Since it's a product being sold, and you're the copyright holder of the image. That means they should not have been using that image without your explicit permission...

technically you could sue them, and I bet them sending you copies is their way of trying to buy out the fuckup so they don't get sued. In theory you could demand a set percentage of all sales...

[–] slevinkelevra@sh.itjust.works 56 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I actually asked them per email to send me the copies. While I get your point, I personally don't hold any grudge at all, as long as people don't claim my pics as their own. Which they don't. It's the nature of the internet that such pics spread all over the world without anybody at the end of the chain knowing the source. It's just a silly little book and I doubt they'll be making any serious money on this.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Still it's shameful that people think they can profit off of others' properties.

[–] excral@feddit.org 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

While I share that sentiment, it always baffles me how people seemingly selectively take an issue with it for physical media. If someone reposted that picture to Facebook, Instagram or Reddit, those platforms profit from someone else's properties and it happens every day. Yet when it happens as a book, it's far more likely to read comments like yours

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A Facebook/Instagram/Reddit post doesn't directly financially benefit them. You can't monetise a single puppy photo or even a ton of them... At best you get some sponsorship out of it but even that is rare.

A physical book (usually) requires fronting a considerable amount of money AND it directly financially benefits the writer and publisher. So they're literally profiting off your property, directly.

[–] lawks@aussie.zone 6 points 1 day ago

Placing ads between and beside such content is pretty direct profit. Look at the cat, they get paid for showing you some cat food brand.