Kelly Martin wrote:
On 6/21/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
I am very much copyright-unparanoid, but in the absence of any credible indication that the entity calling itself CoolCat wrote the material, we must presume the opposite. If CoolCat disagrees with that presumption, the burden of proof is on she/he/it.
Whatever happened to "assume good faith"?
No need to stop doing that. Verifiability also applies. In most situations the contributor's copyright will go unchallenged; that's a presumption of good faith. Anyone can raise a reasonable doubt (as opposed to a random challenge); that's when the contributor's burden of response kicks in. If he says that his work is completely original that shifts the burden, because he cannot be asked to show something that does not exist. If the similarity of his contributions to something else goes beyond coincidence, then he has a need to clarify the situation.
Ec