Warning to all caithness photographers

[Douglas Cowie]

I was passing the craft shop in High Street in Wick today and noticed one of my photographs for sale which was a surprise as I hadn't put any in the shop for sale. The photo an HDR is of the anchor at Ackergill; I spoke to the shop owner who was somewhat taken aback he told me it had been put in by Jennifer Rossa of Caithness Crafts, I went home and got a print of the photo and it's the same photo down to the very last cloud! It's obviously been downoaded and printed. The guy in the shop was really embarrassed as she signed a contract stating that the work she was selling was her own. He has withdrawn it from sale.
This woman tried to buy images from me previously to sell as canvas prints but I refused, she has obviously decided to use my photos anyway!! It's not even on a canvas just a straight print, I'm amazed at her cheek. She posts on here as "tatbabe" check out this post which links to a photobucket site selling oil painting look prints; one of the photos of Keiss harbour was taken by Michael Beales but is being passed off as her own, not nice!!

http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?179052-Oil-painting-look-prints&p=957227#post957227

http://s1178.photobucket.com/albums/x366/salecaithness/Oil%20painting%20look%20prints/#!cpZZ1QQtppZZ36

[Douglas Cowie]

Here is a link to Michael's photo, spot the difference, no, there is none!

http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=320717534627799&set=a.177551165611104.40073.100000686648012&type=3&theater

[Tilly Teckel]

She certainly has some cheek, and doesn't even have the intelligence to be discreet about it! I'd say legal action is called for, especially as she signed a contract stating the pictures were her own. I'm not her biggest fan anyway, but that's a whole other story...

[Douglas Cowie]

Here's another double take; a nice photo by Julie Fraser, spot her name at the bottom:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/julie_fraser/4880154335/in/photostream/

Now the name is gone and Caithness Craft designed by Jennifer Rossa is credited;

http://www.uniquelydifferent.co.ukwww.uniquelydifferent.e tsy.comwww.uniquelydifferent.folksy.com/items/3054938-Loch-Watten

This is disgraceful!!

[mufasa]

jennifer rossa
a dam con artist all beware water -mark all from now on ,not happy

[Mystical Potato Head]

I notice the photobucket photos have been deleted,wonder how many others she has ripped off.
I would take legal action against her because she has knowingly tried to sell other peoples photos as her own.

Some people are genuinely not aware of copyright and i've had several issues with people who think its ok to download
photos and use them for their websites with no credit given.Although they were not selling the photos its still a breach of copyright
and it took the threat of legal action before one of them would remove a Northern Lights shot from their site.

Jennifer Rossa is playing a different game altogether,cashing in on other peoples work that she has stated is her own and for that she deserves to be sued
and i've just come across these but they have since been deleted.

I've just noticed Jennifer Rossa on Folksy.
She had a framed photo of Dale Mill for sale,i viewed it once then when i tried again it was gone.
also a Caithness Rainbow for sale which interested me because i have a few caithness rainbow shots to my name.
She must have deleted her account now she has been rumbled because it now says user could not be found.

Disgraceful indeed.

[Mystical Potato Head]

After an image search of Jennifer Rossa,Caithness Crafts i came up with these.All 3 associated with
a user cannot be found Folksy account.

This is the Dale Mill image,it may well be her own but if you think its yours then speak up.


This is the original photo i think and below it is the made to look like an oil painting photo.

http://i374.photobucket.com/albums/oo189/sat5_photos/dalemillcpy.jpg

http://i374.photobucket.com/albums/oo189/sat5_photos/images.jpg

Heres the Dunnet beach one.

http://i374.photobucket.com/albums/oo189/sat5_photos/dunnet.jpg

[egregory]

there is a advert on the forum under Furniture For Sale selling oil paintings.

[dragonfly]

I for one will be taking legal advice on the matter and have advised her of the fact, she was none too bothered, just told me she would not be selling anymore and deleting her account, no apology or no plea of ignorance of copyright laws. I took a screen grab and a print of the page before it was deleted so have my proof.

thanks Douglas for alerting me to the fact

[dragonfly]

After an image search of Jennifer Rossa,Caithness Crafts i came up with these.All 3 associated with
a user cannot be found Folksy account.

This is the Dale Mill image,it may well be her own but if you think its yours then speak up.


