Quote Originally Posted by Ryissa View Post
I took a careful look at those photos and unless their supposed photographer can demonstrate how those photos came from his Camera I'd be thinking about requesting some money out of that one. (I know it may not be worth the fuss, but arguably you are entitled to being paid for an image you originally photographed when it is clearly being used for commercial purposes). It seems to me some cases have already been won in this regard (my memory is not flawless, so I admit to talking a little through my hat here).

If the photo was posted to a discussion forum and you said something like "hey this is my turntable" and it got taken from there they should have been contacting you about using the image for advertising purposes. Arguably worth at least a couple of phonecalls. Especially if you have the original image sitting on your system somewhere.

Have fun!
Ryissa, a hearty "cease and desist" to you. The images in this thread are clearly not being used for commercial purposes.

People link to advertisers' photographs all the time in their forum posts, and unless they do so for advertising purposes of their own or to make slanderous comments, the poster is highly unlikely to get into any trouble. Gee gosh, I wonder if Google has paid for a every Image or Video they link to when you 'google' a subject? Maybe you could elucidate that point for us.

Using standard webpage tools, a web author can prevent the normal 'Save image', 'Copy image URL', etc. The vast majority do not do so for the simple reason that putting stuff on the Web is about publicity and if their photos are linked elsewhere, so much the better.

JohnMichael, with a twist of ironic humor, was wondering whether the original advertiser ought to pay him for publicising their images. (This was joke, not a serious suggestion.)