If you had paid the photographer for all rights to the photos your case would be even stronger, as you would own the original work as well. But that does not affect your rights to the derivative work.

See the government Website for Copyright in your country (e.g. www.uspto.gov) and contact an attorney familiar with Copyright for more information. Look into "DMCA takedown" as well, but before having the other site taken down, be very, very sure that you're right and have all documentation required to back up your claim.

I am not a lawyer.

Jim

dpd1 *is not* claiming rights on the photographer's work. dpd1 *is* claiming rights on the editing work that was put into re-formatting the original photographer's work for use on dpd1's site.

The result is inarguably a unique 'derivative work' based on the original, and as such, is protected under copyright.

It's fairly simple: dpd1 claims copyright on the ten hours of editing work put into the photo.

Simple example: Phrases might be taken from copyrighted works (under the terms of "fair use") and put into a book of famous quotes. The resulting book of quotes is copyrightable as a derivative work, but copyrighting that book of quotes does not diminish the copyrights on the original works.

dpd1, I suggest you watermark your edited images in the future, and purchase the rights to the photos outright or obtain exclusive re-publishing rights if and when possible. Then you've got a clear case against anyone who copies them.

Jim