This guy has a ton of Micro images in his Flicr port.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrsaxmax/

It looks like the download option is removed. 2,000 micro images. Must have a subscription somewhere.

To many people to sitemail...haha. Someone from Istock sent me a sitemail this morning. I'm just not sure if he is breaking any laws here. Is this any different than someone using a photo for a blog?

No, it's not legal.  If you find one of your images, send Flickr a take-down notice and they'll remove the offending images.  If they get enough notices for a particular account they'll just delete the entire account. I found a couple of my images there so I'm doing that now. Here's what they sent me after I emailed them the first time:

Hello,

Thank you for contacting Yahoo! Inc. ("Yahoo!").  Yahoo! respects the
intellectual property rights of others and we ask that our users do the
same.  Yahoo! has established a policy for receiving and processing
notifications of infringement in accordance with the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act ("DMCA"), other applicable laws and/or Yahoo! policies. 

Your recent correspondence was insufficient to constitute an effective
Notification of Infringement ("NOI") within the meaning of the DMCA
and/or as required by Yahoo! policy.  The elements required for an
effective NOI, and the contact information for submitting a NOI to
Yahoo!, are included below and at http://info.yahoo.com/copyright/details.html.

If you are the copyright owner or are authorized to act on behalf of the
copyright owner and you would like to submit a NOI in response to this
email, please include the following:

1.   A description of the copyrighted work or other intellectual property
that you claim has been infringed;

2.   A description of the location where the material that you claim is
infringing is located;

3.   A statement by you that you have a *good faith belief* that the
reported use is not authorized by the copyright or intellectual property
owner, its agent, or the law;

4.   A statement by you, *made under penalty of perjury,* that the above
information is accurate and that you are the copyright or intellectual
property owner or authorized to act on the copyright or intellectual
property owner's behalf; and

5.   Your address, telephone number, and email address;

6.   Your electronic or physical signature. If the submission is made
electronically, please designate your electronic signature by typing a
forward slash ("/") before and after your name and follow this
electronic signature by again typing your name.  For example:

/Jane Doe/
Jane Doe 

Please note that attachments cannot be accepted due to security
concerns.

Once Yahoo! has received a NOI containing each of the required elements
detailed above, Yahoo! will process your request. 

We wish to thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this
matter.  Please contact us if you have any questions or we can further
assist you in this matter.

Regards,

Copyright/IP Agent, Yahoo! Inc.
[email protected]
****************************
c/o Yahoo! Inc.
701 First Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089

I ran across several that I recognized, but don't know the copyright holder.

I don't see a download button, but anyone can click on the image, right click and save a size useable for websites. That's redistribution and yes, that's illegal.

ETA: I recognized this one:

Real author on istockphoto:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-1928059-baby-mine.php

on page 66 of this sites photostream. I alerted the copyright holder on istock.

I recebtly sent a msg to TinEye, suggesting they add Flcikr and Photobucket to their database.  So much stolen stuff in these sites...

That is a very good idea Madelaide! I hope they follow your suggestion!

It would make things a lot easier for many people!

At least one of my images is there too... This is not the first time I see them on Flickr under someone else's name. Several month ago we mailed them a hard copy of NOI, followed all their rules. The result - NOTHING. No reaction whatsoever. That image is still there. This is outrageous. I would go ahead and take them to court for this but  - as often in those cases - my time is worth more than I can get from them. Lost revenue on a couple of micro images is not that big. What else can you sue them for? Class action would be a more proper thing to do here.... Any takers on organizing it?

Good point and you aren't the first. We see this month after month. People find images, plain copied, not just close or mistakes, that are flat out stolen and claimed by someone else. The owners write and find nothing gets changed. I don't know how much monetary loss can be claimed, but the plagiarists should be exposed. It's too bad that what happens is, the accounts just go away and they can come back and do it again.

A wall of shame would be a real interesting answer. "These people are image thieves" and post their account names and information on a public site to embarrass them into stopping. Then a section where they could publicly apologize and have their name removed.  

We can fill out long complex forms and complain till the cows come home, Flickr seldom does anything unless someone pushes the right buttons and preforms some magic.

Class Action may make it happen.

You can't hold a site responsible for what members do on it. But if they don't remove offending items, then they are liable. That's the catch. YouTube lost a suit in Italy which is outrageous, because YT can't check and verify every upload, it would bring down the system. Their defense was that as soon as they receive notice, they delete the offending materials.

Now Flickr needs to do the same and be more responsive to complaints and copyright violations. That's the crux of a possible class action suit.

The idea isn't a cash settlement and 9 cents for each of us, while making an attorney wealthy, but is more about getting Flickr to stop ignoring take-down requests and take some action when they are presented with evidence that someone is using stolen images on their site.

If we get nothing but a change in the way Flickr repeatedly ignores copyright infringement, and they start enforcing the existing regulations, that's a victory.

Just an update:

The stock photos offered on this site are now gone:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrsaxmax/

There were seventy some pages, now there are 7. Nice work, image sleuths!

I'm surprised that the account hasn't been suspended.

Obviously the guy didn't have the rights to display the images on Flickr and therefore was in breach with whatever terms and rights - MASSIVELY.

But obviously not enough to get him kicked out. Just a slap on the wrist.

I don't know, leaves a sour taste...