-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
somebody stole my ebay photos
- Thread starter Robert Smith
- Start date
Robert Smith
Leading Member
Hello all,
I was on the road for a couple of days, and was surprised to see all this controversy over my inquiry. For Zippety: Sorry you don't seem to share my concern about unauthorized use -- and very possibly misrepresentative use -- of product images. Since it's OK with you, would you please provide for the rest of us a free database of product images of, say, the most 50 or so most-often traded items by enthusiast and professional photographers, for our unrestricted use?? That would be so kind of you, and save the rest of us the trouble of producing authentic images of our saleable/tradable merchandise ourselves. Thanks, in advance.
The "can I sue" question was more technical and rhetorical than an indication of my intentions. No, I was merely hoping for useful information regarding my rights. And in another case, it very well may be more than rhetorical. If you think the question isn't worth responding to, I suppose you could have simply said so or remained mute, rather than ridicule me. Perhaps your responses were less helpful than some of the others. Thanks for your contribution.
OK, here are the photos in question. As I said in a previous post, they are not even that good. The mixed (window and overhead tungsten) lighting is not very attractive, and the staging is decidedly home-spun. HOWEVER, I think there is a distinct advantage for me, as a seller, to provide a picture which is obviously home-made, even though I have the tools and the skill to produce a snazzy, softly-lit, snowy stage and background "glamour" image of the item(s) -- precisely because it lends AUTHENTICITY to the ad, as opposed to a "borrowed" or "stock" photo. Hey, maybe this is exactly why these images were stolen. Supporting this hypothesis is the fact that eBay PROVIDES standard stock photos of the S1 for your S1 ad, free of charge.
Here they are:
Thanks again to everyone who offered USEFUL comments.
Robert
I was on the road for a couple of days, and was surprised to see all this controversy over my inquiry. For Zippety: Sorry you don't seem to share my concern about unauthorized use -- and very possibly misrepresentative use -- of product images. Since it's OK with you, would you please provide for the rest of us a free database of product images of, say, the most 50 or so most-often traded items by enthusiast and professional photographers, for our unrestricted use?? That would be so kind of you, and save the rest of us the trouble of producing authentic images of our saleable/tradable merchandise ourselves. Thanks, in advance.
The "can I sue" question was more technical and rhetorical than an indication of my intentions. No, I was merely hoping for useful information regarding my rights. And in another case, it very well may be more than rhetorical. If you think the question isn't worth responding to, I suppose you could have simply said so or remained mute, rather than ridicule me. Perhaps your responses were less helpful than some of the others. Thanks for your contribution.
OK, here are the photos in question. As I said in a previous post, they are not even that good. The mixed (window and overhead tungsten) lighting is not very attractive, and the staging is decidedly home-spun. HOWEVER, I think there is a distinct advantage for me, as a seller, to provide a picture which is obviously home-made, even though I have the tools and the skill to produce a snazzy, softly-lit, snowy stage and background "glamour" image of the item(s) -- precisely because it lends AUTHENTICITY to the ad, as opposed to a "borrowed" or "stock" photo. Hey, maybe this is exactly why these images were stolen. Supporting this hypothesis is the fact that eBay PROVIDES standard stock photos of the S1 for your S1 ad, free of charge.
Here they are:
Thanks again to everyone who offered USEFUL comments.
Robert
JOHN CALLANAN
Leading Member
If you only had ONE camera, how would you take a picture of it?
Zippy DooDah
Senior Member
Be glad to... here's a link to a great source of lots of images which lots of people use on eBay to grab images...
http://www.adorama.com
http://www.bhphoto.com
another source is http://www.google.com and then click on the "images" tab to search for images. Here's a few of your S1...
http://www.canfieldsci.com/ products/fuji-s1.html
http://www.digital.idv.tw/dc-test/FujiFilm/fujis1/operation/index-fujis1-operation.htm
http://www.photographic.ru/doc/article/phototechnique/0031.shtml
I really don't see what the fuss is about. The sample images you shot don't really show anything more than if you'd simply "borrowed" the images from another site. eBay'ers do this all the time simply for convenience, not to rip anyone off. You really don't need to spend time taking pictures of your own stuff.