This is the original photo i think and below it is the made to look like an oil painting photo.

http://i374.photobucket.com/albums/oo189/sat5_photos/dalemillcpy.jpg

http://i374.photobucket.com/albums/oo189/sat5_photos/images.jpg

Heres the Dunnet beach one.

http://i374.photobucket.com/albums/oo189/sat5_photos/dunnet.jpg

I've seen that dunnet image before......it might be one of Jamie's (northlight)

[Bobinovich]

I managed to get a full screen grab of the Westerdale Mill one above from her Folksy page as it looked familiar - if the TRUE owner would like a copy PM me your e-mail address and I'll send it on. I've been through copyright theft with one of my designs before, so I hope she gets what she deserves...

[zappster]

Absolutely shocking... take her to court peeps

[Deemac]

Thanks for raising this issue. All the links seem to now be dead! I had the chairman of the Society of Caithness artists in my studio last night and have highlighted this issue to him as well.

[dragonfly]

MPH, she's got at least one of yours too, selling it in a pack of 4 6x4 prints

14101

also this other one of mine

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2738/4509277128_6386c712ca_b.jpg

[Douglas Cowie]

MPH she has 3 of yours for sale: Weydale, Harolds Tower and Forss Mill, she also has Loch Calder by Ormlie in her hoard.
I obtained a set of thumbnail prints from Made In Scotland in Wick of 24 photos she has for sale, it appears only 1 is hers, myself and Julie have been trying to work our way through them, she has at least 4 of Julie's, 2 of mine and 2 of Michael Beales, astonishing!!

[dragonfly]

wish my scanner was working as I'd scan it in to see if anyone else recognised their work

[Gronnuck]

Time methinks you photographers got together with a solicitor to present a united front and took the alleged perpetrator to court. This shameful act of piracy cannot go unchallenged.

[dragonfly]

I am! and have just found out this bit of info.......I think that selling on images/products would constitute a business....after all, she called it Caithness Craft Photos and Canvas Prints

"Flagrancy and criminality – If the image was used by a business, where the infringer knew or ought to have known that the image was protected by copyright, then they have committed a criminal offence punishable by up to two years in prison and/or a fine. This is the criminal offence commonly known as “copyright theft”. It is distinct from the criminal offence known as “piracy”, which involves dealing in physical articles such as pirated DVD’s. Copyright theft is also a separate crime from, and should not be confused with, ‘theft’ within the meaning of the Theft Act 1968."
\

anyone recognise their work in about this lot, sorry for poor quality, taken from thumbnails on ebay

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/458273_393930473978063_609924349_o.jpg

[j_1971son]

Warning- the craft shop in Wick is usually considered to be BB&C. WE DO NOT SELL PHOTO'S either our own or other peoples. Perhaps you would like to change your comments or name the actual shop concerned as we feel aggrieved that our customers have commented to us about this believing us to be the offenders. WE ARE NOT HAPPY.

BB&C
BRIDGE STREET
WICK

[Douglas Cowie]

Sorry BB&C but I don't think of you as a craft shop selling such items, more as a supplier, I think everyone concerned with this post knows you don't sell photos and they know who we are referring to so there is no need to be concerned at all. The shops full title is Made in Caithness but they are in no way culpable as they have been totally hoodwinked.

[Mystical Potato Head]

I've just remembered she pm'd me a couple of times back in March asking advice on taking sunset shots,asking what software i used,how i photoshopped shots to get them to look like the did.
Obviously too difficult for her to try,doubt if she even made the effort to try.The only thing she tried was to make money from the work of others,knowingly and quite deliberately.

Well after this hopefully all she can sell now is her brass neck.Hopefully all the county will know about her and avoid anything and everything to do with her "local craftwork"

She should be banned from here as well.

She even asked for unwanted photo frames from orgers so not only did she rip off others photos, she also tried to get the frames for next to nowt or nowt as well.

[Tatbabe]

I would like to apologize and am deeply sorry about the upset I have caused - I know this doesn't make things better or change things.

All downloaded photos have been deleted and I am confirming I will no longer use them.

I would like to meet with all parties concerned or their representative to find a solution to this unfortunate situation, i.e. signing a document consisting of terms and conditions of not violating future copy rights and associated consequences.

[pat]

Tatbabe
What about the pictures etc you have already sold - do you know where and to whom they have been sold? You have lied and cheated and thought the folk in Caithness would be so laid back and not know anything about copyright.
Why did you not take you own pictures?
I consider an apology is nowhere near compensation for lying, cheating and conning people into buying something which is not yours in the first place - the word CROOK with knowledge and intent springs to mind, lying cheating lowlife scum is another term I would consider.

