I'm new to this list, and late into this conversation, but I thought I'd bring up one small issue that I noticed with the last email in this discussion. I will quote the relevant section of the email. Dennis wrote: "Likewise, if another party cropped my photo to remove the copyright and source information after downloading it, it would seem to leave the stain of ink on their hands a second time. Even if the photo is cropped and decreased in size, it is usually quite obvious that they are clearly the same photo (in the case of tombstones, which I believe what most of us are referring to here) and therefore quite easy to visually prove infringement." Perhaps you've already had this discussion, but as far as I understand copyright law, a photo seeking to faithfully reproduce a public domain work (in this case, a tombstone), does not itself have copyright protection. The Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (1999) made it clear that exact photographic reproductions of works in the public domain are not copyrightable. I agree with this decision. If you snap a picture of a tombstone for the purpose of faithfully representing the information on it, how much creativity does that really take? Is it really an original work of authorship, or just a representational copy of the tombstone? Dennis wrote: "To that end, I would actually encourage my photos to be downloaded and spread around. If you think about it, if your materials are freely available everywhere then how could someone else profit from it? And if they're available everywhere, then it becomes just that much more likely you are commonly referred to and known as their source." For the reason above, I would agree that this is the way to go. It is also the best way to make sure that you are cited as the source. Though the use of your photo might not be copyright infringement, it is still better if you are given the credit for taking the photo. Best, James