Thread:Sannse/@comment-970089-20141122213554/@comment-970089-20141123193249

"So I do, in-fact, expect good faith upon my words and actions, instead of this allegations that are backed up by absolutely nothing."

When all images were of unknown provinance, the doctrine of good faith would mean that there could be a presumption.

Good faith however does not mean that we should be willfully ignorant when evidence is presented contrary to the claim. We know a good number of your images are suspect. This isn't an accusation that you've intentionally done anything wrong - but we cannot take your claim of Public domain for all images on good faith because we know that claim to be wrong.

"You are also purposefully taking my words out of context,I have expressly stated to you, through various communications, that I am openly looking for information in regards to original artists, and that I am perfectly willing to remove any images that are modified, or that I cannot get permissions from, in regards to copyright-holding artists that are found."

What you are doing now is beside the point. Copyright does not an exist on a "You cann use it anyway and hope you get away with it" basis. We gave you an opportunity to put it right - an opportunity which stictly speaking we should not have. As a precaution when that time expired we had to remove the images. If/when you can prove they are public domain and/or bring yourself in line with correct licensing they can be restored.

"To be perfectly frank, I am already growing tired of you and Jasper making transparent accusations, with no evidence to back them up"

I find it Ironic that you are demanding good faith whilst accusing us of bad faith.

The thing we have accused you of is asserting these images are public domain incorrectly. We know that is not the case. To claim that this accusation is "without evidence" when you have already conceeded some of them are not public domain is rather... well I dont know what the word is.

"Look at Wikia avatars. Do you think even the slightest portion of users on Wikia, give credit to the copyright-owners of the images being used in most avatars?"

Avatar images are often released by the copyright holder explicity for people to use as avatars, that makes them public domain or licensed, depending on the sitation. In any case, somebody elses small scale infringement is not an excuse for your large scale infringement.

"I will use our home wiki as an example - We are not endorsed by any of the Falloutcreators, nor are we endorsed by Lionheart's creators. Yet we continually use content that is theirs, without ever asking for permission. Credit is sometimes given, but you and I both know that is technically not enough."

Credit is not relevant, the issue is whether or not the image is a) Licensed, b) Public domain or c) a fair use excemption applies.

Our use of those images falls within recoginsed fair use exceptions:


 * quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations


 * quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations

You have not asserted fair use, and I do not think the closest example (Parody) would apply in this case.

"In return, I have been hit with unfounded allegations, exaggerations which have been proven wrong (on Nukapedia), threats, outright sanctimony, and simple disrespect."

We're still waiting for this "proof" that we're wrong Leon. Either show these images are PD as you assert - in the face of evidence that they are not, or stop claiming persection. Rather than "Disrespect" we have given you every opportunity to put the record straight. For one reason or another you have not been able to do so.

You then say you have gone over our heads to get permission somewhere else (which is not acting with respect), and then get upset that we dare to set out our side of the story.

I do not feel you have a full grasp of the issues here. You keep asserting we have some problem with public domain - we dont. You also seem to think "Credit" is the issue - its not - Credit is only an issue for coming into complaince with the CC-BY-SA license.

The problem is you apparently have incorrectly asserted images are public domain. When asked to prove your assertion you have objected to the very idea that you should have to show such a thing - even when evidence mounts that you are wrong.

Copyright continues to apply, even when you are unable, or unwilling, to do the work to find out who has it. Something does not become public domain because it is too hard for you to comply with the rules.