What was scuba.com thinking?

[northernone]

Horrifying.

 

[NYCNaiad]

Very shocking. I hope the family doesn't see it.

With regards to the copyright issues of the posting, in my experience with the internet and photography, people think any image that is on the net is fair game. Hence why every image I take automatically logs time and date in the Exif (embedded file data) with a copyright notice (all rights reserved +name). If anyone uses my images without asking and I find it, I can prove time, date and ownership.

It's very easy to strip out that data even if you aren't particularly computer savvy. +If you really want to protect yourself, you not only have to include this info but also include your copyright in a place in the photo that would be hard for someone to remove. For instance, I know of a photographer that had her best photo used as their own. She could prove that this photo was hers, however, all of the prominent places she reported the issue to said they couldn't really do anything. Now she includes her name & the copyright symbol in a fairly central location in the image across a part of the background that would be hard for people to easily block out. I now try to do the same.

 

[Neilwood]

Very shocking. I hope the family doesn't see it.


It's very easy to strip out that data even if you aren't particularly computer savvy. +If you really want to protect yourself, you not only have to include this info but also include your copyright in a place in the photo that would be hard for someone to remove. For instance, I know of a photographer that had her best photo used as their own. She could prove that this photo was hers, however, all of the prominent places she reported the issue to said they couldn't really do anything. Now she includes her name & the copyright symbol in a fairly central location in the image across a part of the background that would be hard for people to easily block out. I now try to do the same.

I assume that the images are on line - therefore the ISP that is transmitting the infringing material must take it down if it appears to constitute a copyright breach.

While removing the Exif data might be fairly easy, it is a breach of copyright law and is punishable.

It is fairly easy especially in America to get a financial award - use DCMA. If the following applies (section1202b) then there are strong penalties in law (note that the Exif is classed as part of the image AFAIK):
No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law—(1) intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information . . . . knowing, or, with respect to civil remedies . . . having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right under this title.

The statutory award for each violation of the above ranges from $2,500 to $25,000. This is on top of any actual damages (ie lost revenue)

Note that, if the images are registered with the US Copyright office (which is fairly easy to do), the penalties get larger.

 

[NYCNaiad]

I assume that the images are on line - therefore the ISP that is transmitting the infringing material must take it down if it appears to constitute a copyright breach.
...
The statutory award for each violation of the above ranges from $2,500 to $25,000. This is on top of any actual damages (ie lost revenue)

While what you note is true in theory, it doesn't always work this way in reality. I know it didn't for my friend & I also know it didn't for multiple friends of friends. You can also see this repeated in multiple stories on this very topic online. +You don't often know that your photography has even been stolen in the 1st place to be able to report it. It's far simpler to include a copyright directly on your photo in an area that is hard to crop out or cover. This makes it more difficult for your hard work to be easily stolen & you can also use it as further proof of any infringement should the issue arise.

It doesn't have to be a really intrusive copyright...just enough to show that the photo belongs to you. I just started doing it myself:
View media item 200858

 

[rongoodman]

I'm surprised they're still in business. I used them when I was just out of OW class, but they were so slow getting orders out that I gave up on them. I don't see how they can compete with LiesurePro or Dive Gear Express.

 

[wheeledgoat]

+1 on that. very disappointed that their website didn't show out-of-stock status, and I only got an email after paying.

not their fault that item was backordered, but I do put blame on them for website not showing accurate stock. no excuse in 2016. took close to 2 months to get a hood. first and probably last order with scuba.com.

 

[Aqua-Andy]

I agree this is pretty awful. I would bet that the only thing keeping them in business at this point is there domain name. I too purchased from them when I was a new diver but have not since discovering much better online dive shops.