Bougie, you have written an extensive defence of yourself while leaving the simplest question unanswered: why was quoting the photographer’s original post such an unreasonable suggestion? Let us examine your explanation. 1. “90% of my videos are of myself.” The dispute concerns a video made by somebody else. The proportion of your other content featuring you tells us nothing about whether you handled his work properly. Ninety per cent of your wardrobe could be your own; we would still be discussing the particular coat in question. 2. You say you deleted it when you saw his message. Then the upload was addressed. Your subsequent remarks are a separate matter. You repeatedly portrayed objections as greed, described people as blinded by money and dismissed them as silly. Deleting a video does not explain why you then chose to belittle the person who made it. 3. His handle appeared TWICE. A watermark identifies the creator. It does not, by itself, establish permission to download and republish his work. Two watermarks do not amount to two permissions. Indeed, your insistence that his identity was so prominently displayed makes the suggestion of finding his original post sound remarkably straightforward. 4. The Coca-Cola comparison. You are confusing identifying a brand with authorising the reproduction of someone’s work. The objection concerns downloading and republishing a recording. Whether viewers can recognise who created it does not settle that objection. Your analogy answers a question about identification while sidestepping the question about reuse. 5. His original had 3.6 million views; yours had approximately 16,000. Neither figure establishes whether he lost money. Nor does his success establish that his objection was unreasonable. A creator does not have to demonstrate financial desperation before asking someone to respect how his work is shared. Previously, you argued that accounts with millions of impressions were doing creators a favour. Now you emphasise how few views this particular upload received. Neither argument answers why you could not simply quote the original. 6. He has 100,000 followers and you have 50,000. And? Courtesy is not allocated according to follower count. A larger account can have a legitimate objection to a smaller one. You have also publicly celebrated half a million supporters across your platforms, thanked people for increasing your visibility and displayed a financial-support link. You are perfectly entitled to build an audience and seek support. But sneering at another creator as money-hungry requires rather more justification than his refusal to accept your preferred use of his footage. Apply the generosity you expect for your own motives to his. 7. People are calling for you to be sued. Those people’s demands are not a substitute for addressing what the photographer actually said. His public response described a private message and suggested deleting the upload, quoting the original and acknowledging the mistake. You can disagree with calls for litigation while still answering that entirely practical proposal. 8. “The right seriously needs to get a grip.” Shared politics does not oblige people to excuse your conduct. Calling criticism “infighting” invites your audience to treat accountability as disloyalty. That is a convenient standard for whoever happens to be receiving the criticism. The photographer offered a way to circulate the footage while keeping it directly attached to his original post. That rather undermines the suggestion that he was standing in the way of public awareness. You could have accepted that solution without questioning his motives. Instead, you keep explaining why everyone else should find his objection ridiculous. A little less indignation about your reputation, and a little more consideration for the person whose work you used, would have served you considerably better. Yours in courtesy that survives an objection, A Gentleman from the Old School.