Camera Store steals photo for advertising

Just saw this pop up on my facebook newsfeed since I follow Norman Camera:
http://myemail.constan​tcontact.com …207339417&aid=v​0CjfQaSmZU

Original Photo by Elena Shumilova
https://www.flickr.com …#comment7215764​8901212120

I think it's ironic when the very place people go to buy photography gear would actually pull something off like this.

panicatnabisco wrote in post #17296073
Just saw this pop up on my facebook newsfeed since I follow Norman Camera:
http://myemail.constan​tcontact.com …207339417&aid=v​0CjfQaSmZU

Original Photo by Elena Shumilova
https://www.flickr.com …#comment7215764​8901212120

I think it's ironic when the very place people go to buy photography gear would actually pull something off like this.

Are we certain it was stolen and not licensed?

It's Canon that's using the photo. I got an email from them using the same image.

Blatant, if they didn't pay for it.

Gotta go with gonzogolf. There's no indication that it was stolen and not licensed, especially because the materials were prepared by Canon and not the store.

Sorry, maybe i'm missing something, but what makes you think they didnt legally licence that image?

Where is your proof that the image is being used illegally?

Yes the image is Elena Shumilova's. However the image could have been licensed by canon. With no proof your statement is little more then an assumption and if proof shows it to be wrong could be considered libel.

No indication the image is stolen, rather than licensed. Where is the proof?

OP, what was the reason for posting this? As it is, you've posted a topic immediately accusing a store of infringing on copyright laws. I suppose you're venting because you're like WTF.

I suppose the thing to do is to contact the photographer, Elena Shumilova, and tell her "Hey, I just saw your amazing image in Canon's ad for the EF-s 24mm lens!". It's up to her to say "Cool, I licensed them!" Or, "OMG! They are so busted!". Furthermore she's in a position to protect her copyright (she can sue Canon) where you can't.

one thing it proofs is that canon is lying about what photo is done with what lens.
the picture is done on 135.0 mm
canon says it is the new efs 24mm 2.8

i am starting to dislike canon every day a bit more... and thats not good.

wish i could get pics that sharp...

Okay, now that is funny.

Mozes wrote in post #17297056
one thing it proofs is that canon is lying about what photo is done with what lens.
the picture is done on 135.0 mm
canon says it is the new efs 24mm 2.8

i am starting to dislike canon every day a bit more... and thats not good.

Mozes wrote in post #17297056
one thing it proofs is that canon is lying about what photo is done with what lens.
the picture is done on 135.0 mm
canon says it is the new efs 24mm 2.8

i am starting to dislike canon every day a bit more... and thats not good.

Where does it imply the 24mm was used to take the shot? It says "A small package" and shows a small boy with a large dog. The boy is small like the lens.

Think.

That effect is called implicit association. You see a nice picture and a product in placed in along with it, your mind links the two. Just the suggestion that the lens is great because the image is also. A much more subtle way of advertising and well used in the industry.

comon people, the clearly suggest that the shot was doneby this new lens.