• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

Bad Guy sharlaxle--Chamtastic Chameleons

SoCalAce said:
Perhaps it's because I read an hour worth of BOI threads today, that I'm not ready to put her in the Bad Guy category. There are people that are out to lie, cheat and steal to make a buck, and then there are people that are running a business that aren't quite "business" people.
Click to expand...

Each reader chooses for himself or herself what to think of a particular vendor after reading a thread.
You are welcome to choose the category you think fits, but so are all of the other readers here.

There ARE vendors who do not infringe photos and then lie about doing so. There ARE vendors who tell you straight up whether or not they produce particular critters. Frankly after reading this thread I would if I was a buyer question the heritage of any baby sold by this Chamtastic.

That's the bottom line. There ARE vendors who are honest. Some would rather go with them, and that is their right.
 
Perhaps SoCalAce/Andrew Charlson was referring to David Scarboro's post (#78), re: unnecessary old joke quoted below .. not your post, David Beard.
"If her lying wouldn't bother you in a transaction, I have some beautiful beachfront property here in North Georgia. Beach at your feet and mountains at your back. Also a couple of bridges...
Click to expand...

And just for the record, I have absolutely NO problem with the observations or posts of David Scarboro or David Beard. They clearly see what the rest of us see.
 
kerrek said:
You are assuming, and you know what they say about assuming. She is a picture thief and not a very good one no doubt about it. But because you assume something about her ad that isn't her fault.
Click to expand...

Your inexplicable and stalwart defense of her ad is ridiculous. She was clearly (dishonestly) implying that it was an animal she had bred and raised. If I were you I'd think long and hard before defending a person like this.
 
SoCalAce said:
She immediately responded to the accusation. However foolish her initial response was, she has since made right with a repeated apology, the removal of the stolen image, and has also shared this article on her Facebook page with an apology to the people whom have deposits on the offspring.
Click to expand...

Except she's still using infringed photographs on her website (Contact Page) and Facebook page (Profile Picture) that were pointed out in this thread (Post #27) to have been taken from another breeder (FL Chams)...

Chris
 
My daughter wanted to name our next reptile "Carrots"...now I will not give her that option-- Sweet Pea is as close as she can get:) Honesty is the way to go, simply put, and if you have to sell a Cham with poorly documented genetics, do it honestly, take the price hit (somebody would pay less for it as just a pretty pet) and learn from the experience. We all make mistakes, but admit you screwed up and avoid the reputation bash that follows!
 
I suppose I have no reason or need to defend her. I still don't think the picture on her website implies anything about it's origin, but I shouldn't down play her use of other people's property. I think she means well, but that's no excuse for the miscues.
 
SoCalAce said:
I suppose I have no reason or need to defend her. I still don't think the picture on her website implies anything about it's origin, but I shouldn't down play her use of other people's property. I think she means well, but that's no excuse for the miscues.
Click to expand...

Andrew, We all get to have an opinion. I completely disagree with your take on her lack of ethics, but that is why we have the BOI.
 
Until People actually file a Legal DCMA copyright lawsuit on people this will continue to happen. No one takes it seriously anymore until legal action becomes a part of it.

Many don't know but as soon as a picture is taken and uploaded its Automatically copyrighted by LAW for life, and if found guilty of infringing someones work, you can expect penalties in excess of $30,000 PER image used.
 
RichsBallPythons said:
Until People actually file a Legal DCMA copyright lawsuit on people this will continue to happen. No one takes it seriously anymore until legal action becomes a part of it.

Many don't know but as soon as a picture is taken and uploaded its Automatically copyrighted by LAW for life, and if found guilty of infringing someones work, you can expect penalties in excess of $30,000 PER image used.
Click to expand...

This is partly correct - you don't stand a great chance of winning a hard hitting lawsuit unless you have your images formally registered. You do still have an official copyright whether or not you posted a water mark or the tradition phrasing on the bottom . . . but in legality terms, you can not sue for much in terms of damages.

The OP has grounds to be upset that this breeder used his image - her buyers have a ground to be upset because they bought falsely advertised offspring (if they were shown that image). There are many legalities to be concerned with in this case.

To the OP - taking down the image is not enough to clear one of liability in infringement. Screen shots taken of the incident can be used as evidence for prosecution regarding these matters. Many people don't care to get into the legal battles because they end up costing more than will be recovered (again, unless the stolen image happens to have been registered). But a civil court will usually file in favor for the photographer, and damages will have to be paid.

For reference I am a professional wildlife photographer, and have dealt with copyright infringement issues. I have dealt with a similar situation with one of my python portraits being used to advertise a snake. In my case, I asked the breeder to apologize to the buyer, and inform him of the image issue and offer a refund if the buyer felt the snake did not meet his expectations because of the image. And, now I'm currently involved in another, much larger, commercial copyright infringement. Again, just for the sake of reference to why I spoke up.

Cheers,

Cody Conway
 
Back
Top