Good luck trying to get damages from the guy who "borrowed" your image!
http://www.adorama.com
http://www.bhphoto.com
another source is http://www.google.com and then click on the "images" tab to search for images. Here's a few of your S1...
http://www.canfieldsci.com/ products/fuji-s1.html
http://www.digital.idv.tw/dc-test/FujiFilm/fujis1/operation/index-fujis1-operation.htm
http://www.photographic.ru/doc/article/phototechnique/0031.shtml
I really don't see what the fuss is about. The sample images you shot don't really show anything more than if you'd simply "borrowed" the images from another site. eBay'ers do this all the time simply for convenience, not to rip anyone off. You really don't need to spend time taking pictures of your own stuff.
Good luck trying to get damages from the guy who "borrowed" your image!
Robert Smith
Leading Member
You're very, very wrong on this one. My "sample images" aren't "samples" at all. They are legal representations of the condition of the ACTUAL ITEM I'm selling, not a facsimile or similar likeness. For that matter, sometimes I've sold stuff which isn't so pretty. I take pictures of those, also, to display on the listing, and my bidders appreciate my honesty and know I'm not trying to misrepresent my items for sale.
eBay'ers do this all the
You're missing the point entirely -- or you're not willing to admit that you understand that my point is a good one. As a BUYER, I value seeing pictures of the ACTUAL ITEM for sale, to judge condition, etc., NOT stock photos of a similar item, and certainly not "borrowed" or stolen images which may or may not reflect the condition of the actual item for sale. As a SELLER, I pride myself in providing honest, accurate descriptions and pictures of what I have to sell. This practice, and the feedback I honestly earn, help me make more money -- help me maximize the value of my merchandise -- from the auction. I CREATE VALUE for myself by producing these pictures. You simply can't do this using stock photos of any kind. Is this so hard to understand?
Consider this: Suppose a prospective bidder/buyer of an item I'm selling sees the same "home-grown" pictures -- NOT stock photos -- on more than one listing. How does the bidder know that the pictures are mine, and not someone else's? Maybe the prospective bidder thinks that I'm engaging in fraud to some degree. This damages the prospect of my sale in a very real and substantial way. This could cause me to earn less money from my auction, or even cause the auction not to be successful.
What's so hard to understand that this should be an unacceptable practice???
I have no intention to do so, but if it happens again, I can have his eBay privileges revoked, for the reasons already stated.Good luck trying to get damages from the guy who "borrowed" your
image!
Richard Wait
Senior Member
Rob
I agree completely with what you are saying, the images YOU produced show the condition and availability of YOUR goods and the goods the buyer is going to receive.
People using your images are not showing a true representation of the goods they are selling.
With my auctions I allows try and take some pictures of the actual goods I have for sale, if not I use 'stock' images, which I find normally on the manufacturers website, which are linked and I always state 'Images not of actual goods, photos are available on request', if I don’t produce an image.
Using 'user' images like yours I would never do, it implies to the buyer that what they are seeing, is what they are going to receive.
Also using your own images helps creates an emotional bond between the goods and the potential buyer, the buyer can almost touch the goods
and thus can guarantee higher bidding....
--
Regards - Richard
(This is the voice of the Mysterons, we know that you can hear us Earthmen)
I agree completely with what you are saying, the images YOU produced show the condition and availability of YOUR goods and the goods the buyer is going to receive.
People using your images are not showing a true representation of the goods they are selling.
With my auctions I allows try and take some pictures of the actual goods I have for sale, if not I use 'stock' images, which I find normally on the manufacturers website, which are linked and I always state 'Images not of actual goods, photos are available on request', if I don’t produce an image.
Using 'user' images like yours I would never do, it implies to the buyer that what they are seeing, is what they are going to receive.
