no doubt he is a liar...!

have you sold any Extended License of those pictures?

.

Tickstock, I just voted your posts up again. We may not like it but certain licences from certain sites do allow this use.

Check where the images in question have sold from and whether or not you have had EL sales. You could politely ask the Cafepress seller to provide you with sight of the licences, then you will know for sure whether or not they are working within the terms.

Doesn't the fotolia extended license allow this kind of use?  Also the person selling the work doesn't seem to be saying that she took all of the pictures just that she has taken many photos of pets.

Thanks for the heads up. I just opted out of CS extended licenses.

.

.

Yea, looks like she is being tricky with the wording. Unethical at least.

Like wedding photographers using stock images to 'illustrate' their business, implying but not stating they took the photos.

Again, this would be very much 'pushing the line' in the UK.
In the ASA:
"The likely effect of a marketing communication is generally considered from the point of view of the average consumer whom it reaches or to whom it is addressed. The average consumer is assumed to be reasonably well-informed, observant and circumspect.
In some circumstances, a marketing communication may be considered from the point of view of the average member of a specific group:
    If it is directed to a particular audience group, the marketing communication will be considered from the point of view of the average member of that group. "

and later:
"Marketing communications are misleading if they
    are likely to deceive consumers and
    are likely to cause consumers to take transactional decisions that they would not otherwise have taken."

http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-broadcast-HTML/Appendix-1-The-CPRs-and-BPRs.aspx

In my experience, almost no-one has ever heard of stock photography, other than Reuters etc. When I warned my friend (previous thread) about the possibility of putative wedding photographers using stock photos on their websites and other collateral, she, her husband and the bride-to-be were utterly astonished, never having throught of the possibility. All three are university graduates, which begs the question of what would consitute "reasonably well-informed, observant and circumspect". Sounds a bit woolly to be legal.

Add Bigstockphoto to the list of places that allow print on demand with an EL.

Add BS to the list of agencies I have cancelled out of EL's.
I only have 99 images with them and have not submitted to them since seeing their pitiful payment schedule as I don't want to give their parent company any bad ideas that it is acceptable.

I too have had issues with Liars on Caf� Press saying they took (and were selling) My Dog photos of Fifi the Bichon Frise.
Caf� Press did take care of the issue.
Contact them directly
I hate Thieves and Liars!

May they all boil in hot guano for all eternity (along with a few select other people whom we wont mention here)