When you look at the cases that S.U. has in the link Jeff provided one can see that Stanford U. sited “Fair use “ and “ Not fair use” in their A/V section . Seeing that OTD used the complete Photograph I do not see how this falls into the Fair use category . I do not know how many “hits” they get but I’m sure it more than one could do with a Betamax . If you have summed up the Photographers work even for documentary or critical work and display it to many people it would be ,by Stanford Universitie's definition , “not fair use “ . As well there are Frakens (or watches that may have the wrong parts put on them) on the Fake page ( not all of them) that one can not prove 100% that they are 100% “fake” . If a watch maker takes a Heuer and changes the wrong Heuer parts and the seller claims it to be a Heuer without saying it to be a “100% model so and so” then OTD is using the photographers image and reducing the value he or she can get and again that is “not fair use “.
The value of our Heuers goes up with every fake picture the goes into the gallery so we are all on the hook Commercially ( let's be honest OTD watches are exspensive and all they do is tell time so it's B.S. to say this pursuit is not Commercial ) but no one with a fake is going to call anyone on it so it’s just an academic exercise . Unless Stanford U. , which copyrighted the articles that Jeff linked us to , comes after him and us all L.O.L.!!
Cheers