[LK]

I read over your response; my tone and methods have had a strong influence in how events have developed. Oh well?

Your most recent response has statements that are difficult to substantiate and seem to distract from the issue. What happens behind closed doors has only your word to go on; hence why I am prioritizing transparency. Further, labeling my actions and words and telling me what I should be doing seems important enough for you to spend considerable time doing it. This is not about me and what I am or am not doing, nor your feelings over it.

You have made considerable effort to distinguish your work from Maggie and Jane (without mentioning it by name) in your DeviantArt postings. You had the foresight to try and head off anyone that might see a link between the two as I did. You go further still to highlight the differences between your work and Maggie and Jane on this forum.

You knew your work might be suspected of plagarism for months, and yet you are still offended when someone suspected you of plagarism.

I am not here about differences, but similarities, and not over the idea of a size-changing PC. That is taking things to far too abstract a level.

Your posts can be interpreted as acknowledgment that there *are* similarities. Why would you feel the need to not only distinguish your work, but explicitly state how Maggie and Jane is in the public domain? What other Giantess Fan work has necessitated that?

You say it is a tribute in one place, that it is your take in another, and that Maggie and Jane was an inspiration in this thread. Well, which is it? Regardless, on a fundamental level, you *do* acknowledge that there is some creative link between Maya and June and Maggie and Jane.

You stress, on multiple occasions, that this work is in the public domain, but that seems to be based on your personal determination rather than knowledge of its status in the eyes of the law. You weren't able to locate the original work, and you have not indicated you did any research except observations about what other people were doing with the work. Notably, the others you cite did not use their works to earn money.

Citing that a failure to protect one's own copyright can be one factor when considering whether a creative work should be put into the public domain (source?) has no bearing on what the copyright status of ddral's work actually is. As someone who claims to have covered legal matters, you should be familiar with the automatic copyright protection of creative works and what a derivative work is.

You are correct that all this was because I thought there should be a credit on the Credits page that Maya and June was based on Maggie and Jane rather than implying it is your sole creation. It is your opinion that there should be no such credit based on your reasoning. I do not find your arguments convincing or strong. In fact, I see you leveraging fallacies to give the appearance of strength, which undermines your credibility in my eyes.

I leave things here.