A photographer friend here on Lewis has had to overprint each and every photo of his on display on the web, has put his name in huge letters across the entire collectionto try to stop this type of thing happening, dispite this many of his photos have continued to be used on various web pages with no accreditation or permission. At present he is pursuing many of the people using his photographs illegally on web sites through the copyright system.

[ShelleyCowie]

I would like to apologize and am deeply sorry about the upset I have caused - I know this doesn't make things better or change things.

All downloaded photos have been deleted and I am confirming I will no longer use them.

I would like to meet with all parties concerned or their representative to find a solution to this unfortunate situation, i.e. signing a document consisting of terms and conditions of not violating future copy rights and associated consequences.

I know im no part of this, but in my opinion signing a piece of paper just wouldnt cut it. You signed a piece of paper in a shop stating the prints taken were yours so it could be sold. So obviously documents means nothing to you. And you should know copyright laws, so its not as if you never knew what you was doing.

You say you have deleted all images, but are you going to pay the photographers who actually took the photos, the money you have made from them?

[CHUF]

The shop Made In Caithness is a unique shop as it does not buy in commencial products and sell them as crafts. In fact at my own expense, time and effort allong with the much appreciated dedicated volunteer staff the shop provides an outlet for residents of Caithness only,to sell their artwork or craftwork directly to the public, which has to be hand made by the seller, thus hopefully retaining the highly skilled arts and crafts of this county. A small percentage being deducted towards the costs involved.
Every effort is made to ensure high quality and that there is no infringement of copyright, including the signing of a contract covering all such matters. However unscrupulous fraudsters are very hard to detect.
Jennifer Rossa falls into this category."Her photographs" were a recent entry and had only been displayed for 4 days in which time there had been no sales of any of her items.
When Douglas Cowie informed me that one of her pictures was in fact a copy of one of his, I immediately withdrew all her items. She has been informed that her items have been retained in case they should be required for further action by the holders of copyright.
We are not the only victims of this crime in Wick, she has had at least one other outlet, and as you can read on Caithness.org's Photography forum, you will see how many people she has conned, not only here in Caithness, but on the web also.
I would be interested to know how many other people have come across her "Sales/Adverts".

[Dadie]

I think it will take a lot more than an apology and a bit of paper signed....no matter what the document says.
You have a blatent disregard to paperwork and what it says.
You have abused the photographers work on so many levels, and on different sites, for sale at silly prices.
And thought you wouldnt be found out!
I dont know if stealing copyright is for the criminal or civil courts, but, I think you should be punished by the court system as it was a premeditated crime to line your pockets from other peoples work.

[upolian]

Has anybody looked at the latest copyright law regarding photographs? Also why people put water marks at the bottom or bottom of a photograph is beyond me,good luck getting a prosecution,majority of photos weren't even copyright in accordance to the copyright law... o

Still not a nice thing to do,knowingly taking and selling photos that are not your own,apology? Pfffffft damage is done

[gillsbay]

Has anybody looked at the latest copyright law regarding photographs? Also why people put water marks at the bottom or bottom of a photograph is beyond me,good luck getting a prosecution,majority of photos weren't even copyright in accordance to the copyright law... o

Still not a nice thing to do,knowingly taking and selling photos that are not your own,apology? Pfffffft damage is done

I think the law on copyright is fairly clear:-

Who owns the copyright on photographs?Under law, it is the photographer who will own copyright on any photos he/she has taken, with the following exceptions:

If the photographer is an employee of the company the photos are taken for, or is an employee of a company instructed to take the photos, the photographer will be acting on behalf of his/her employer, and the company the photographer works for will own the copyright.
If there is an agreement that assigns copyright to another party.
In all other cases, the photographer will retain the copyright, if the photographer has been paid for his work, the payment will be for the photographer’s time and typically an allocated number of prints. The copyright to the photos will remain with the photographer, and therefore any reproduction without permission would be an infringement of copyright.
Examples:

If Bill Smith asks Peter Jones the photographer to photograph his wedding. Peter Jones will normally provide a single copy of the prints as part of the fee, but any additional prints Bill or his family and friend want must be ordered via Peter as he is the copyright owner and controls who can copy his work.
If Bill Smith engages the services of XYZ-Photos for the same job, and Peter is an employee of XYZ-Photo who instruct Peter to take the photos, XYZ-Photos will be the copyright owner and control how they are used.

