Running fro the Storm

['Daniel']

I see I get negative rep for having a different opinion. And I came to the "wrong conclusion" as one person put it. How ridiculous. This board is really weird in someways. It think this thread needs shutting.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Yes maybe if it was my hptoo i would act slightly differently but I even still I would not be that annoyed. Within myself I would know I was the one who took the photo even if the person wouldn't admit they took it. That's enough for me.

All photographs have an originator - the person that took the photograph. They have a number of legal rights that are recognised more or less Internationally, which means if you use their image without their knowledge and consent they can sue you.
As a host Board, if this happened we could also suffer serious consequences. We therefore take great pains to avoid this eventuality by insisting that any person posting an image on here must either be the originator OR have the specific consent of the person who's picture it is.
Erniehatt was not the photographer of one of the images used in his manipulated image - and he did not have the permission of the originator.
This is a clear breach of Copyright.
It would not have been so bad if Erniehatt had not already been warned about doing this.
Claiming that he assumed the image was a stock photograph and was therefore OK to use would be no defence in a Court of Law.
The onus was on Erniehatt to ascertain the copyright position, which he clearly failed to do.

The reason why the majority in this thread are upset is because his original post gave the impression that it was his photograph.
The admission in a later post that it had been montaged in PS and that half the image was, bluntly, stolen has made it obvious that Erniehatt deceived them - and intended to deceive them.
Would he have admitted his deceit if no-one had caught him out?
Only Erniehatt knows the answer to that.