Source of potential art plagiarism
+Content recycled from the previous post
Hello.
There is reasonable evidence that the content you have presented is designed to deliberately deceive or misrepresent a process, activity, or information segment. This includes fabricating fictitious steps for works of art, or other creative processes.
Posting such content is considered fraud. Fraud is discouraged by the community.
Hi @hivewatchers, he didn't recycle the content, he stated it saying "as you will see, this drawing was already made previously with graphic pencils, and what we are going to do next is to pass it in color".
How is that content recycled? The author also added a reference link.
This is really confusing? What are the charges against the author? I see none. Please review your progress. Thank you!
PS: I have zero relations to the author.
Hi.
It was not clearly mentioned in the post that the content was already published with a link to the previous post.
Anyway, content recycling is a minor issue in comparison to mass art plagiarism with the use of tracing.
There was no source mentioning who the original artist was who created that art.
Who are you, by the way, and why are you interfering and proxy appealing for this account?
I find it very strange that an account with no posting activity and almost no engagement suddenly bumps into a reply for this user.
Hive is a decentralised ecosystem. If Hive users can't interfere in a case that may seem unfair to a Hive user, then what are we creating here on Hive? Users with high stakes can oppress users with less.
No need to know who I am. I'm just a user who has the right to call your attention to your process as a decentralised user on Hive.
I have called out at least 5 accounts practising plagiarism, so I'm in this with you. I dislike it when people want to outsmart the system.
I close my case, as the user in question hasn't even responded 😂
Thanks for your work, I greatly appreciate it @hivewatchers