Just poor form. Today's photo of the day (http://www.summitpost.org/massive-ash-cloud-erupting-from-augustine-volcano-aleutian-range-alaska/821896)is properly attributed to Cyrus Read of the Alaska Volcano Observatory. The image was published by the USGS in their Alaska Volcano Observatory postcard (General Information Product 79, http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/79/) in 2008. The photo is from a 2006 eruption. It's a pretty dang cool photo; I remember it circling around folks' inboxes, maybe even seeing it in a forum here or on CC.

Problem is (if it's a problem at all), SP member PanamaRed has gotten (at the time of this post) forty-seven 10/10 votes and is happily accepting kudos ("Beautiful capture, Red!" "Thanks!"/"...how well and clearly you captured this!!" "Thanks Eric!" and so on) for a photo he didn't take. If his profile is accurate (and it very well may not be, which is fine), I somehow doubt that PanamaRed was working as a geoscientist for the USGS AVO at the age of fourteen. To say nothing of the fact that an easy search for "cyrus read usgs" shows images of an AVO geoscientist working in the field who definitely doesn't match PanamaRed's profile photo.

Is this something that even needs to be worried about, or should I just go on with my day?

I think you're within decorum to call PanamaRed out on this. No one likes to see this go on. It's a dishonest ploy for credit that is undeserved.

TimmyC, your points are valid. However it may be worth it to discuss the issue with PanamaRed first before making it a public matter. He is new to the site (been here 1 month) and may not be aware of how significant the issue is. Did you PM him about the matter?

Also the photo is significant in that it highlights one of the more interesting facets of the Aleutian Range, a range page he is building, which is an area that doesn't get much human exploration making photographs like this very hard to come by. I doubt he posted the picture to get the accolades for taking the picture (he did give credit to the photographer) but rather to highlight one of the features of the range he is building the page for. Obviously it would have been appropriate to ask Cyrus Reed for permission to use the photo, but I'm not sure he is aware of that. Just my 2 cents.

He isn't trying to hide anything. Credit is given in the caption and it is in the public domain. I hardly see any issue or any cause for concern.

People are free to read the caption and vote or not vote as they wish. If they overlook it... well that's on them and what does it affect anyway?

mrchad9 wrote:... well that's on them and what does it affect anyway?

Agreed .... What are Power points worth ? .... you most certainly can't cash them in, because I already tried ...

TimmyC wrote: .... or should I just go on with my day?

Please feel free to go on with your day .... boy O boy, wish I could spend more time in Seattle ...!

TimmyC wrote:
Problem is (if it's a problem at all), SP member PanamaRed has gotten (at the time of this post) forty-seven 10/10 votes and is happily accepting kudos ("Beautiful capture, Red!" "Thanks!"/"...how well and clearly you captured this!!" "Thanks Eric!" and so on)

Is this something that even needs to be worried about ..."

Nope, NO WORRIES .... Eric never TIRES from being "THANKED ....."

I admit that I side with the OP of this thread. It's not just the fact that they are going to win Photo of the Week with a photo that they did not take or had no involvement with the actual event. But it's things like "What a sight!! And how well and clearly you captured this!!" and then he replies "Thanks Eric!" as if he took the shot. Don't get me wrong, PanamaRed has some nice shots.

So if it's cool to post another amazing photographers photos, can I post one from national geographic and get a future Photo of the Week? (I couldn't resist saying that)

Anyways some important things to highlight here:
Did the poster get permission to post this photo? I admit I've posted a photo that I did not get permission for. However, the author of that photo I posted is probably not alive (photo was taken 1912) and I could not find any contact information for the publisher nor did it say anything about a copyright.

Anyways, another thing to highlight is the voters/commenters/viewers. It's up to you to see if the photograph was taken by someone else. Before commenting on any image (especially great photos) I usually glance at the caption. I liked the photo, but did not vote on it on account of it not being taken by the author. Not to say I wouldn't vote on photos posted by non authors.

He isn't trying to hide anything. Credit is given in the caption and it is in the public domain.

