I think that judgement is fair. Photo was found on flickr, with no option to buy, and they took it down as soon as photographer warned them.
It would cost them only a few dollars to buy the image, if they knew that's what needs to be done. Photographer would get his 25 cents for it.
I wonder why people put photos on flickr and similar "show only" sites and then cry if image "borrowed"?
It would cost them only a few dollars to buy the image, if they knew that's what needs to be done. Photographer would get his 25 cents for it.
I wonder why people put photos on flickr and similar "show only" sites and then cry if image "borrowed"?


