I still know where it came from...
I publish my photos on the internet. Well, I do when I get around to updating it, anyway. When I do so, I include some information about licensing them. I say to people "I'm very open to people wanting to use these pictures for something else, and will be happy to release photos into the public domain on request." so when I discover one of my photos abused by a travel website I do wonder why I didn't hear about it.
Still, you don't expect a photo of Cuilapan Monastery near Zaachila, Oaxtepec, Mexico to appear on a page about Edinburgh Castle, but really. Am I just being picky?
Is this the norm? Are there really people all over the intawebs taking this little care about what photos they use for this sort of thing? I realise there isn't much sunshine in my photos of Scotland, and my photos of Edinburgh Castle, but really. Scotland is renowned for it's preponderance of rain over sunshine and it is considerably glossing the reality of a visit to the real Edinburgh Castle to even suggest the sun might appear.
On closer examination I see that the site is actually talking about some weird nutter's home in Jamaica. Nothing to do with anywhere I've ever been, though if I ever visit Jamaica I probably would actually visit the place they're talking about. Now that I know about it, anyway, and especially if I was with Max who claims his favourite castles are Craigmillar & Tolquhon because most of the others aren't at quite the right stage of ruination.
Oh well. I guess by putting the photo into the public domain I gave up responsibility for them, and it does seem that it might be hard to find real photos of the ruin in question (let alone free ones). On the other hand I do feel obliged to point and laugh, because that photo isn't Jamaica by a considerable distance, and just because I PD a photo I should still be well within my rights to have a good old giggle when I see a Mexican monastery linked to a Scottish castle. Even one in Jamaica.