Source - http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright

[bothyman]

Has anybody looked at the latest copyright law regarding photographs? Also why people put water marks at the bottom or bottom of a photograph is beyond me,good luck getting a prosecution,majority of photos weren't even copyright in accordance to the copyright law... o

Still not a nice thing to do,knowingly taking and selling photos that are not your own,apology? Pfffffft damage is done

So the boot could be on the other foot, if it is found not to be copyright ?? who sues who ??

I'm surprised the moderators have let it go this far, as all this could have been sorted out quietly rather than turn it into a Witch Hunt..

I did look into the Copyright Law a while back and found putting photographs on the internet may not be a good idea, if you want to keep them to yourself..

Hopefully all sides can sort this out and everyone can learn from this.

[KILTIECAULDBUM]

I think the law on copyright is fairly clear:-

Who owns the copyright on photographs?Under law, it is the photographer who will own copyright on any photos he/she has taken, with the following exceptions:

If the photographer is an employee of the company the photos are taken for, or is an employee of a company instructed to take the photos, the photographer will be acting on behalf of his/her employer, and the company the photographer works for will own the copyright.
If there is an agreement that assigns copyright to another party.
In all other cases, the photographer will retain the copyright, if the photographer has been paid for his work, the payment will be for the photographer’s time and typically an allocated number of prints. The copyright to the photos will remain with the photographer, and therefore any reproduction without permission would be an infringement of copyright.
Examples:

If Bill Smith asks Peter Jones the photographer to photograph his wedding. Peter Jones will normally provide a single copy of the prints as part of the fee, but any additional prints Bill or his family and friend want must be ordered via Peter as he is the copyright owner and controls who can copy his work.
If Bill Smith engages the services of XYZ-Photos for the same job, and Peter is an employee of XYZ-Photo who instruct Peter to take the photos, XYZ-Photos will be the copyright owner and control how they are used.
Source - http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright

Reading all this with interest, as I've always wondered about how some of the spectacular photo's on here could be taken and used without the owners consent? Reading the link above, point No. 2 (i) and (ii) suggests you would would actually have to pay a fee to register any photo's that you wish to have Copyrighted? Just having ''Copyright'' or your name etc. as a watermark on your image would appear to mean nothing if it's not registered?

I hope all this doesn't stop the gifted photographers on the .org from showing their excellent work on here for the rest of us to enjoy!!
Good luck with sorting this mess out.

Kcb.

[North Light]

Copyright law is fairly simple but unfortunately there are a lot of misconceptions about it.

The use in any way of an image without the copyright holders permission is a breach of copyright, the image does not have to be marked, and unless a licence is issued, or as "gillsbay" has detailed, the photographer is an employee of the company who the photographs are taken for, the copyright stays with the author.

My understanding is that breach of copyright would normally be treated as a civil action, but if the breach is intentional, the person or organisation committing the breach is knowingly breaching copyright, and a financial gain is made, then this could be a criminal action.

Julie, thanks for highlighting the possibility of one of the photographs being mine, without seeing a larger and clearer image it's difficult to confirm.

[upolian]

What i don't understand is where had the watermarks gone if there was any? Lesson to be learnt,put them through the middle and difficult to remove....

[Mystical Potato Head]

What i don't understand is where had the watermarks gone if there was any? Lesson to be learnt,put them through the middle and difficult to remove....

I've never bothered with watermarks,only advantage there is from it is to advertise your website or company name,from my point of view it just ruins the look of the photo,thats why i've never bothered with a watermark.Also the fact that its not very difficult to remove one with a little photoshop knowledge,even one through the middle.
I think most of the photos under question here didnt have watermarks,mine certainly didnt but as North Light rightly says an image does not need to be marked.The photographer has the copyright to their photos whether
there is a watermark or not.A fact that some people obviously dont understand.

[bothyman]

But how do you prove someone has stolen one of your photographs??

I once took a photograph of Stac Polly, then a few months later I saw a photograph that looked the same in a book, could I have been prosecuted under the copyright law even though I knew I had taken the photograph myself. ??

If I take a photograph of Westerdale Mill can I get into trouble if it looks the same as some elses.

I'm just wondering where you draw the line, just incase someone decides one of my photographs looks like theirs..

Anyone could take a photograph off the internet, tweak it and claim it was their own.

