I think I would be a little upset by this one. First off, we are collectors and part of what is fun about collecting is the occasional ability to show off items in our collections. When someone else shows an item without mentioning that it came from our collections, it may feel a little like a loss or a slight. This is true regardless of whether it is technically or legally "correct" to use posted images.
But the one that gets me here is how many of them were used. I think if someone used one of my images for a minor this or that, I might not mind as much. This looks more like they raided Dan's whole collection and used images to compile this publication. There is little else in the thing besides Dan's images - no text, no commentary, etc. I don't know exactly which drawings, etc, came from Dan, but from the photos I recognize it looks his collection is a significant portion of this.
So now it's not just the images they've used, but it's also the time, money, dedication, ebay searches and everything else that it took Dan to compile them. Yes, no doubt the author here could have dug around the internet and found some of the same or maybe different images. But the fact is that he didn't have to. Dan had already done that work for him.
And if Dan hadn't mentioned that he was actually named in the comments, I would never have known to look for the comments and find them.
Joann
|