>>79949132It says right fucking there anon
>Use for tangible goodsYou also left out the Corporate Use part. It's not fine print shit, she's in direct violation of the License Agreement and the artist is able to take her through the wringer for it. Nobody is overblowing anything, every post ITT has been about the artist being able to shake her down for what she's worth, reputationally she's likely not gonna take a hit amongst her audience, and nobody is saying that, but this kind of shit is a big no no for any company and I guarantee there'll be some hesitation when dealing with her in the future, especially since GSC got blindsided by this (yes yes, it's also their fault for not doing due diligence and all but other companies are gonna ask themselves what else she isn't telling them about, intentionally or not)