[dragonfly]

NL, the photo I saw was of Dunnet Beach looking through the top of the dunes out towards sea and Dunnet Head, I have similar ones but having checked them it wasn't one of mine.

and as for marking images I think most photographers have the copyright built into the exif data these days, I know I do. I hate watermarking but its what I have to do from now on with all my images

[dragonfly]

But how do you prove someone has stolen one of your photographs??

I once took a photograph of Stac Polly, then a few months later I saw a photograph that looked the same in a book, could I have been prosecuted under the copyright law even though I knew I had taken the photograph myself. ??

If I take a photograph of Westerdale Mill can I get into trouble if it looks the same as some elses.

I'm just wondering where you draw the line, just incase someone decides one of my photographs looks like theirs..

Anyone could take a photograph off the internet, tweak it and claim it was their own.

as I said above before reading your post make sure your name is on the exif data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchangeable_image_file_format)when downloading the images onto the computer

[Mystical Potato Head]

But how do you prove someone has stolen one of your photographs??

I once took a photograph of Stac Polly, then a few months later I saw a photograph that looked the same in a book, could I have been prosecuted under the copyright law even though I knew I had taken the photograph myself. ??

If I take a photograph of Westerdale Mill can I get into trouble if it looks the same as some elses.



I'm just wondering where you draw the line, just incase someone decides one of my photographs looks like theirs..

Anyone could take a photograph off the internet, tweak it and claim it was their own.

You can take a photo thats is identical to someone elses.There is no copyright on a view.Some scenes can only be taken from a certain viewpoint so they all tend to look similar.Nearly all Dale Mill shots are taken from the bridge or looking across the river. The Old Man of Hoy is almost always taken from the ferry so shots that are almost identical are bound to show up from time to time.No law against your photo looking like someone elses and vice versa.It makes a nice challenge to go to these places and try and get a different view to everyone else,if possible.

[pat]

Photos are very very rarely the same - the clouds are different, as would be the sea, grass at a different height, angle etc al small pointers as to whether picture has been 'lifted' from an original work of art, similar they may be, to be an exact replica would be as rare as rocking horse deposits.

[dubzter]

There is no ambiguity in copyright law, it is quite clear as stated by gillsbay above. You don't have to register photographs for them to be covered under copyright but it may help in the event of a claim.

I was lucky that mine haven't been used but I will ensure that all of my photographs will have copyright information in the exif info, they will be watermarked and they will only be posted on the Internet at a low resolution of 72ppi.

[gillsbay]

There is no ambiguity in copyright law, it is quite clear as stated by gillsbay above. You don't have to register photographs for them to be covered under copyright but it may help in the event of a claim.

I was lucky that mine haven't been used but I will ensure that all of my photographs will have copyright information in the exif info, they will be watermarked and they will only be posted on the Internet at a low resolution of 72ppi.

72ppi means very little, if you post a 18megapixel picture at "72ppi" it will still print as a 18megapixel image, better to post reduced size with fairly high compression so if someone tries to do a decent sized print then the quality will be poor

[upolian]

The only pro photographer i can see its happened to is Julie fraser,so yeah i can understand her anger on this issue!!

everybody else.... get a new hobby

[Bobinovich]

The only pro photographer i can see its happened to is Julie fraser,so yeah i can understand her anger on this issue!!

everybody else.... get a new hobby

Does that mean you're condoning the theft of copyrighted material from everyone apart from Julie, just because it's not their bread & butter? That's an extremely naive & short sighted view IMO :(

[dragonfly]

The only pro photographer i can see its happened to is Julie fraser,so yeah i can understand her anger on this issue!!

everybody else.... get a new hobby

Sorry I agree with bob here, doesn't matter if pro or hobbyist, both have spent money and time on making an image and it is theirs and unjust if someone just takes it without either requesting permission or buying the image in the correct way

[Mystical Potato Head]

The only pro photographer i can see its happened to is Julie fraser,so yeah i can understand her anger on this issue!!

everybody else.... get a new hobby

Are you on a wind up here?

I spent over £4000 on a camera, 2 lenses,filters etc for landscape work.I then spent money setting up a website to sell large prints and canvases.
Bought an expensive A4 printer to sell A4 prints to save having to send them away to get done.
So when someone tries to make money out of my photos after i have shelled out all that money on camera and printing gear then maybe you might understand my anger
on the issue.
Are you saying you wouldnt be angry or have any issues with someone making money or trying to make money by selling photos you had taken
without your consent after you had shelled out several thousand on kit.
Of course if you were angry then i assume you would heed your own advice and get a new hobby also.[/

[dragonfly]

Are you on a wind up here?.

