www.getwet-asia.com using my picture?

I got a spam from http://www.getwet-asia.com , and when I clicked on the link I found that they were using one of my pictures on the front page of their website and that they are claiming to own the copyright.

If you click the link www.getwet-asia.com you go to a pic of a whale shark for about two seconds before you get redirected to their main content. This is my picture. It is on my website, http://www.uwworld.com/Eel%20&%20Shark...Shark%2012.html

What really kind of irks me is that if you look at the bottom of the page they are claiming the copyright for GetWet-Asia.com So I went to godaddy and looked up the owner of GetWet-Asia.com

Please note: the registrant of the domain name is specified

in the "registrant" field. In most cases, GoDaddy.com, Inc.

is not the registrant of domain names listed in this database.

Registrant:

Bernarditha Willes

28 Calcutta Street

Merville Park

Paranaque, Metro Manila 1700

Philippines

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)

Domain Name: GETWET-ASIA.COM

Created on: 30-Nov-08

Expires on: 30-Nov-09

Last Updated on: 03-Dec-08

Administrative Contact:

Willes, Bernarditha debeenterprise@gmail.com

28 Calcutta Street

Merville Park

Paranaque, Metro Manila 1700

Philippines

639178379793

Technical Contact:

Willes, Bernarditha debeenterprise@gmail.com

28 Calcutta Street

Merville Park

Paranaque, Metro Manila 1700

Philippines

639178379793

Domain servers in listed order:

NS.MYCAM-ASIA.TV

NS1.MYCAM-ASIA.TV

NS2.MYCAM-ASIA.TV

Registry Status: clientDeleteProhibited

Registry Status: clientRenewProhibited

Registry Status: clientTransferProhibited

Registry Status: clientUpdateProhibited

Can you send their host a DMCA takedown notice or something?

To add insult to injury, they credit you at the very bottom of the page.

Or is that a new thing???

Diverdon,

Why don't you tell your fellow members on wetpixel the truth of the matter?

Why don't you tell them how the image came into our possession?

Why don't you confirm to them that the image we published is not the image from your website?

Why don't you tell them that we have provided you with the original image to prove there was never copyright or watermark on it?

Why are you so desperate for publicity that you don't have to pay for?

Why don't you tell them of your commitment of yesterday to remove this thread and or to print a retraction?

We have removed the image in question from our website because we have no wish to fuel your ego further.

In five years of publishing we have met scores of photographers, most of whom are now friends, we have never been accused of such a act as you have described. Shame on you diver Donald Horschel, shame on you.

There is quite a long sequence of events involved in this story. It likely goes beyond my ability to tell it all and do justice to all parties involved. But I made the initial post so to be fair I have to give it a go.

1) I came across the use of my image and reacted by making the post on wet pixel.

2) Upon further reflection I was still a bit upset about the use on my image but also perhaps a little flattered. I took a look at the Get Wet Asia site and they seemed ok. Then I found that I had some mutual acquaintances who knew Martyn at least a little bit and they thought he seemed a stand up guy.

3) I contacted Martyn via email and a social exchange followed. Martyn added my name as a photo credit to his web site. And we seemed on track to resolve the issue with no ruffled feathers on either party.

4) Martyn came across my post on wet-pixel and became quite upset by my use of the phrase “www.getwet-asia.com STOLE MY PICTURE”

5) I had a phone discussion with Martyn, and I agreed to ask the admin of Wet Pixel to remove the thread. Martyn stated that he preferred this to my making a subsequent post that we were working toward a resolution.

6) The time which I was allowed to edit the post had passed. Last night I made the request in item (5) to wetpixel admin using the help/contact us feature.

7) I wish that I had used less inflammatory languge in my wetpixel post but the image used was mine, how it came to be in Martyns hard drive I can not answer.

I know that most Wet Pixel members would have handled this more wisely than I did.

Diverdon,

 

 

Why don't you tell them how the image came into our possession?

 

Why don't you confirm to them that the image we published is not the image from your website?

 

Why don't you tell them that we have provided you with the original image to prove there was never copyright or watermark on it?

 

Why are you so desperate for publicity that you don't have to pay for?

 

Why don't you tell them of your commitment of yesterday to remove this thread and or to print a retraction?

 

 

We have removed the image in question from our website because we have no wish to fuel your ego further.

 

In five years of publishing we have met scores of photographers, most of whom are now friends, we have never been accused of such a act as you have described. Shame on you diver Donald Horschel, shame on you.

I do not know how the image came into your possession. That it is cropped more tightly than the image on my website does not make it a different image. Yes I did agree to ask wet pixel admin to remove the thread, and I sent you a copy of the message I sent to wet pixel asking them to do so. Thank you for removing the image, I guess that is for the best at this point.

Hi Don, Martyn -

We've amended the thread title as suggested to tone down some of the accusations .

Well, the important part is that the parties are talking now, but something in that reply kind of hit me wrong....

Why don't you tell them that we have provided you with the original image to prove there was never copyright or watermark on it?

If the implication was that they removed it (cropped it out), and don was sure it had one on his site, I guess I understand why this might "prove" some other source for the original than copied off his website. But whether something has a copyright mark or not, doesn't matter to whether as original material there is a copyright. The watermark doesn't "make" the right.

Will sit in the sidelines and see how this pans out, but if the pic is down, I guess there won't be any further action.

While your initial post was angry, Don, I still see more questionable behavior in the response than in your initial reaction (or subsequent explanations). In any event...Merry Christmas everyone!

The lesson is not to give out your pictures to anyone. If Martyn has a complete copy somewhere, then he must've gotten it from somewhere. As of now, the onus of finding the owner is on the publisher. That may change in the US but I hope not.