i get what u are saying but i don't think people should discredit tank 3 just because it is not there own personal tank. like u said the contest was "tank of the month" wasn't home aquarium no tank that u personally made or maintain, it never said anything about the photographer needing to be personally connected to the tank, if the best photo for POTM was taken in nature or at an aquarium and it was an awesome shot no one would discredit that photo. And so it was a few more people working to make that tank. the rules at the time did not discredit that tank. and i am pretty sure that the photographer did not say that the tank was his/her personal tank. i voted 3 casue i think it is the best tankThat wasn't a loophole of whose tank it was it's a big black and white, it's no grey when it comes to plagiarism when one takes credit for someone elses work. To be more specific this contest wasn't the best photography .... the title of the contest is the best tank of the month, so therefore the photographer was already in default when they took the photo and submitted it in the contest, the title just said it all it wasn't the best photography, it was the best tank, not photo which was only the final step in the contest to take and submit. The contest clearly was for the work people was to put into their tank and show it off. This is plagiarism in some peoples view, but in other words did the public aquarium give written permission for their display to be submitted in this contest? I highly doubt that was followed. That's what the whole another can of worms come in if you guys look at it like a lawyer for other 3 contestants who did the moral right thing. Plagiarism is too ugly but its a fish eat fish world out there and that tank 3 outright trumps every one elses tank as it was a team of people who did it so it says two minds are better than one.