• 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....

Info www.istockphoto.com could be slling your photos

Completely not the same thing, but about Istockphoto, for some reason when my ATM card number got stolen in February, somebody bought a 1 month subscription to Istockphoto with it.
I have no idea what kind of person would steal an ATM card and buy stock photos with it, but probably the same kind that would steal other people's photos and sell it as their own.
 
It's a stock photo site. I ain't about to sift through all the legal mumbo jumbo, but I bet if you agree, sign on, and upload images to the site, you just gave all member a right to use those pictures.
 
iStock does nothing but sell stock imagery submitted by photographers (the photographers of course get a commission for each image sold). Are you sure the breeder your speaking about didn't use iStock photography for their website?

How about showing the photos in question compared to the breeder's site they were supposedly stolen from instead of such a generic post that really doesn't provide any information. iStock only accepts very high quality, very high resolution photos...You can't just pull low resolution web images offline and submit them. So if the photos were stolen and then uploaded to iStock, I'd like to know why someone would be dumb enough to upload a large, high resolution photo onto their website in the first place.
 
I was the person who found it. The photos in question were stolen from Mike Wilbanks of Constrictors unlimited. He had no idea they were stolen, and is in the process of handling them right now.. Some of his photos in use are on www.topballpythons.com.

The kid claimed he purchased them from iStock, so I scoped it out and they're selling quite a few of his.

http://www.constrictors.com/Collection/BallPythons/OrangeGhostFireBallPython.html

http://www.constrictors.com/Collection/BallPythons/OrangeGhostFireBallPython.html

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4518518-three-snakes.php

As for why Wilbanks would be "dumb" enough. Why don't you ask him personally?...
 
Well, they don't make it easy to file a claim with them:

http://www.istockphoto.com/terms_of_use.php

Notice and Procedure for Making Claims of Infringement


iStockphoto LP respects the copyright of others, and we ask our users to do the same. If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, or your intellectual property rights have been otherwise violated, please provide iStockphoto with a written communication addressed to our President including substantially the following information:
  1. an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright or other intellectual property interest;
  2. description of the copyrighted work or other intellectual property that you claim has been infringed;
  3. a description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on the Web site;
  4. your address, telephone number, and email address;
  5. a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law;
  6. a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your notice 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.
Please address your letter to our CEO, as follows:
iStockphoto LP
Suite 200, 1240 - 20th Avenue S.E.
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2G 1M8

Attention: CEO
Click to expand...

Related article from 2008:

http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/06/istockphoto-comes-under-fire/
 
I've contacted the Photographer through iStock and pointed him here.

It should be noted that the largest size of the trio of Ball Pythons that can be downloaded from iStock is 3872x2892 while the photo on Constrictors.com is only 750x379. The Photographer that posted them on iStock evidently had access to the original files and did not acquire them off of the breeders website.
 
Kind of funny... Wilbanks is the photographer, produced that morph first, and owns quite a bit of gear.

It's fairly easy to increase an images size and run some filters on the image to clean it up.
 
Kaa22 said:
It's fairly easy to increase an images size and run some filters on the image to clean it up.
Click to expand...

No it's not, especially at the size that we're talking about. That is more then three times larger. The quality would be completely unusable and would never be accepted by iStock.

I hope the photographer comes here and posts. These are pretty serious accusations and he is profiting from the photos, so if he's in the US it's grounds for a lawsuit. I'd like to know too how he was able to acquire the high resolution images in the first place.
 
If Mike didn't allow his pictures @ iStock, then He'll deal with it. I'm sure the person using them from iStock for the purpose of the website isn't heisting them from Mike on purpose.
 
crotalusadamanteus said:
If Mike didn't allow his pictures @ iStock, then He'll deal with it. I'm sure the person using them from iStock for the purpose of the website isn't heisting them from Mike on purpose.
Click to expand...

No one's saying the person who BOUGHT them from iStockPhoto was knowingly trying to rip Wilbanks off... rather, the "photographer" who submitted them.
 
TripleMoonsExotic said:
No it's not, especially at the size that we're talking about. That is more then three times larger. The quality would be completely unusable and would never be accepted by iStock.

I hope the photographer comes here and posts. These are pretty serious accusations and he is profiting from the photos, so if he's in the US it's grounds for a lawsuit. I'd like to know too how he was able to acquire the high resolution images in the first place.
Click to expand...
Quite. But what would I know. I've only been a photographer since the Elan 7e was one of the best cameras out there.