Also using your own images helps creates an emotional bond between the goods and the potential buyer, the buyer can almost touch the goods
and thus can guarantee higher bidding....
--
Regards - Richard
(This is the voice of the Mysterons, we know that you can hear us Earthmen)
Peter Berressem
Forum Pro
That's the point IMO. It's not about jealousy or overwhelming proud or not wanting to share...his auction riscs to look dubious to a suspicious bidder. IF the plagiarist's auction wouldn't run in the same time and he'd state "picture courtesy of.."
--
Kind regards,
Peter B.
('Sorry for my English. I'm an alien.')
Zippy DooDah
Senior Member
Robert,
What you say makes sense only if the product the seller is selling differs from the image displayed. If someone is doing that, then I agree with you. But you have no proof that anyone is committing fraud. All you know is that someone borrowed an image. Big deal.
If the product is in excellent "like-new" condition, I see nothing wrong with putting up an image straight from B&H. I even use the exact text (cut&paste) from B&H's description. But, I only do this if the product I'm selling actually is in excellent "like-new" condition. If it isn't, I take a quick snapshot of the actual product I'm selling. If someone has a similar product that they want to sell, they're more than welcome to borrow any of my images that are up on eBay.
You're like a little kid crying on the playground.. "he took my ball... it's mine... I want you to revoke his playground access for being a bad little boy." Just get over it and move on... it's not that big a deal.
You're not going to be able to have someone's eBay privileges revoked simply because they borrowed an image unless you can also prove the seller was trying to commit fraud. If you really believe you can have eBay revoke someone privileges, why don't you do it instead of whining incessantly here and saying, "he better not do that again!"
By the way, if eBay revoked everyone's eBay privileges who borrowed an image, eBay would not have very many sellers left! Take a quick look at pretty much any product image on eBay and you'll regularly see the watermark of places such as B&H.
What you say makes sense only if the product the seller is selling differs from the image displayed. If someone is doing that, then I agree with you. But you have no proof that anyone is committing fraud. All you know is that someone borrowed an image. Big deal.
If the product is in excellent "like-new" condition, I see nothing wrong with putting up an image straight from B&H. I even use the exact text (cut&paste) from B&H's description. But, I only do this if the product I'm selling actually is in excellent "like-new" condition. If it isn't, I take a quick snapshot of the actual product I'm selling. If someone has a similar product that they want to sell, they're more than welcome to borrow any of my images that are up on eBay.
You're like a little kid crying on the playground.. "he took my ball... it's mine... I want you to revoke his playground access for being a bad little boy." Just get over it and move on... it's not that big a deal.
You're not going to be able to have someone's eBay privileges revoked simply because they borrowed an image unless you can also prove the seller was trying to commit fraud. If you really believe you can have eBay revoke someone privileges, why don't you do it instead of whining incessantly here and saying, "he better not do that again!"
By the way, if eBay revoked everyone's eBay privileges who borrowed an image, eBay would not have very many sellers left! Take a quick look at pretty much any product image on eBay and you'll regularly see the watermark of places such as B&H.
Robert Smith wrote:
What's so hard to understand that this should be an unacceptable
practice???
I have no intention to do so, but if it happens again, I can haveGood luck trying to get damages from the guy who "borrowed" your
image!
his eBay privileges revoked, for the reasons already stated.
Zippy DooDah
Senior Member
mirror.
riokid
Senior Member
can we see the link to the eBay ad in question?
I guess, it boils down to: did he "borrow" just one image or all the images?
dan
I guess, it boils down to: did he "borrow" just one image or all the images?
dan
What you say makes sense only if the product the seller is selling
differs from the image displayed. If someone is doing that, then I
agree with you. But you have no proof that anyone is committing
fraud. All you know is that someone borrowed an image. Big deal.
If the product is in excellent "like-new" condition, I see nothing
wrong with putting up an image straight from B&H. I even use the
exact text (cut&paste) from B&H's description. But, I only do this
if the product I'm selling actually is in excellent "like-new"
condition. If it isn't, I take a quick snapshot of the actual
product I'm selling. If someone has a similar product that they
want to sell, they're more than welcome to borrow any of my images
that are up on eBay.
