If I were to be really cynical, I'd call that a clever move on the part of the blogger. To say it was taken down for copyright violations would, of course, imply that the material actually did violate HG's copyrights, i.e., that it was the real deal.
In actuality, all HG would have had to do to get the material taken down if it were a copyright violation would be to send a DMCA notice to Google, which would automatically result in it being pulled for 10 days and replaced by an official "this content has been pulled" notice, not an "I took it down because I did an oopsy" from the blogger.
(I'm not positive, but I think they could have done that even if the material were not the real deal, on the basis that it could be considered a "derivative work" based on Robotech.)
In actuality, all HG would have had to do to get the material taken down if it were a copyright violation would be to send a DMCA notice to Google, which would automatically result in it being pulled for 10 days and replaced by an official "this content has been pulled" notice, not an "I took it down because I did an oopsy" from the blogger.
(I'm not positive, but I think they could have done that even if the material were not the real deal, on the basis that it could be considered a "derivative work" based on Robotech.)
"Don't look for more honor than your learning merits."