I really hope it is wind up! Sorry Upolian but I just can't see your logic in that statement especially when you yourself are investing money in learning about photography :-/

[bothyman]

I would like to apologize and am deeply sorry about the upset I have caused - I know this doesn't make things better or change things.

All downloaded photos have been deleted and I am confirming I will no longer use them.

I would like to meet with all parties concerned or their representative to find a solution to this unfortunate situation, i.e. signing a document consisting of terms and conditions of not violating future copy rights and associated consequences.

It seems the person who started all this has apologised and offered to meet with the wronged parties to sort this out.

This seems to be a genuine mistake, but if the wronged paries are not Man/Woman enough to accept an apology that is their problem.

And before some starts jumping up and down, No, I would not like it if it happened to me and I would be very upset..

but I think I would be Gentleman enough to gracefully accept a genuine apology, if it was offered.

[kerry9316]

So if someone stole your car or broke in your house and stole your tv then they could just apologise and you'd accept that? I never usually reply to any of these types of threads because most of these types of comments are meant to inflame but god what rubbish!!!! you are off your rocker its theft what ever way you look at it and ignorance is not a defence in law! She made money of others peoples work plain and simple. Clearly you and other similiar posters have nothing better to do with your time than wind others up! - and to the other poster who said get a new hobby we can all see what yours is 'wind up merchant'! and no i'm not a photographer amateur or otherwise nor am I affected by this I just am appalled at the narrow mindeness some people display on this site! you'd be the first to complain when something goes wrong that affects you directly ,your type always do!

[Mystical Potato Head]

It seems the person who started all this has apologised and offered to meet with the wronged parties to sort this out.

This seems to be a genuine mistake, but if the wronged paries are not Man/Woman enough to accept an apology that is their problem.

And before some starts jumping up and down, No, I would not like it if it happened to me and I would be very upset..

but I think I would be Gentleman enough to gracefully accept a genuine apology, if it was offered.


What genuine mistake are you on about exactly?
Would this be the genuine mistake where she offered to buy photos from Douglas,he refused so she just downloaded them anyway?
Sorry but there has been no genuine mistake made here.

[bothyman]

What genuine mistake are you on about exactly?
Would this be the genuine mistake where she offered to buy photos from Douglas,he refused so she just downloaded them anyway?
Sorry but there has been no genuine mistake made here.

In that case it is theft and I would not accept an apology.

Sorry MPH, but I missed that bit.

Kerry9316. maybe you know more about this than I do, hence your tirade of abuse towards me .

[kerry9316]

Bothyman the only thing I directed at you was that you were mad to think it was anything other than theft - I apologise if you felt the rest was directed at you I clearly said the remainder was about the other poster who said people should get another hobby!

[dubzter]

72ppi means very little, if you post a 18megapixel picture at "72ppi" it will still print as a 18megapixel image, better to post reduced size with fairly high compression so if someone tries to do a decent sized print then the quality will be poorApologies, I forgot to add that they are also resized to 1024 pixels on their longest side.

[Deemac]

Interesting stuff folks. Some good points, and as expected, some less so.

My own strategy these days is to EXif data all my images from RAW file downwards (in fact it is done in the camera when I take the shots as well as importing into Lightroom from the data card). Everything is watermarked and exported to no larger than 800 pixels on the longest side. I have to admit that my days of posting photos on the .org are very far and few between mainly due to the rise of Facebook and a lack of critical / useful technical feedback that I was mainly interested in at the time. I also have moved from mainly landscape type work to far more people based photography (portraiture and weddings etc.) which are far less generally interesting in a forum context.

Having said this, I know for a fact that many of my shots (and others mentioned here) are regularly being downloaded off of Facebook, taken to a local chemist / printlab, with watermarks left on and being printed after the customer has indicated that they are the originator of the photo (which the printlab insists on them doing to cover there own businesses legal backs!). This is also copyright theft.

We appear to have an endemic culture based on, if an image is on-line, it is fair game and free to use, duplicate and replicate.

[Alrock]

We appear to have an endemic culture based on, if an image is on-line, it is fair game and free to use, duplicate and replicate.

My personal opinion on the matter...

For personal use... Yes
To make money with... No

[Thumper]

Surely this is fraud and should be reported to the police? x