J. A. Mc.  typed:

> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 08:47:19 +0200, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> found these unused words floating about:
>
>> J. A. Mc.  typed:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:28:41 +0200, "SleeperMan"
>>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> found these unused words floating about:
>>>
>>>> SleeperMan  typed:
>>>>
>>>>> kreb  typed:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Keith said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is photography.  If you find out where you got it I would
>>>>>> want to seek permission to add it to my personal philosophical
>>>>>> newsletter. I use a lot of photos, as a point getter, and to stop
>>>>>> boredom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keith
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that my niece got it from her friend over chat... I'll
>>>>> ask her to get him in touch and i'll let you know. It's a
>>>>> question, though, if pic is his or he got it elsewhere... :-) I
>>>>> hope it's not one of those stories: i got it from the one who got
>>>>> it from a guy, who got it from another guy...etc---
>>>>
>>>> Sooo...
>>>> It is one of those stories...
>>>> her friend got it from Internet somewhere, so, i don't have a clue,
>>>> who actually shot it or owe it. Sorry... but i guess you can use
>>>> it, and write unknown author or similar below it.
>>>>
>>> NO ... you can't -legally- use it!
>>>
>>> Depending upon the level of protection and registration the imager
>>> made for this, you could face serious fines IF caught ... it's up to
>>> you to estimate the risk.
>>
>> It's strange though...i looked some pics of storm (found with
>> google) and almost all have copyright or owner name on the pic. Too
>> shame that this one haven't...
>>
> I understand, as I often posted to a binaries group. ALL of my images
> have a copyright, usually small and fairly unobtrusive. I've pretty
> much stopped posting since a few began vociferously complaining about
> 'defacing' the image.
>
> Many don't think to put copyrights ON their own websites ... !

I guess you're right...if pic would have at least some EXIF info...