True. The entire caption is the following:

Photo courtesy of the USGS and the Alaska Volcano Observatory.
Photographer: Cyrus Read

If the photo was from the USGS, then taxpayers paid for it and thus it is public domain. If it were a private individual, that would be completely different. It would also be different if he had taken credit for taking the photo.

Obviously it would have been appropriate to ask Cyrus Reed for permission to use the photo, but I'm not sure he is aware of that.

Not if it were taken for the USGS and was on their website. USGS = no copyright = public domain = permission already given. Same with other government agencies (of which I worked for one for much of my life).

Problem is (if it's a problem at all), SP member PanamaRed has gotten (at the time of this post) forty-seven 10/10 votes and is happily accepting kudos ("Beautiful capture, Red!" "Thanks!"/"...how well and clearly you captured this!!" "Thanks Eric!" and so on)

That's a problem of the voter, not the submitter. It's their own fault for voting/commenting on something that clearly stated was taken by someone else. People should read captions when voting on stuff.

I gotta admit it's pretty messed up that someone can upload a photo here without the author's permission and then I upload a picture to wikipedia taken by my partner of myself climbing across a crevasse with his permission to post it. And they delete it! (under cause that I didn't have written consent) This happened to me this week. I guess that's why I feel a little swadded by this kinda of stuff right now.

Not trying to get after RedPanorama in this case. Wikipedia is my target.

However it may be worth it to discuss the issue with PanamaRed first before making it a public matter

I agree

Credit is given in the caption and it is in the public domain

Yes, but do we know if it was changed after the fact?

He isn't trying to hide anything

Maybe, but his responses to the votes he received make it seem as he is in fact taking credit for the shot and almost imply he was there.

He is new to the site (been here 1 month) and may not be aware of how significant the issue is

I agree, cut the guy some slack.

Hopefully he'll (Red) will give a response and clear this up for those that need clarification.

I'm feeling really bad about bringing this up; I should have just left it alone. I got a PM from our man Red, and he feels positively awful about this, which was not my intention at all. He was using the shot (the PROPERLY ATTRIBUTED shot, I'll note, as I did above) for a page on the range; I suggested to him that he should re-post the image and might, when someone says "nice shot," note that he didn't take it, and that it's for a page. That would solve the whole thing, wouldn't it?

As far as the voting goes, again, I shouldn't have brought it up. Folks above are right: it's up to the voters to read a little more, but, if they don't, then it still isn't something I should worry about.

PUBLIC APOLOGY: Red, I'm sorry I inadvertently whipped up a shitstorm that made you feel so rotten. Next time I'll just keep to my own knitting and let stuff sort itself out without my nagging. Seriously, man, I feel bad about this, and I'm sorry.

The photo was changed. Probably for the best.

Let me set the record straight here about that Augustine volcano picture i posted. I did not in ANY way shape or form try to take credit for the photo. I posted it because i am working on a page on the Aleutian range and needed a picture of a volcano in the Aleutian islands. The USGS website says the image is fine to use as long as the photographer is given credit: http://www.avo.alaska.edu/images/image.php?id=9099. I realize i should have re-emphasized that i was not the photographer, but i assumed it would be unnecessary given that all of my other pictures are under another name! I just saw the op's latest post, which was really nice. Im really sorry this whole thing became an issue. Thanks!

Don't feel bad Red. I for one really appreciate your contributions in the short time you've been here. I hope this doesn't ruin summitpost for you because I'd bet that you will be a very valuable contributor for the site for years to come. Keep it up!

Me and RedPanorama had a good little PM discussion. Now I see USGS makes it quite clear that you don't need author permission, but do need to include credits (which he did). I say re-post the picture. Just make sure in the future that if folks say "You took a awesome photo" that you make it clear to individuals that you didn't take the photo. Not that you owe people replies to comments, but if you do reply, it's good practice.

Get rid of the voting and this whole issue is moot.

But then dudes like Josh Lewis's ego would be dealt the biggest blow of their lives.