Some years ago, when I pointed out that a game supplement's artwork had directly copied artwork from a fantasy illustrator I liked, you said I had no right to be upset about it, citing that there is no source image for a griffon, so the artist was justified in directly copying from the book. There were two pieces of uncredited artwork in the supplement. I remember this conversation because protecting the legitimacy of my pieces is important-- I do the research, look at photos and uncopyrighted source to base my work on as much as possible, cite copyright holders if my work is fanart of a game property or such, and I was disappointed that you defended their actions.

What is the difference here, exactly, that causes you to say that it is blatant? That White Wolf ripped off Capcom, and not a homebrew game cribbing from a fantasy illustrator? Were a game company to crib my work, would you say the same?