On the onset, my reaction is "this guy not again." It would have been easier to let go of these things. They say pick your battle, and by picking the "battle" against the well liked figures, Mr. Nepal is getting a bad publicity.

But then think about his profession. This is what Mr. Nepal does for living (if not full time then part time). People using his pictures are outright violating the biggest covenant of his profession and it is his right, and responsibility, to voice against such violation.

The concept of copyright is still not grasped by Nepal (or India); it's about time people pay respect to one's copyright. Hopefully Mr. Kharel will issue a simple apology on this issue.

Yeso Bichar garda Tapai le Photo nakichdai thik hola.

Euta kura Sodna man lagyo?

Tapai le photo kichna agadi Ramesh kharel sanga Photo kichna anumati magnu vayo ki vayena???

आफ्नो फोटो पनि राख्न नपाउने गज्जब रैछ
सेलेब्रितीहरुले त उल्टो फोतोग्रफेर र मेडियासंग पैसा उसुल गर्छन हाम्रो नेपाली फोटोग्राफर चै उल्टो पैसाको पछि लाग्या जस्तो छ | येही मौकामा फोकटको पब्लिसिटी त पायो

I do not blame Mr. Nepal but the one who posted here in Sajha.
Who ever has FB had known this. I will put it in the same category who puts YouTube video. If we are interested we know where to find it. Keep your personal interest yourself unless it must be shared one.

ह्या गोर्खे मित्रले कस्तो कुरो नबुजेको \ यो व्यक्तिगत कुरो होइन क्या \ बिमल नेपालले एउटा राम्रो संदेश दिन खोजेका छन् यो घटनालाई उजागर गरेर \

"फोटोमा भएको कपिराइट मार्क मेट्नु ग़ैरक़ानूनी मात्र होइन, अनइथिकल पनि हो.....................

आफ्नो व्यवसायिक हकको लागि छुच्चो बन्नु परेकोमा दुःखी छु।"

पपुलर व्यक्ति लाइ प्रयोग गरेर आफैले publicity stunt गरे जस्तो लाग्ला, तेस्तो भित्रि आसय पनि होला बिमल नेपालको \ तर बाहिर देखिने/सुनिने गरि उनले भनेको- "अर्का सिर्जना चोर्न पाइदैन "-- कुरोले चै नेपाली समाजमा 'कलाकर्मी' हरुको पक्ष्यमा राम्रो सन्देस दिने कुरोमा मलाई चै विश्वास छ \

यहाँ मान्छे हरुले 'तिमीले सार्बजनिक ठाउमा celebrity वा अन्य मान्छेको फोटो सोधेर खिचेको थियोउ ?" भन्ने पनि छन् \ त्यो त सम्बन्धित राज्य वा देशको कानुन मै व्यवस्था गरेको हुन्छ \ प्राय जसो ठाउमा अनुमति लिनु पर्दैन \ कतिपय ठाउमा video खिच्न पाईने तर audio record गर्न नपाईने पनि छ \ तर फोटो त सबै ठाउमा पाउने हुन्छ \

There are always different perspectives on this issue and perspectives will differ depending upon your individual priorities.

Personally, photography is a hobby for me. I don't consider myself to be a professional photographer since I always find there is room for improvement in my pictures. If someone uses my picture for profile pic then I take it as a compliment whether or not the copyright info is removed or not. The copyright info is merely there so that the picture is not used for commercial purpose.

Over the years of photography, 100's of pictures have been used as profile pictures with the copyright info removed and I have zero qualms about it. It is more productive and positive to celebrate the use of your picture in someone elses profile than to raise any alarms on it. In my opinion if someone uses your picture in their profile picture they are actually allowing you into their special zone and you should feel priviledged that you were able to be a special part of their timeline! Photography is an art and it is more successful when it's enjoyed by more people. It should not become a reason for a photographer to increase their blood pressure everytime someone uses their picture without giving proper credits. It's really not worth the tension. Specially when you would probably not make any money out of it anyways, so it makes more sense for you to be happy than stressful about it.

The issue about intellectual property is a valid one but there is always room for discussion. If you take a good picture of someone it's partly because of the person too. The least you can do to show some appreciation is by not making a big deal when they use your picture!

I have seen some photographers put copyright messages right in the middle of their pictures which I find very distasteful. There is such a thing as a grace. One can always be subtle and graceful with the placement of such. It's not like you lose anything when some other individual puts their own picture (that you took) in their FB.

This is my personal opinion as I consider photography as a hobby only and nothing serious. Photographers who are very serious about their work have a right to their individual opinions!

There are photographers and there are photographers of things !! Mr bimal is the second one.
Photographer should get the best with worst possible settings. What kind if photographer uses a filter ?

हो , चोरलाई आसन साधुलाई सुली पाउने चलन भएको ठाउमा ( घुस खान र ख्वाउनु अपराध हो)  कर्ल्खार्खाना उद्योग हरु बिलिन हुदै गए भने "घुस" " भ्रस्टाचार " नया उद्योग भएका बेला ,
" कलाको कदर गर्ने परिपाटी नेपालमा कहिले सुरू होला?"
"अर्का सिर्जना चोर्न पाइदैन?"
जस्ता पाठ सिकाउन खोज्नु पहाड संग कुइनो जोर्नु वा सूर्यलाई बत्ति देखाउन खोज्ने काम किन गरिरहनु ?

अरुको बगैचा बाट फुल टिप्न पाइदैन भन्दा किन नपाउनु तेरो बगैचा होर भन्ने संग के भनौ ?

अर्थात् हाम्रो मन मस्तिस्कले फिल्टर गर्ने तौर तरिका पनि फरक छ , सबैलाई तपाइको ढाचामा ढाल्न सक्नु हुन्न ?

Don't try t impose American ethics and rule in Nepal. You are not always right. Did you take his consent before taking his photo? Did you take his permission before publishing it online? If not, just shut up.

यो मुजी को चै काम छैन रैछ . अरु को फोटो खिच्छ अनि उसै ले प्रयोग गर्न उसको अनुमति चाहिने रे ! मोदी लाइ चोर आरोप लगाएर पुगेन अब रमेश खरेल लाइ लगा ! काम पाइएनस बुहारी पाडा को कन्नो कन्या !
त मुजी सस्तो लोक प्रियेता खोज्ने मान्छे रैचास हेर तोर्पे ! तेरो एउटा फोटो कतै राम्रो ठाउ मा प्राकसित भएर आएको छैन ! न येत्रो वर्ष हामीले तेरो नाम नै सुनेम आइले अरु लाइ चोर दोस लाउदै बस !

i just find his FB page and i Must say there is nothing impressive ! this guy is just cheap fame whore !
https://www.facebook.com/NepalPhoto?fref=ts

It looks like the facebook page got deactivated

अब त्यों दुखी आत्मा खुसी भो होला नी

Ramesh Kharel sucks , he is just another corrupted cop, showing good things from outside when he really is not. Hatti ko dhekaune daant vanthyo ni, tehi ho.

For me it is a non sense talk. I don't know who is the photographer. By the way who has the authority to take is single picture without any authority. What is the motive of taking is personal picture? Has he been paid to take his picture? You can easily say you can file copyrights cases but don't you know that protection of privacy ? You can not invade on someone's privacy also without their consent. So I think it does not make any sense other than claiming that you took his picture nothing else.

common sense. he can do whatever he likes with his own picture unless he has sold that picture right to the photographer.
bimal nepal - u suck! .

So I should be able to take a pic of the photographer , water mark my name , so it belongs to me and then put it in public restroom wall ? No problem ?