Photo Theft

I don't usually watermark my photos but some on the sidebar have been marked. I had to smile the other day when I stumbled upon this:

Setaria Italica 'Max'

Export Unie Flora are using my photo of Setaria italica (aka foxtail millet, Italian millet) on their site. They've kindly kept my watermark but have stamped theirs on as well (afraid someone might use it?). The worst part, actually, is not that they're using my photo without permission but using it to represent S. italica 'Brown Sugar' when, in fact, it's S. italica 'Max' (according to William Dam, anyway, where the seeds were purchased).

Photo theft and misrepresentation! lol.


  1. It is funny that they took a photo with the copyright there. I use a creative commons license on my photos, so people can use them as they wish (but not commercially). They do have to attribute the photo to me, but I always wonder how many are out there that don't do that.

    1. Hey Daphne! It's a pretty small watermark. Maybe they missed it! lol.

      I don't know how creative commons works. I'll have to look into it. Thanks. :)

  2. Creative Commons is a good idea, but there are different licenses. What I would suggest is the so-called CC-BY-SA. BY means any who uses has to attribute the source. SA is where the genius is, in my view: in means share-alike. So anyone who uses the image must license it under the same license (i.e. CC-BY-SA, for example). This is brilliant because it means it will remain CC for ever and will always have the same license.

    This is the license that we use at, and it is also the one that Wikipedia uses.

    We don't care whether it is used for commercial purposes - why not? If someone thinks my image is so nice that they actually want to use it for something they can sell, all the luck to them - this helps my image spread. Given that they have to attribute the source, this can only be beneficial. Because it's SA, they can't prohibit anyone else from using it either.