I don’t know what’s worse; linking a youtube video to get an idea on IP law, or linking a fucking Second Thought video on the topic.

They included easter eggs/intentional mistakes from the original in their copied designs. That’s a textbook way of proving copyright infringement; what a massive fuck up.

one is objectively better for image quality.

The only objective measurements we have - hard data - suggests they’re essentially the same. Subjectively, there are arguments in certain lighting conditions depending on what’s more important to you.