Quote:
Originally Posted by mugaliens
Thanks for making my point for me:
"The burden of proof, therefore, usually lies with the party making the new claim." - 10011001's Wikipedia link
If you're going to claim a hotlinked image falls outside the rules, the burden of proof is on you, my friend.
|
Read it again. Look for the word
exception this time.
Here. I'll spoonfeed you.
Wikipedia: Burden of proof:
Quote:
|
The exception to this rule is when a prima facie case has been made.
|
The link is just data, until someone, like me, sees it but then prima facie, by its appearance, it is invalid. There's no evidence provided that it is valid, not even its own name. It appears invalid and is therefore treated as invalid.
When a mod looks, the mod will remove the hotlink. See
example former-hotlinked image. If the hotlink is to be restored, the burden, the obligation to provide evidence, is on the poster.
If the poster accepts the burden, and provides persuasive evidence from the beginning, the hotlink will stay a hotlink. Isn't that what you are after? Just accept it.
If you're hoping that invalid-looking hotlinks will be assumed valid until proven invalid, you must be thinking of some other forum. It's not BAUT.
You already
got an opinion about the burden of proof from a mod. If you disagree, ask others, or escalate it.
Quote:
|
The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the person linking to the image that it's used in accordance with the license of the hosting site as well as in accordance with copyright law.
|