LONDON808 wrote in post #14935287
This could also be something else.....
A lot of people have no clue about the Internet so they hire outside help to build there site. I could hire some one in the USA to make my site and pay $1000+ OR I could hire some on in Thailand or India or any other 3rd World countrie any pay $100-200 for the same work.
You provide them with a discretion the text and layout of your site they go to work. Now say instead of usei g stock photos like you asked they use other people's images because they were free.
Now if I was this photographer when I found out what had happend I would start pulling images right away. Now if all of a sudden I had a bunch of photographer speaking my Facebook account I would disable that as well.
Not saying this is the case but it has happened many many many times.
Now of course if this is the case and in the country he had build his website the copywriter laws of the western world don't exists OR a mistake was made in say the name of the photographer posted or facts were misrepresented people could be open to a lawsuit for Defamation or slander Wikipedia
This post is for information only as all to often it seems people jump on a one wheeled wagon.
That's a fair point, but I think anytime a photographer uses a photo on his/her site that was not taken by him/her (even stock photography), there's dishonesty involved (unless discosure is made over them not being the photographer), so I don't think that is a valid excuse
What I don't understand is how the OP figured this out? Not sure how Richard Atkin is high enough on people's search lists to faciliate the discovery of this fraud....