StooB wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:20 am
Apparently this person and her assistant were also involved in making and selling soft toy Horaces for £35 each, had previously agreed to make a donation to the MS Society and then gone back on that agreement claiming Andrews didn't own the ip. It's nowhere near as clear-cut and out of the blue that the Youtuber originally inferred it was.
I think it needs to be made clear that 2 people here aren't connected other than just being friends and that these are 2 separate "incidents". The person making the plushies isn't an assistant. There are elements where it's now coming down to who you believe - facts being distorted and/or ignored.
You're right, it's never clear cut, and not just from the YouTuber point of view either.
Einar Saukas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:43 pm
Hmm? Doesn't it contradict the idea that "he's fine with people using Horace and other IPs he owns, except if they’re sold commercially that the company makes a donation to charity instead of the license fee"?
Apparently this person and her assistant were also involved in making and selling soft toy Horaces for £35 each, had previously agreed to make a donation to the MS Society and then gone back on that agreement claiming Andrews didn't own the ip. It's nowhere near as clear-cut and out of the blue that the Youtuber originally inferred it was.
They're two completely separate cases, dude. Octy made videos and didn't sell anything. The soft toys happened a while back and was nothing to do with Octavius.
StooB wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:20 am
Apparently this person and her assistant were also involved in making and selling soft toy Horaces for £35 each, had previously agreed to make a donation to the MS Society and then gone back on that agreement claiming Andrews didn't own the ip. It's nowhere near as clear-cut and out of the blue that the Youtuber originally inferred it was.
They're two completely separate cases, dude. Octy made videos and didn't sell anything. The soft toys happened a while back and was nothing to do with Octavius.
I don’t think that’s quite true, although it’s difficult to get the entire story behind this. Paul Andrews said in his statement that Retro Princess was acting as a main point of contact for Octavius Kitten. Paul Andrews contacted Retro Princess about having a charitable donation if they continued making the Horace plushy. He also told Retro Princess he wasn’t happy how Horace was being used in Octavius Kittens video. He may have presumed, rightly or wrongly, that the information was going back to Octavius Kitten. But when he was blocked from contacting Retro Princess after being told she disputed he owned the IP, he then issued the takedowns.
But there is definitely more to this than on the surface, from all parties involved.
ZXDunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:19 pm
They're two completely separate cases, dude. Octy made videos and didn't sell anything. The soft toys happened a while back and was nothing to do with Octavius.
I don’t think that’s quite true, although it’s difficult to get the entire story behind this. Paul Andrews said in his statement that Retro Princess was acting as a main point of contact for Octavius Kitten. Paul Andrews contacted Retro Princess about having a charitable donation if they continued making the Horace plushy. He also told Retro Princess he wasn’t happy how Horace was being used in Octavius Kittens video. He may have presumed, rightly or wrongly, that the information was going back to Octavius Kitten. But when he was blocked from contacting Retro Princess after being told she disputed he owned the IP, he then issued the takedowns.
But there is definitely more to this than on the surface, from all parties involved.
There's your problem right there. You said "if they continued" unless you're being uncharacteristically charitable and assigning a non-binary pronoun but something tells me that's not the case here.
Octavius was not involved in the soft toys thing. You're literally conflating the two issues. I don't know how I can make it any clearer for you. I can explain it for you but I cannot understand it for you.
ZXDunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 3:43 pm
There's your problem right there. You said "if they continued" unless you're being uncharacteristically charitable and assigning a non-binary pronoun but something tells me that's not the case here.
The "they" comes from Andrews' statement:
Andrews wrote:This person also acts as a point of contact for her friend a youtuber. They went on to make public statements they wished to find replacement retro characters to produce toys with but did not wish to make charity donations to others which might also request them.
What someone believes Vs what the truth of the matter is can vary considerably. People tend to be self serving in their public statements, it's a natural cognitive bias.
