They really should have used blanket liability waiver text and left it at that.
I’m sure someone will find a way to sue them anyway. It doesn’t even call out using this to create derivative works to avoid paying original authors copyright fees.
On top of that, their logo is an obvious rip off of a Van Gogh. It seems clear they’re actively encouraging people to create similar works that infringe active copyrights. They should ask Kim Dotcom how that worked out for him.
> On top of that, their logo is an obvious rip off of a Van Gogh. It seems clear they’re actively encouraging people to create similar works that infringe active copyrights.
I don't think Van Gogh's works are under copyright any more. At least not directly, recent photos of them may be but that's the photos not the paintings that have a copyright.
I’m sure someone will find a way to sue them anyway. It doesn’t even call out using this to create derivative works to avoid paying original authors copyright fees.
On top of that, their logo is an obvious rip off of a Van Gogh. It seems clear they’re actively encouraging people to create similar works that infringe active copyrights. They should ask Kim Dotcom how that worked out for him.