Lets see how many I can find sitting with wings up, tail out and looking over their shoulder. 

1050 × 1098 - sam241.deviantart.com

1161 × 1149 - dragoart.com

680 × 879 - p-williams0912-dc2.blogspot.com

Now let us see how many I can find that aren't looking over their shoulder.

809 × 372 - s980.photobucket.com

272 × 200 - henna-san.deviantart.com

188 × 200 - deviantart.com

600 × 320 - myspace.com

484 × 700 - melodypena.elfwood.com

589 × 644 - elfwood.com

142 × 200 - nagem62.deviantart.com

There are many many more in this pose or similar. While I agree that the similarity between the Aywas and Beastkeeper griffins is glaring, the basic pose itself is very, very common.

Along with this news post, you should state the references to your art up front in some manner. Personal art is understandably left 'uncredited' because hey, it's yours and you're using it yourself. The stock images you purchased and any works bought/commissioned from others needs to be clearly identified as such. Perhaps link these and provide the details under the 'Staff' or FAQ areas. Obviously, stock photos won't have a specific artist, but you can still link the sources and link to the hired artists as well. This can help clear up a ton of confusion about the art. 

As far as the dragon is concerned, I agree that a double-check with the original artist is in order. Once you begin collecting money by offering the ability to purchase gold coins, non-commercial use flies out the window. Regardless of the 'free-to-play' aspect, once you begin earning a profit, the entire site becomes a business and therefore, the art becomes used for commercial purposes.

The Griffin I'm a bit sketchy on. Yes, it's clearly referenced from Aywas' Griffin pet. However, the fact that there are so few readily available references of that pose, it's almost hard not to reference it. On the other hand, you did state this; "the only references which were used are photos". It leaves many asking where else you could've referenced the Griffin in this case, as it's a fantasy creature and cannot be photographed. 

I'm grateful that you did come and make an attempt to clarify your work. We're not trying to berate or destroy you and your website. Most of the user-base simply wants to make sure that all nooks and crannies are accounted for. The majority here really do enjoy this site and really do want to see it succeed. Do not be offended by our judgements, but ease our minds by continuing to clarify and provide necessary proof. 

On a more personal note, I would be very interested in seeing a site artist hired to redraw the items, so that the site is more unique. I understand you not wanting to redraw the creatures that you put effort into personally, but being able to move from stock images to artwork that is unique to the site would be more appealing to those coming in.

First of all, I think there's some confusion here as to what constitutes "the same pose." If the feet are in a different position, it's not the same pose. If the body is turned in a different way, it is not the same pose. If the wings are folded, it is not the same pose. Simply "wings up, tail out, head turned" is obviously generic, yes, because any creature with wings, a tail, and a head can strike a pose with those constraints. Head turned to a specific side and angle, wings of a dimunitive size spread, feet centered and claws with the same numbered toes...Come on now.

You admit that the similarity is "glaring," but do you think this glaring similarity is merely a coicidence, or do you think that heavily referencing (or copying) non-free-use art is okay as long as the pose is "common"?

I am honestly not trying to stir the pot. I like this game, and I hope it can get past this. But people defending an artist who is in the wrong, no matter how innocently they may have wound up there, is not helping anything.

EDIT:

Kolibri, there is a simply photo-based solution to finding references for a griffin. Look at some birds, look at some lions. Look at some photos of ancient mythological art. Combine all of them in your own style and use the references for anatomy. Bam. Original griffin. You don't need to use a picture of a griffin to draw a griffin. How would the first griffin have been drawn, if that was the case? (I hope I don't sound harsh here. My frustration is 100% not directed at you.)

To be honest, I don't think it would be very hard to have someone else redraw the griffin. Perhaps hold a contest?

A good rule of thumb when using any sort of reference is to make it your own. If the majority of people can instantly recognize exactly where something came from (and the source is not yours 100%), it's generally not ok to use for a business. Which this site is a business, and will become comercial the moment you start selling currency.

