stbenge wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Sometimes Google can produce some interesting results, even when 
> searching one's own name. Case in point:
> 
> http://www.spanda.org/SpandaNews_I,2.pdf
> 
> Within that document lies an image produced by me. Underneath it reads, 
> "Indor Aqueduct. Photo by Samuel Benge." (the word "indor" is obviously 
> a misspelling of "indoor") It's the same image appearing in povray.org's 
> Hall of Fame:
> 
> http://hof.povray.org/indoor_aqueduct.html
> 
> I don't get it. To me the image is not exactly photo-realistic. 
To a person not expecting rendered images (e.g. a scientist that has 
(literally) been living under a stone for the past 20 years) it might 
not be so obvious.
I think you should take it as a compliment that someone who has seen a 
number of them in real live still think yours is a good example.
> Am I 
> missing something, or do people commonly refer to CG images as "photos?"
I don't think so.
> 
> Should I contact the author or just sit here smiling silently? 
I think you should contact her. She might use the image in a context 
where people do know it is not real and make a fool of herself (if she 
didn't already). Tell her that she should not refer to it as a photo but 
as an artist impression. Alternatively she might have some suggestions 
to improve your image to even better match a certain period. If you have 
time for it you might even suggest that you could make variants of it, 
each representative of a certain period.
> ( BTW, the 
> author never contacted me for permission to use the image, but I don't 
> really care, I just find this funny)
I think that you should always point this out. People tend to use google 
  too easy. Simply give her permission retrospectively and mention that 
not everybody might be so generous.

Post a reply to this message