Post doctorate Computer Science Researcher Tries To Copy Univah Film Engine™ and Fails
TODAY’S WALL OF SHAME Highlights:
The unethical researcher, legend in his own head and wannabe genius, Hao Fei.
THE FACTS
Hao Fei, the post Doctorate (senior) researcher from Oxford along with some irrelevant collaborators, got together under one goal: Capitalize off the momentum Univah Film Engine™ was gaining in the film industry from 2021 — 2025 and draw attention to their own Cheap AI wrapper by naming their project, “Univa” the exact same name as Univah but without the letter h.
MORE FACTS
Hao Fei isn’t a janitor at Oxford, he is part of the Department of Computer Science at Oxford and is described as a SENIOR RESEARCHER. So if anyone would have heard about a revolutionary new real-time engine called Univah Pro, it would be him. He KNOWINGLY and Willfully creates a pathetic Trademark Infringing project called “Univa”, an abominable Univah Film Engine™ wannabe that he and his over 5 irrelevant collaborators (too insignificant to name) submitted to Peer Review. Hao Fei, deeply blinded by a Satanic strong delusion, proceeds to write research papers on ARXIV because he believes he is “cooking” and “killing the game” and with his pathetic ai wrapper that has no novelty and therefore was deeply REJECTED by peer review, he will “eliminate Hollywood”. Yah, exactly, like I said DELUSIONAL.
Here is Hao Fei embarrassing himself on Peer Review about his cheap AI Wrapper.
Poor Hao Fei, wannabe genius and legend in his own head. Can’t come up with anything better than a chatGPT Or Nano Banana AI wrapper then tries to convince peer review that it’s novel. Peer Review rejects his paper. so sad. Has PhD but no common sense or creativity. All he knows how to do is mimic the brilliance of others and try to pass it off as his own.
THE CONSEQUENCES DMCA TAKEDOWN
The Stephanie Michaels Software Company has taken legal action against Hao Fei.
Step 1: Give him A Chance To Do Right
NOT MY FIRST RODEO: We know exactly how people like Hao Fei who are aligned with Satan, operate. We knew he would lie lie lie and deny deny deny. Just like when we held REALLUSION, a multi million dollar software company based in Taiwan, accountable for doing exactly what Hao Fei is also doing. What did Reallusion CEO do? He lied.
POLYHAVEN also was caught watching our videos, then rushing to other software to recreate original artistic works made in Univah by Stephanie Michaels, without giving us any credit, they uploaded the copycat version and then tried to bury the original and not credit Univah at all. You see a pattern here, this is now several people from different countries, different walks of life, all of them have seen Univah, get too jealous to admit its exceptional, so they watch in SILENCE, never have anything positive to say about us, but they study and obsess over our work so they can create cheap lesser-than derivatives and then promote that. How pathetic and sad.
We emailed Hao Fei over two months ago to give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he did this without knowing. If so, we gave him over two months to completely change his naming conventions from Univa to something else more original. He and all the collaborators named on the project ignored my emails.
Step 2: Good Faith Ignored, DMCA Begins
On July 27th we contacted YouTube and reported every single YouTube channel promoting the Ai Project made by Hao Fei. Every single YouTube channel was given a copyright strike, 3 strikes your channel is permanently deleted. Their videos promoting that ai wrapper were deleted.
Here are the links to three channels we reported.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STu94A0gvJE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtSZSqR6axs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtSZSqR6axs
As you can see, those videos have been removed permanently.
Step 3: Report Hai Fei To Oxford Disciplinary Board
Step 4: Report Hai Fei’s GitHub repository for removal.
Step 5: Report Hao Fei’s research papers on Arxiv for removal.
Step 6: Report Hao Fei to Open Review, Peer Review and make SIGGRAPH AWARE of Acamedic intellectual property theft.
Siggraph has also been emailed(July 28th 2026) and warned that if they accept works from so called “researchers” that are cheap copies of technology that has been already pioneered by our company, they will be sued. We do not tolerate anyone taking credit and receiving glory for breakthroughs we already achieved years before them. For example, some bearded loser from Belgium presented Ai promptable camera at SIGGRAPH real-time live, another overly expensive, server dependent, laggy and glitchy, overly flickering cheap AI wannabe of Univah Film Engine’s Render Style Switching, a technology we pioneered since 2022.
As of July 28th 2026, all six steps have been taken against Hao Fei. He was given plenty of opportunity to repent and do the right thing. He is a demonically influenced individual and he will now face the consequences of his behaviors over the past 9 months.
NOTICE & INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WARNING
WE ARE A 100% NON-AI COMPANY. None of our products rely on overly expensive, inefficient AI cloud servers, meaning all of our software can operate entirely offline once your license key is authenticated. We have zero cloud dependency.
The Univah Film Engine™ and The Univah Film Engine SDK™—created for those who demand better than AI, praised by Hollywood industry leaders for being faster than AI, and built entirely from scratch—alongside our proprietary procedural motion graphics and visual effects system rReligionVFX™ (or rReligion™) and the make me™ character creator, have been publicly developed and commercialized by The Stephanie Michaels Software Company™ since 2021.
We are the exclusive, sole owners of this intellectual property.
WARNING TO COPYCATS: No unauthorized copying, mimicking, or clout-chasing using our name or confusingly similar derivatives will be tolerated. Researchers, developers, and creators must ensure their naming conventions are entirely distinct and original.
Adopting near-identical naming conventions in the same software and production category (such as attempting to launch a conflicting “Univa” or “Unovo” “Univo” project against our established brand) violates common-law trademark infringement and unfair competition principles (pursuant to the likelihood of confusion framework under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)). As the legal saying goes, it is like trying to open a chicken restaurant named “Pop Eye” without the “s”—it is fundamentally unoriginal, legally indistinguishable from an established market leader, and an unlawful misappropriation of our prior commercial rights and brand identity.