Like I said, why not shoot Mike a call to discuss this with him. I guarantee you're going to get the same answer... they are stolen pictures. The only other people I know of that have actively and professionally photographed his collection are Randy May and Steve Gooch... and that was quite a while ago, before both Randy and Steve had taught Mike the ins and outs of studio work. Mike does all of his own photos. You can clearly tell by looking at them that that is Mikes work.
 
Forgot to add:

On top of this, I have been speaking to Mike about this. He did confirm those images were stolen. Again. This isn't the first time Mike's photos were stolen in this manner.
 
i wasn't trying to bring up Mikes case, i just wanted to get the info out their that this site was found to have our fellow breeders stuff sold out from under him.. Ididn't think people would go as far to say someones dumb becuase he didnt know his photos were being stolen....come on, thats why we have these sites...to help our fellow breeders
 
lance_portal said:
Ididn't think people would go as far to say someones dumb becuase he didnt know his photos were being stolen....
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. I asked why anyone is dumb enough to put high resolution files up on the internet. Completely twisted my words around. Not only are resolutions that high unnecessary online, but things exactly like this happen. The action itself is stupid, not the person. The file I looked at (the trio of Ball Pythons) was not pulled off his website...The iStock photographer had access to the original file by other means.

Quite. But what would I know. I've only been a photographer since the Elan 7e was one of the best cameras out there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what would I know either...I've only been working in digital media professionally for over six years. :shrug01:





Frankly, I've wondered when something like this was going to come up in the reptile world. I use stock photography a lot as most of my clients can't take photos worth a poop or simply don't have the time. You're bound to see duplicates somewhere, especially since reptiles don't have huge stock options. I understand in this case someone is stating they are stolen (third person), but it is something you need to consider in the future before accusing someone of stealing pictures. It's totally possible they legitimately purchased a license for a photo from a stock source that just happened to be used by someone else.
 
TripleMoonsExotic said:
No it's not, especially at the size that we're talking about. That is more then three times larger. The quality would be completely unusable and would never be accepted by iStock.

I hope the photographer comes here and posts. These are pretty serious accusations and he is profiting from the photos, so if he's in the US it's grounds for a lawsuit. I'd like to know too how he was able to acquire the high resolution images in the first place.
Click to expand...

I agree.. resizing that 750x379 to 3872x2892 quality will be crappy as hell.. I may not have the exp as many graphics designer out there... but I can say for sure that even the best will have hard time doing it..... you wont see anything but pixels =O

and I also agree with this:
I didn't say that. I asked why anyone is dumb enough to put high resolution files up on the internet. Completely twisted my words around. Not only are resolutions that high unnecessary online, but things exactly like this happen. The action itself is stupid, not the person. The file I looked at (the trio of Ball Pythons) was not pulled off his website...The iStock photographer had access to the original file by other means.
Click to expand...
 
I am the guy who has mikes photos on my site.
I analogize to him from the bottom of my heart.
If i would of known they were his i would of not had my website designer use them.

I already replied to this post on another forum with a negative attitude because there were multiple posts calling me a huge POS and everything else in between. I have been out of the business for quite a while now and i did not design my website, so i dont know how to take the pictures down. If somebody can tell me how it will be much appreciated.

I am just happy for not getting bashed on this site. Like i said i did not design the site and i just figured we just had legally bought photos the jazz up my homepage.

I'm sorry if i offended anybody, and i will make sure the photos are taken down as soon as i figure it out.

Thanks,
Derrick.
 
hey derrick......alot of people know the owner of the photos and it has happened to him befor(i think)....thats way they came down on you like that did........thanks for coming out here. Question, have you talked with that photo site about them??? would like to here what they think about it.....i would get a refund bro. Need help removing them let us know....someone on here should know how....
 
Just an FYI since people (as always) jump to conclusions...

Message: RE: Ball Python Photos

From: litnib

To: triplemoonsdesign

CC:

Subject: RE: Ball Python Photos

Hello, thank you for letting me know. Actually the snakes I used belong to a friend of mine and he did not know I was going to put them on istock. We discussed the matter and worked out an agreement. I am going to remove the photos for him given the situation. Thank you

Nathan

Written by "triplemoonsdesign" at 01:03 PM, May 9, 2010:

Just an FYI, their are some serious accusations going on about you having stolen photos that are currently in your portfolio here on iStock. http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?p=940863#post940863
Click to expand...

So all in all, Mike didn't take the photos...The iStock photographer has the original files because he took them...The two are friends and have come to a private, mutual agreement about the photos. :thumbsup:
 
Back
Top