The links posted don't come anywhere near as close as the aywas griffin. It makes it abundantly clear that the aywas image was used as some sort of reference. Too many things match up in pose/concept for it to be one of the others.

Thats the very reason we word up here in teh first place:

We like this site! We would like to see this site thrive and shine!
We want to prevent you from getting into big troubles!

This site is so nice! It would be a shame if it ended because of something like this!

Hilary, I was alluding more towards the fact that the Griffin itself does not appear to be referenced as heavily from multiple photos, as it does to the Aywas pet. Does this make more sense? And no worries, no offense taken on my part. Helping me clarify my point is worth being poked at.

There are stocks which sell images for commercial use (btw, did you ever seen credits to shutterstock on any printed media?). There's DAZ which sells models for games. You're writing here that it's prohibited to use the content from DAZ and stock site. My question is the follwoing: why do such sites as DAZ3D and Shutterstock exist in your opinion, if the images from there can't be used anywhere?

I agree with Scottydawg let's hold a contest? :) I don't think Angel copied anything I mean she can draw duh? But it seems like this little thing, is bothering so many people. come on guys complain about something that can actually change the world instead...?

Thank you Angel for making this site I love it.

I couldn't have said it better myself Whipe.

This site is amazing and I do not want to see it wither because of this.

Dont see much of a problem - just ask the artist who drew the griffin to lift one of its front legs and turn head in a different direction, maybe fold wings a bit. Should solve it being the exact same pose >.>.

And yeah, most people arguing here and pointing out those things do so for the sake of the site, not cause they want to be annoying.

It's bothering us, Whipe, because we want help Angel make sure that everything is 100% legitimate and legal. When multiple people can look at an image and immediately pull up the same reference, that means there's probably an issue. I can't say Angel intentionally copied anything, and the stock images appear legitimate. Our issue is making sure that there is absolutely no way another artist can come in here and go "Hey! You're using my art without proper permission!" Which would then ultimately kill the site. We're trying to assist, not destroy.

My two cents:

(1) If a photographer takes a photo of an apple set on a flat surface by a window, with light falling onto the apple from left, he or she has some claim to derivative works - but (s)he does NOT own the very concept of an apple on a flat surface lit from the left.

I have never heard of a successful copyright claim based solely on the pose of the subject and no other composition factors. If there's some precedent I'm unaware of, I'd love to see it linked here - but some of the claims being made are totally unsubstantiated thusfar.

(2) There isn't a uniformly-accepted definition of "commercial use." It's between you and the original artist to determine whether accepting payment for gameplay benefits will render the use of the dragon imagery "commercial." IMO, you're opening yourself up for a world of hurt if users can pay real money for items that allow them to upload and use their own recolorings of the dragon image.

(3) If the stock sites you're using explicitly allow images to be used in the way that you're using them without credit, you're under no obligation to credit the creator. Failing to provide any information about images' source is not even remotely the same thing as falsely attributing credit to yourself.

From Shutterstock:

"Use or display an Image in such a manner that gives the impression that the Image was created by you or a person other than the copyright holder of that Image"

That's something you MAY not do. You've given the impression that you made this, that is against the rules.

From DAZ:

"upon receipt of a written request from DAZ, User will immediately cease any and all distribution of the derived works User has created from the Content licensed from DAZ, if DAZ has determined, at its sole discretion, that (i) the derived work is substantially similar to or is a clone of existing Content; or (ii) the derived work fails to require the use of Content available through the online DAZ store."

Not only am I disappointed in the artwork and the artist, now I'm disappointed in the site in general. I had said I wasn't going to play til things were fixed; I don't think I care to continue playing at all, given the attitute about this issue. We raised a legitimate concern and the response has been unsettling and rather rude.

I say hold a contest to redraw the offending items. It ends the argument and would attract more to the game.

I would relish to see the site band together for a contest.