This post is probably full of useless info, but I just thought some people would like to have physical evidence on the similarities between those too meshes in general.
So I poked around a bit with a few things, and downloaded one of Rose's free meshes that has the feet on them. (the one with the stockings and red/purple/etc. nightgowns
here, and the male mesh with the purple shirt on pg 19...
) Apparently, I also ran across a "thanks" text file in the male file, though it's not the thanks we might be expecting. (as copied: "Thank qingming for the foot.") So if those feet on that particular mesh are what she's also using on the pay files, I'd have to say they're definitely similar to BlooM's, and most-likely edited to make them look like they're different. The reason I say this...
When you enlarge the pictures, you'll see Rose's "borrowed" foot on the left and BlooM's conversion on the right. Notice the extreme difference in the amount of details, but the same shapes that both have. Whoever "qingming" is, they could've easily used any sort of poly reducer in a meshing program to make it look like that, just like it can be done in Blender:
I just left the default settings for that program's poly reducer, and surprise-surprise, it almost looks like we have a rip-off. Now all that needs to be done is to fiddle around with the UV maps a bit.
The left UV is Rose's, the middle is BlooM's, and the right is both overlapped. If these were two completely different feet conversions, wouldn't the UV's for the toes and the top of the feet
not line up, seeing as the original poser mesh probably had a much different positioning than both? Clearly those highlighted areas are spot on if you look at the UVs in any 3D meshing program.
I'm pretty much ready to call foul on this one.