[macromega]

LK, you have not phrased this "discussion" as an inquiry. You have accused me, previously of copyright infringement and, in your most recent message in this thread, of plagiarism.

I still maintain this should have been discussed with me before you made it public, especially in light of your history of flaming items from Giantess Fan Comics posted here. It's also basic human relations. You raise the question initially with the individual, then raise the matter publicly if it's unresolved.

I am on Giantess Fan's staff; I'm a senior editor for them. We discussed this comic throughout the process of its creation. They followed my posts on other sites about the story's origins.

I resent the rather clear indications that you think I and/or Giantess Fan committed plagiarism here. I resent even more the clear implication that you believe I would try to slide a stolen work by my publishers.

As originally written, this was to be a two-issue series that was virtually all giantess content and featured four main characters. That certainly does not describe "Maggie and Jane." It was edited down in the process of its creation to its current length, and one major character was cut almost completely out. (She appears in only one scene now, and has no major role.)

Your assessment of my claims also is inaccurate. I do not claim to have "changed" enough elements; this isn't the same story. I told the story I wanted to tell, and it is my own story, an original story with a parallel jumping-off point, but not the same story or characters.

Since your complaints here, other professionals have reviewed “Maya & June” and told me there's no infringement or plagiarism of "Maggie and Jane." They volunteered this information; I didn't ask them to do that. It's not the same story.

I posted preview information months ago explaining this story's origins, but also explaining that it was an original story based on a similar idea. I'm sorry that you feel there's some sort of infringement here. I have repeatedly acknowledged that it is a tribute to Maggie and Jane, yet you persist in insisting it is plagiarism.

Now you want to use my acknowledgement of the story's tribute aspect against me, and to flame Giantess Fan in the process. You have a history of doing the latter, so I suppose that shouldn't surprise me.

Here's the thing, LK. You can't copyright an idea. There are a lot of stories, some of which predate Maggie and Jane, about computers with programs that change the size of people in the real world. This story is substantially different from Maggie and Jane, using that idea as a springboard. That's legitimate.

I have been writing and editing as my full-time employment for 17 years, including both fiction and (under another name) non-fiction, including coverage of the legal system. I also abhor plagiarism. Since the tendency now is for people who don’t know what plagiarism is to cry “plagiarism” over the slightest similarity, no matter how coincidental, I chose to share the tribute aspect of the story so the public was aware of it.

As to the copyright status of "Maggie and Jane," I have been made aware that there are some interpretations of copyright law that say that simply publishing something constitutes a copyright of the work. But the law clearly says you can't copyright an idea, and we've been clear about the story's background.

And failure to protect a copyright is a legitimate consideration in whether the work is in the public domain.

But all the copyright discussion is a side issue, since it’s not the same story.

It seems to me your major beef is that you feel a credit to ddral should be on the actual comic. I simply don't agree. It's not uncommon for authors to use a concept from another source in their own stories. Look at how many knockoffs of "Groundhog Day" are out there. And ddral had nothing to do with writing this comic.

Again, the way this most recent post of yours is phrased is clearly an accusation. Since what you are alleging could be considered a criminal act, you are accusing me of a crime. THAT certainly should have been done privately first, not publicly. You have chosen to confront and combat rather than try to sort out. You claim this is an inquiry, but the starkness of your stance says it is an inquisition.

I have no doubt you will respond with a presentation on copyright law and/or plagiarism and why you feel what I'm doing is wrong/illegal. It's clearly what you're gearing up for in the last few paragraphs of your accusation.

Your signature here says, “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.” Don’t kid yourself. You aren’t discussing ideas or anything else; you’re issuing judgment.

You ended your last message in this thread saying, “I will break here to allow an opportunity for you to respond and clarify if I am accurate about the facts and the arguments before proceeding.”

Oh, thank you, O self-appointed prosecutor, judge and jury, for allowing me time to respond before you pronounce me guilty! For that is clearly what you intend to do, using the kangaroo court of a forum you control to do things that would get others in trouble.

This is a ridiculous effort to defame my character over an imagined offense and in a manner that may cost me income in my role as a professional writer. It is out of line and it is wrong. I won’t take further part in this discussion, and the defamation needs to stop immediately.