Copyright Infringement

[nixer]

This goes back to my original point (better known as a complaint to the chosen ). You could ask and even embarrass but if they refuse to take down the picture, you're SOL unless you want to spend some money.

thats when you email the webhost

[JohnNJ]

You obviously dont understand. Photos=snakes in the online business. Most people dont have the luxury of going to check out a breeder to see if he actually has that screaming hot pastel that looks a hell of a lot like the picture on NERD...

You see the point now?

Of course I see your point but you refuse to concede mine. I admit it's just semantics but if photos=snakes, then refer to the snakes not the photos / copyright infringement.

[JLC]

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were fishing for a way to justify using other people's photos for your own purposes...poking around to see if there's really any real repercussions for doing so.

But I'm sure that's not what you're doing.

Even if there is not some legal means of forcing someone to cease and desist an illegal action, it does not mean that action is any more legal or justifiable or not-wrong to do. It's just plain WRONG to use someone else's photos without their knowledge and consent, and all the more so if you don't even bother giving credit to the person who owns it in the first place.

[ThyTempest]

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were fishing for a way to justify using other people's photos for your own purposes...poking around to see if there's really any real repercussions for doing so.

But I'm sure that's not what you're doing.

Even if there is not some legal means of forcing someone to cease and desist an illegal action, it does not mean that action is any more legal or justifiable or not-wrong to do. It's just plain WRONG to use someone else's photos without their knowledge and consent, and all the more so if you don't even bother giving credit to the person who owns it in the first place.

Exactly. Thanks.

[JLC]

I get that people may be motivated to expose scammers but they're not using the right approach. Instead of focusing on the snakes, they're focusing on the photos. You may believe they are the same thing but they're not.

I don't know if anyone will "concede your point" because your point does not make much sense. Stolen photos are the bright, flashing neon arrows pointing toward the scammer.

And no...not all use of stolen photos on the 'Net equals a scam (in the monetary sense)...some people just like to make themselves look better by having fancy photos on their websites (whether it's snakes or scenery or whatever)....and rather than go to the trouble of taking them themselves, or paying for them, or even just asking for permission....they think it's fine to take someone else's work and use it however they want. They may not be out to make money with the stolen photos, but it's still wrong and shows a distinct lack of integrity and character in the person who would knowingly do it.

[JohnNJ]

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were fishing for a way to justify using other people's photos for your own purposes...poking around to see if there's really any real repercussions for doing so.

But I'm sure that's not what you're doing.

Even if there is not some legal means of forcing someone to cease and desist an illegal action, it does not mean that action is any more legal or justifiable or not-wrong to do. It's just plain WRONG to use someone else's photos without their knowledge and consent, and all the more so if you don't even bother giving credit to the person who owns it in the first place.

I may not have made this clear in my original post but I was a professional photographer. People paid me money to use my photos. I know what the repercussions are.

My approach to photo use is pretty basic. I look at intent. I once had a Grad student link to a photo on my website of a historic building. She used it as an example of some sort of architecture and she never gave me credit. She hot linked it also. Guess what? I let her slide and never said a word. I presumed her intent did not warrant an attack from me.

I have had people use my photos on their websites, giving me credit and posting a link back to my site. Even though they never asked for permission I let it slide because of their intent.

If someone was using my snake photos to scam a buyer, their intent is so far removed from copyright infringement that it would never enter the equation.

There's wrong and then there's WRONG!

[Bruce Whitehead]

If someone was using my snake photos to scam a buyer, their intent is so far removed from copyright infringement that it would never enter the equation.

There's wrong and then there's WRONG!

For me (at least). I feel there is a huge element of "creed" going on when someone takes a pic and uses it.

I have vented about this with a few online friends in the past.

I knew a person, new to snakes, that picked up a few possible het recessives for the price of normals. Cause that is what they are.

And when I visited the site, I saw "Projects" and there were pics of pieds, hypos, you name it... as well as an amazing bio regarding the vast amount of experience and love of animals dating back many years.

Sure this individual had always loved snakes, but this person had JUST gotten to point of owning them, considering breeding, and did not have even rudimentary genetics knowledge yet.

I knew this, because I knew them personally.

But were I to wander across this page, and see those pics... suddenly this person has creed. They have experience, they have knowledge, they have just upped their credibility tenfold.

Their site would have superceded mine. Because my Albino, Clown, Axanthic, Hypo, and Pied projects are just hets, and that is what would show on my site.

There is more to it than merely being inconsiderate.

By the time I invest the time, energy, resources and knowledge to produce a Pied and then post it. That will speak for itself.

If I go to a site and I see 3 normals and 2 WCs... I know this person is new to the hobby... I see tons of morphs, and not just morphs, but well photographed top notch examples of them, that leads me to believe that I am dealing with someone with experience.

This person may not outwardly be scamming me, but their online persona is a fraud, whether intentionally meant to be that way or not.

There is a reason people never steal crappy pics...

Bruce

[fishmommy]

oh dear. I saw an interesting legal question and responded, not realizing that this was a sort of troll cave type posting.

Sorry for adding fuel to this...if I had realized this had 'undertones' I would have simply moved on rather than participate.

ugh.

[hoax]

but you refuse to concede mine.

It is hard to concede a point that makes no sense to you and seem like it is there to just argue or justify something with in the OP.

I don't know if anyone will "concede your point" because your point does not make much sense. Stolen photos are the bright, flashing neon arrows pointing toward the scammer.

^^^^^ He has to listen long enough and stop trying to prove his point. I have not been married for long but to get your point across you have to listen to the other side.^^^^^^^

Mike