Picture thief, strikes again!!

[Graeme Robson]

This is starting to Pff me off!!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/BOTIA-HISTRIONICA ... dZViewItem

[Emma Turner]

Grrrr! Have you sent them an e-mail?

[Joe Loach]

Welcome to the club.

These are both my pics:

http://tropicalfishgallery.com/species- ... isoni.html

[Graeme Robson]

I've sent him a e-mail and he says he will remove the pictures today.

Joe, yup it's annoying!
We wouldn't mind if ask first. It's nice to be appreciated. >>http://www.northeastaquatics.co.uk/ (one of my Torp's)

[Martin Thoene]

I wrote to this company in September and was told the fish would be removed......well............

http://www.aquatics-warehouse.co.uk/acatalog/

I discovered a pic of Beaufortia kweichowensis on another site last week. As I told Aquatic Warehouse, I have no problem with anybody using my photos as long as they ask. With it being my artwork and used for commercial purposes, I'm totally against it and told them so.

The reply blamed its useage on a now defunct company who designed their site. I appreciate the compliment of them wanting to use it, but it's just plain bad manners. In this case, had I been asked by them if they could use it I would have refused due to its close association with this site and of course the new LOL site where it features everywhere.

Martin.

[Emma Turner]

Martin, I think a little 'bump' is probably in order. They've had long enough to remove our famous LOL Clown logo by now!

Emma

[wasserscheu]

... i´ve no experience and no detailed knowhow, but in case of e-Bay, I´d inform e-bay. As e-bay is profiting as well from sales. E-Bay could be accused of participating theft, once e-bay has been made aware of the facts and proof of ownership ... therefore e-bay may help removing the pic´s. ...

... in the long run, such stealing will lead to Artists putting their ID right in the centre of the fish and that would be a loss to LOL

... The one who uses the logo is legaly to blame, if the displaying party "bought" the logo at any site-designer (who simply stole the artwork), the Displaying party has to sue the designer. The artist sues the "displayer"...

... any lawers around?

Wolfram

[Ken]

Mark found this one of mine a couple of years ago. As usual, I would have happily let them use it if they had asked but since they didn't, I told them to take it down. I never got a reply but at least they added my name.

http://www.israquarium.co.il/Fish/Botia ... morei.html

[mickthefish]

put your name as near to the fish as possible.
or take the buggers to court. haha

[shari2]

Wow Ken. That's a blast from the past for me. Oddly enough, i can still read the Hebrew, though I haven't done it much in years. Thanks.

[newshound]

I have not read the rest of the post but according to CDN copyright laws you can sue for up to $6400 with out having to explain the cost in court.
I am a professional photographer and have images "ripped" all the time.
Google images helps people do this. It pisses me off to no end.
Business should know better...but if they do it anyway make them pay!

[Graeme Robson]

Taking into account of what all suggested, i think it's time for my Watermark program.

[Mark in Vancouver]

Actually, I prefer the occasional use of my photos to placing a watermark over them. I don't want someone claiming they took my pictures or selling my pictures, but in the digital age when any idiot with a cell phone can take pictures, the whole "art" angle is a bit pretentious, IMO.

We have every right to email them and demand either a photo credit or an immediate withdrawal off the net. Copyright is implied, and people who don't get that need to learn a lesson, for sure. But how much money would anyone expect to win in a lawsuit over a borrowed loach picture? That's absurd.

Anyway, typing your name over the thing you want to share with people seems like the wrong answer. Some of the photos for one species of loach on the new site has the photographer's name in letters larger than the fish! What's the point of that? Once an image is sent into cyberspace, I don't know how much claim you really have that it remains your "property" in the normal sense of the word.

A simple photo credit would be enough for me.

[adampetherick]

It's all about the DMCA, if you email the isp/host of the website your pictures are on they can force the user to remove them or risk having their site shut down

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA

[Ken]

I'm with Mark on this one. If your watermark wrecks the picture, why bother posting it? If you put you name somewhere on the pic that doesn't wreck it, it's easy to crop or edit it out so why bother?