• 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....

ReptileRefuge-stealing photos and Care Sheets

C

CheriS

No furry helpless bunny
Joined
Jul 29, 2002
Messages
649
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Sarasota, FLorida
We have found many caresheet and photo's on this site that were ours, ones I wrote for others or other people's we recognize that are not authorized to be reproduced or copyright acknowledged

If you have caresheets, articles or photo's online, you might want to check out this site and make sure they have not stolen any of yours.

Some have been requested to be removed or acknowledged by the site owner, and he has changed or removed some, but appears he is just taking them again from someone else site.

http://www.reptilerefuge.com/forum/index.php
then scroll down to the caresheets.

The site owner is
Registrant:
Justin Rutledge
14501 White Tail Ave.
Amarillo, Texas 79124
United States
 
I talked with the kid running the site yesterday after Cheri brought to my attention the issue. He quickly added a link to the caresheets that I brought to his attention.

There is even a thread on his forum about copyrights and there seems to be some confusion on his end concerning what makes a work copyrighted and what is considered public works. Hopefully with the discussion on his site he'll be able to identify who owns what (he said the photos he got off a google search and he was unsure of their orgins) and post credit.

If you see something that's on there of yours let him and I'm sure he'll fix it. I don't think he's the next kin of Satan just uninformed. :D
 
He still does not seem to get it, when someone request him to remove them and explain why, he is removing them, but then taking one from another's site to replace it without acknowledgment... and that is AFTER many people have told him he is violating copyright laws using unauthorized photos and articles.
 
Also, mere acknowledgement is not a valid substitution for permission in the eyes of the legal system.

Even if you credit the original author, if you do not have their permission, that is illegal. He has been informed of this, yet when he removes articles that are requested, he replaces them with other articles that have been stolen from elsewhere.

He's certainly NOT uninformed, and NOBODY has the right to grant permission EXCEPT the copyright owner.
 
Those that requested their work removed, has been, but I think everything on that site is someone elses work and he does not know at this point were he took them from.

At first he may not have known what he was doing was wrong, although it is hard for me to imagine that somewho who has as much experience online and with the reptiles community does not know taking and using others photo, articles and signing them as regards <nick> did not know better
 
Im curious about this subject. Lets say I put together a web site and use photos or care sheets I found on the web, which did not have any type of copyright or trademark indenification on them. I use these photos and/or care sheets for informational purposes only. I don't claim I wrote the care sheets. I don't claim I own the animals pictures in the photos.Is that Illegal?
 
Technically it is.

More to the point, common courtesy would say that you

1. request to use someonelse's work

2. provide a link or at the very least provide credit where it's due.
 
Ophis said:
did not have any type of copyright or trademark indenification on them.
Click to expand...
Whether the identification was there or not, as soon as a document or a photograph is created it is automatically copyrighted to the creator.

As I said, giving credit or links is not a legally valid substitution for permission.
 
Ugh, I've dealt with him. He was banned from SsnakesS.com for spamming other members with links to his forum. Any polite requests to stop and to abide the signature rule (4 lines max) were met with outright rudeness.
 
more info

www.copyright.gov

As soon as a work is created, it is copyrighted. As per 1989, a copyright notice isn't even required. REGISTERING a copywork just adds additional damages to be areas to collected upon when in court.
 
I hear you on copyright being established upon creation. I was refering to the "Fair Use" and/or "Public Domain" clauses. Upon further review, I don't think "Fair Use" would apply. Unless he got the documents from a site where everything posted became public domain etc...that wouldn't apply either.

While what he is doing is not a criminal offense, he leaves himself open to a civil suit. Not very probable someone would bring suit against him though. Also not probable that any significant damage sum would be awarded if it wound up in court.

It only takes a few minutes of investigation for this guy to realize that he is putting himself at financial risk if someone gets a real hard on for him.
 
Joe,

I'm not really sure if what he does would not fall under "fair use". Teaching, research, scholarship activity, etc. fall under its definition. If he is making short quotations for purposes of teaching, research, etc. that's not considered copyright infringement, if the quotations are identified with the source and name of the author(s). So if the purpose of what he is doing is to teach the public about herp husbandry, etc. it might fall under the "fair use" definition. Anyways, it's matter that's better left for lawyers, as there are many "gray" areas.

Best regards.
 
Ophis said:
While what he is doing is not a criminal offense
Click to expand...
Actually, not only is it a criminal offense, it's a FEDERAL offense.

Ophis said:
he leaves himself open to a civil suit. Not very probable someone would bring suit against him though.
Click to expand...
Civil suit if the articles/photographs are not registered with the copyright office. Federal charges if they are.
 
Hoperfully, it never comes to any of that, he has been removing them when people identify they are theirs and request it.

For some others... what is the problem about asking permission of someone who has done the work for something? .... I don't understand what is the problem about that or why someone would want to claim something that is not theirs. NOt very considerate or respectful of others

Many allow their work to be used on other's site when they are asked first..... just seems to start people/sites off on the wrong foot copying their entire articles.
 
Joe,

If the material is used for teaching purposes and not for monetary gains (or losses to the other party) it seems it might be considered "fair use". One way or the other I'm no lawyer, and we both know how things can be twisted around. This is an example from the link you posted (the bold is mine):

Too Small For Fair Use: The De Minimis Defense

In some cases, the amount of material copied is so small (or "de minimis") that the court permits it without even conducting a fair use analysis. For example, in the motion picture Seven, several copyrighted photographs appeared in the film, prompting the copyright owner of the photographs to sue the producer of the movie. The court held that the photos "appear fleetingly and are obscured, severely out of focus, and virtually unidentifiable." The court excused the use of the photographs as "de minimis" and a fair use analysis was not required. ( Sandoval v. New Line Cinema Corp., 147 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 1998).)
Click to expand...

Lots of "gray" areas...But if someone is going to use material from another person, he better ask permission first or at least cite the reference.

Regards, :)
 
It may be a grey area but not very. His use would most probably NOT fall under fair use. As for criminal offense, my senario suggested no copyright notification was evident, therefore NOT a criminal offense.
 
Back
Top