Actually that analysis of the picture situation is wrong. The pecking order works like this...
The guy that took the pictures for the ebay auction IS THE OWNER of the pictures. Him alone, no one else.
Then you get Ebay involved. and when you do an auction, ebay now thinks they own the pics. That is up for debate, and legally i don't think it has been challenged or settled. But when you do an auction, part of the agreement with ebay is that they "own" the pictures. Again, don't think this is true but no one is complaining either... as everyone wants to sell their stuff, so what choice is there?
Then you get OldMinibikes which *hijacks* the picture from ebay (or where ever), and puts their watermark on it. Legally this is *wrong*. They do *not* own the picture, because they stole it from ebay, who stole it from the original photographer! And anyone taking the picture past that and leaving the OldMinibikes watermark in place just perpetuates that lie.
The same thing applies to people scanning advertising flyers and manufacturing information. Just because you scanned it (or took a picture of their picture), does NOT mean you own that picture! The original photographer owns that picture, and they (probably) sold the right to use the picture to the company. Or they were a company photographer, and in that case, the company fully owns the picture.
Bottom line... Just because someone puts a watermark on a picture, does NOT make that picture theirs! And often leaving that bogus watermark in place is just perpetuating that lie.
i mean i get it, people want credit for taking time to scan, document or hosting stuff. that's fine. but taking credit for the picture that is not yours, is wrong and (probably) violates copyright laws (not that anyone is complaining, but i guess they could if they cared.)