> > they are obviously producing a profit from advertisments, ads which
> > wouldn't
> > be there without the hundreds of referenced images from artists who
> > aren't
> > receiving a dime.  Granted, it may not be a huge concern but let's
> > look at
> > this think from all angles first.
> >

This isn't a very valid point, since they are not taking away a source of
revenue from the artist. They can sell adds because the site is a
comprehensive index of images, not because of the images of one particular
artist.

The artist is losing nothing, just gaining another link to his/her site.

Post a reply to this message