>>1709492Not entirely, the claim wasn't for using the melody model or the unpaid charity work (though it was his underlying motivation), rather using his nanody model in a stream, which was lent to her but there was never something written for her to use it for monetary gain (i.e. a twitch stream), but since she used it infrequently deleting the stream it was in was enough to reinstate her channel. He DMCAed citing the nanody model, which was stupid but legally he had the right do so. He was also right for requesting the royalties on the logo design and renders when he didn't sell her the rights to it for sale. His request of 45k is pretty arbitrary and has no legal standing, however, so in that way you're somewhat right. His rights essentially extend to not allowing her to use things he created that she did not explicitly pay for or was given consent to use, which seems to include a decent chunk of things, her model not among them.
Basically think of it as, I made you this to use on your twitter but not to sell in stores. He can disallow anything she didn't have explicit permission for or paid for.
>>1709430>this isn't the first time he did something like thisIs there anything on these past incidents? Might sway my opinion more if so
>>1709981Here's a scenario; I have a large youtuber friend. She has a character on her channel, and she wants a second design for it. I spitball design ideas and draw some for her for fun. We have a rough falling out, months later she still uses the design artwork despite me never giving permission. I have the right to claim the artwork and disallow her use, even if its her character or we were in good terms when I made it. If she had PAID for it or if I had told her she could use it for that, I wouldn't be able to. Since that is not the case, I will be taking it back because she is a bitch.
