CoffeeShots Loc: Brisbane, Australia

All opinions considered, the author did give due credit and, directs the reader to your Flickr account which is an interesting move. For those who particularly like the photo can see where to find more of your work. In this case, credit to the author for doing that, nor has the author attempted in anyway to present this as his own work. I wouldn't remove the gas fitting. Its at block of units, its homely. Leave it. I would tinker with the tones ever so slightly but otherwise would leave it alone. Nice shot.

Tbone Loc: Hays, KS

Imagerybox, I found it accidentally. I am new to Google+ and was looking for possible family members to connect to and did a search for my last name. Somewhere down on the list of items that came up was this article with my name in it. If she had not given me credit I would have never known.

There is also a website that I read about that allows you to search to see if any of your photos have been taken and used somewhere else but I don't remember what the site is.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

I don't either. It's not just rude; it's theft. This would be like someone taking your car-- and then saying, when confronted: "You have a real nice Lexus-- one of the nicest I've seen." Would you feel flattered?

clixpix Loc: Surprise, Arizona

If the article is in a magazine or other publication and you can find the editor's name, send him/her a note indicating what happened. Magazines may be more sensitive to copyright infringement and may have a word with the author of the article. I hope you are successful and keep us posted. The magazine may send you payment for the use of the photo.

BigDaveMT Loc: Plentywood, MT

Tbone, I found the photo used on another website by searching for your name.

The website you were trying to remember which searches for photos is http://www.tineye.com

Also, check your Flickr settings to make sure you don't have Creative Commons permission checked. If it was, then the use of your photo was above board.

stalwart Loc: Outskirts of Chicago

The assumption running thru this post and subsequent comments is that the author of the article expropriated the photo to illustrate her article. While that may be the case, it is still an unverified assumption. The photo could very well have been added by the EDITOR OF THE PUBLICATION.

My daughter is a freelance writer. At times she will work with the publisher’s photographer to arrange for photos to illustrate the article; at other times she will supply photos for the article and at other times the Editor will obtain photos and add them to the article without her participation or approval. These could be photos taken by the publication’s staff or photos purchased from a stock photo service.

Given the wide range of possibilities it is best, as Clixpix suggests, to direct your concerns to the editor—specifically the editor for the original article, which in this case is The Content Marketeer. . The link in your post is to a republication in Business 2 Community of an article, which appeared in The Content Marketeer. Furthermore the Business 2 Community article alludes to the possible syndication of the article in question. It is the editor who determines what will be published. In this case you have two editors (or more) to contact.

This may surprise some folks, but writers have their work stolen too. My daughter recently found that one of her articles had been republished under the name of a different author. She consulted with her writers group and was advised that her first course of action should be to write the editor and demand that the article be removed from the publication’s web site.

My guess is that the writer of the article which included your photo wasn’t paid much for her article, so you can’t expect much in the way of compensation for your photo. But you can expect to 1) get it removed from the web sites (in both cases you are dealing with web based publications) and 2) prevent syndication of your photo without compensation for it.

Unfortunately, small time publications, both print and web based, assume that since they don’t make much money they can take advantage of the freebies. Amateur photos are fair game because of their amateur status. In my experience, this is especially true of nonprofits. Several of my photos (I post to Panoramio) have been featured prominently in local nonprofit publications without payment or even attribution. One of the nonprofits liked my photo so much that they subsequently hired a professional to recreate the photo for the cover of their annual publication.

It goes without saying that your’s was a really great photo. It really dressed up an excellent article that might have otherwise been overlooked.

MonochromeB Loc: Chandler, AZ

EXIF data is a subset of the information about a image also known as Metadata, and is automatically included by the camera when the image is made. That information is coded directly into .jpg files, is added as a .xmp document (commonly called a sidecar) in some RAW file formats, and can be deleted or modified by most image editing software.

If the EXIF is in place, you can enable or disable it in Flickr by checking the option in your 'My Account' settings. On the page which shows any image on Flickr if to the right of the image there is a small blurb which says something like, "This image taken on May 12, 2009 using a Canon 7D (or something like this ) it means the user has enabled the display of EXIF data.

Some software suites during the Export process have the option of deleting or keeping in place the EXIF data. In my experience, Lightroom can alter or delete the EXIF data of you do not watch the export dialog very carefully.

HTH,

Ben

MonochromeB Loc: Chandler, AZ

>>The site you are thinking about is Digimarc. http://www.digimarc.com/digimarc-for-images

THT,

Ben

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

Having actually spent two years of my life in copyright litigation (I won,) I would first review the user agreement on Flicker. Some online image services basically say posting to their service is a transfer of rights of use.

In general, placing images on public services willingly strains the notion a person is attempting to protect copyright.

Copyright cases hang on two tenets: similarity and access. Flicker accounts destroy the tenets (global without restriction) of access and would make a copyright case fly in the face of any notion of wanting to protect a work in question. This would be the position of the opposing attorney.

The World Wide Web is a very tangled one when it comes to copyright.

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

There is an article about EXIF data at http://digital-photography-school.com/using-exif-data.

But how secure is it. I quickly downloaded a picture from this site, checked it had all the camera data, opened it in PSP, saved it under a different name and suddenly no camera data!
:?:

Dun1 Loc: Atlanta, GA

Frank T gave you some questions you must decide, what action do you want to "make you whole", legal jargon for compensation for loss
Your avenues of course may include filing a civil suit, if the party is not willing to remove his/her copyright or name from your work, or pay you for the use of your work. Copyright law is a narrow practice and the firm or the attorney you consult needs to practice, (I know practice is not what you want but it refers to their legal specialty. Most attorneys have an area of specialty, domestic/divorce, criminal law, accident/injury practice. Most copyright attorneys will charge on an hourly basis, whereas the attorneys you see advertise on TV takes cases on a contingency basis, they get their fees for taking a percentage of what they are able to get your for a settlement.
I agree amateur or pro status has nothing to do with the infringement, if you cars was stolen from you, you are still victim to the theft, and this is a theft