by looking in your own backyard, because if it it truly copybotted, it's on Second Life, first.
Lilith Heart pulled this crap with Inworldz in the Second Life forums, claiming that tropical foliage in a picture on the site and the viewer was her content, copybotted.
Okay Lilith, did you actually travel somewhere and photograph those trees and bushes, then crop the plants out for use in your products - or did you find the original photographs somewhere on the web, crop out the plants, and use them? Did you do the same for every pine tree, every maple, every birch - every single plant in your collection, or did you use someone else's photos as source?
You're right, I'm calling Heart into question, because, quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of them running all over and trying to ruin the good name of other grids because they claim their content was copybotted and taken there.
Anyone who lives in the right area(s) can take pictures of water lilies. There are probably thousands of pictures of water lilies on the web. How are we supposed to know if the lilies we see on the Kitely grid, or Inworldz grid, or OpenSim grid were taken from Heart? For all we know, someone else took the photo those lilies were derived from. Heart does NOT have the exclusive right to distribute water lilies, either in texture form or 3D plant form - and yet, every time they cry wolf, you get the impression that (a) they are above reproach, and (b) they are the only ones allowed to distribute that particular plant or tree, and only on SL.
I also happen to know of a program that would let you generate some very realistic-looking, vector-based trees, and I know people use the program to create tree textures they sell, either as textures, or as a finished product. I'm just as sure that there are some standard settings that can be used to produce a tree or bush, and that with the thousands of creators in 3D worlds, it's bound to happen that two or more creators come up with the same basic tree or bush using this program. Is it right for any one of them to claim first rights to distribute it? No.
Awhile back, I posted about another texture creator who thinks they are above reproach - and then I found out that quite a few of their textures were pictures literally stolen off the web and resold, or manipulated in a graphics program and resold when the source for the material has a TOS forbidding such things. Down fell the house of cards.
Will that happen with Heart, or do they have some manner to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, to their entire audience reach that each and every allegedly "stolen" plant or texture is theirs? Because now I'm calling them on the carpet.
If you're going to point fingers, watch what points back at you. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those lilies came from your own handiwork. Either that, or shut up, because we're all sick of you blacklisting whole grids.