Jump to content

True Believer

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About True Believer

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I took the image down straight away. I have no problem with that. It's the charging of £350 that bothers me.
  2. Thanks. That's reassuring.The image on his site is watermarked, and has his data in the metatext. The version I got had been orphaned by The Mail. My plan is to ignore him, yes. Saturday is the end of his 'agree to pay me in 7 days or else I go to court' period. I'm waiting to see what he does when i don't agree.In retrospect, your advice about not responding and just taking it down is excellent. We live and learn.TB
  3. Thanks guys. The pic is definitely his - I went and had a search. I also discovered that the place I got it from was The Daily Mail, who were using it in an article without crediting him. I suggested he go after them insted. He was most outraged at this, telling me it was none of my business.
  4. Hello everyone. I'm new here. A fine fellow over at Gallifrey Base pointed me this way, for I have a problem, and he thought some of the good people here might be able to help. I run a blog which is a just-for-fun, non-profit thing. I ramble on and say things that may or may not be amusing. In among the writing I include the odd picture, gleaned from google image searches to reflect the subject matter. A few days ago a photgrapher got in touch. I had inadvertantly used one of his images, and he was displeased. Fair enough, I thought, should have asked. I apologised and instantly too
×
×
  • Create New...