Thread:Sannse/@comment-970089-20141122213554/@comment-970089-20141123135245

The problem we have is Leon,  Saying its PD Does not make it so. We have evidence this is not the case when we have searched for your images, and in the searching that has been done has revealed no PD sources. If you have pulled them from PD sources (which if you had should have lead us to PD websites when performing a reverse image seach) then you haven't done full due dilligance - however the question remains if you had pulled them from a PD website as you claim, why can't we find it when we do a reverse image search?

The preponderance of the evidence suggests that there may not be a PD site at all.

We've asked you to provided sources proving they're that they're PD, you haven't been able to do this, we've only been able to find sources that show they are.

As such, I would respectfully ask you to stop throwing around this "PD" title until or unless you can prove the assertion. Previous requests and appeals for you to prove this assertion have failed.

Asserting Public Domain when something isn't is that much different to theft. You are permenently denying the the content owner the full use and control of their property without their consent.

Good faith could appply if there was no evidence of any copyright infringement, now that we know that is not the case, the burden of proof is with you to prove your assertion that they are PD; if you cannot you should bring yourself within legal requirements for the use of copyrighted works.