Re: Puddle Confusion

ceedub has left a new comment on your post "Thieving Ditch Digger": OK-I follow the parody reasoning.However, for you to nail him for the puddle photo (assuming it was worth the time to pursue) I thought you'd have to show that he was directly making money by using your unattributed work.Again, an explanation would be great for my confusion .-C My bemused response to "ceedub": I'll give you a quick explanation. Bear with me. I was not trying to "nail him" for using my original photo of the "before" photo. I was simply pointing out that he used another person's original photo without the accepted courtesy of attribution (giving credit). That is not only common courtesy amongst bloggers, news organization, magazines and all other forms of publishing. There are legal aspects, as well, but not worth pursuing because (a) there was no financial loss incurred to me, (b) I cannot afford the legal fees to pursue what would be (c) a silly lawsuit because (d) he hasn't got enough money to make it worth my while even if I won. Finally, in such a lawsuit, one would not need to show that the usurper of intellectual property rights is "directly making money." He could be indirectly making money, or he could simply cause damage by reducing the amount of income that an artist/author/photographer would have made under different circumstances. TO SUM UP: I was not trying to "nail him," I have not intention of suing him for that photo, he hasn't enough money to go after to make a lawsuit worthwhile, and such a case would be weak because no real (financial) damages could be shown.