As I've mentioned within this conversation thread. If you appropriate an iconic art style from a medium; in this case games, and then alter it for your own financial gain there-in lies the issue. If people are able to look at two games and say that they bear far too close of resemblance, the owner of the original…

Flying vermin perhaps? Pigeons?

If you appropriate a stylized piece of art from within the same medium and then attempt to change it; only use it as your own, it's no one's fault but yours if you're called out on it. Especially if you're making money off it.

Your reply was blank btw, feel free to let me know if you want me to X it out.

If you appropriate art that is known within a specific medium, for the purposes of making money in that same medium, regardless as to whether you've altered that art, it's enough to have the original owners of the iconic design come after you.

So you're not special, you just believe that images shouldn't be used because they requiring loading time that slow you down. Gotcha. Ok. So it's not that you believe you're special, you just have special circumstances that you'd like to be taken into consideration.

I think you're oblivious if you don't see it as appropriating art from a known medium and using it for his own benefit.

I'm glad you appreciate it =)

I highly doubt it's as simple as that. Even a search for Nintendo and Mario only brings up a handful of games that have to do with Mario.

In the world of art, taking a piece that exists and changing where the "reflection" lines on it are, is the same as adding an up beat that didn't exist. If someone can look at something and say, "oh, that looks a lot like x where it's been known to exist for x amount of time" it's enough to argue IP theft.

No you don't, don't think you're special for being a jerk. As always, "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." You can provide a counter opinion that it's prevalent without being a jerk. The jerk is the one who makes the comment unpopular.

So you're either saying you're doing it on purpose; which invalidates your…

Really, I'm curious about your process of that. Could you detail for me? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious.

HEY! You stole my video from my post and my idea! CEASE AND DESIST! =D

The green pipes are trademarked, but I figured I'd focus on the milk before the potatoes.

I don't own a console, nor am I a fan of Nintendo in general. I am on the other hand aware of their practices regarding litigation.

How? Quite easily. Compassion? I save that for work.

They don't have to convince me or you, they have to convince a judge or a jury who likely know far less about the subject.

In the world of Nintendo lawyers, having the ability to say, "there are striking visual similarities to Mario" is good enough.

I read this as, "Oh shit, I'm REALLY getting attention for stealing artwork and I know how Nintendo is about their IP. I'm hopefully going to cash out before they come after me."

Then, "It is not anything related to legal issues. I just cannot keep it anymore."

"I've received cease and desist letters threatening to sue…

Ad hominem is when you focus on an attack on the person, instead of the rhetorical stance provided. If you're going to lecture on what it means, please be accurate.