You're like a little kid crying on the playground.. "he took my
ball... it's mine... I want you to revoke his playground access for
being a bad little boy." Just get over it and move on... it's not
that big a deal.
You're not going to be able to have someone's eBay privileges
revoked simply because they borrowed an image unless you can also
prove the seller was trying to commit fraud. If you really believe
you can have eBay revoke someone privileges, why don't you do it
instead of whining incessantly here and saying, "he better not do
that again!"
By the way, if eBay revoked everyone's eBay privileges who borrowed
an image, eBay would not have very many sellers left! Take a quick
look at pretty much any product image on eBay and you'll regularly
see the watermark of places such as B&H.
Robert Smith wrote:
What's so hard to understand that this should be an unacceptable
practice???
I have no intention to do so, but if it happens again, I can haveGood luck trying to get damages from the guy who "borrowed" your
image!
his eBay privileges revoked, for the reasons already stated.
Robert Smith
Leading Member
It is attitudes like this which precipitate the moral downfall and degradation of social contracts in our society, which affect ALL of us, not only those who participate directly in such behaviors. I try to conduct my business on a higher level, to a higher standard of integrity, and frankly, I DO expect the same standard of other honest business people. Those who do not share these values, I view with a less favorable eye, and I prefer not to do business with them if I can help it. I'm sorry if my attitude offends you, but I won't knowingly or willingly yield on this. By the way, the last time I looked, the "little kid crying on the playground" (to use your description of me) was protesting a bully's actions, so if that's your best shot, I'll proudly accept it. I, at the very least, will not stoop to the same behavior.
That's fair enough, but why do you continually insist on changing the subject? When you stay on topic, your argument is very flimsy.
How magnanimous of you. But I don't recall ever offering my images for anyone else to use, and, as I described earlier, this unauthorized practice can definitely cost me money.
You can't seem to forge a decent argument without resorting to name-calling (or changing the subject). Congratulations on your superior debating skills. As far as it not being a "big deal", well, yeah, it IS a big deal if my auction fails because someone doubts the authenticity of my images, OR if someone fraudulently uses my images to sell a similar item in inferior condition, OR if my pictures help another seller have a successful auction at the expense of my own, and using the product of MY time and expense to create the pictures. By any reasonable measure, the practice defies basic fair practice.
Maybe it's not worth my trouble this time around. Maybe I'll put personal copyright labels on subsequent auction pictures. And, I CAN prove the pictures are mine; if I wanted to, I could pursue it. The reason I brought the topic to this forum was not to "whine incessantly" but to explore the topic and share thoughts with others who shared interest. Why do you insist on mischaracterizing my actions?
Apparently, the seller in question (in my case being discussed here) feels differently than you. He sent me a note apologiziing for any infringement, so apparently he is NOT defending what he did. As for "not very many sellers left", that is sad if true. I have NEVER used another's image without permission, and I don't plan on doing so. Again, the watermarked images from B&H are not equivalent from stealing someone's home-made pictures. They represent COMPLETELY different things. Oh, that's right, you haven't yet acknowledged that part; it must be too difficult for you to understand. Maybe someone else can explain it for you. This is surprising, since I assume you are either a professional photog, or semi-pro, or at least someone who has INTEREST in "professional" topics, such as copyright issues. What is so hard for you to understand here?
Robert Smith
Leading Member
Here is the link to the auction with the "borrowed" images:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3823321233
riokid
Senior Member
Zippy DooDah
Senior Member
Robert,
Are you so paranoid that you really equate someone borrowing an image with the "moral downfall and degradation of social contracts in our society"? Don't you think you're blowing this WAY out of proportion?
Seems like we agree that it's OK to borrow an image from B&H if the product is in like-new condition, so why is it so different to borrow your image of an S1 if the one being sold is also similar to the image? Where it would be wrong (and we would be in agreement) is if the product doesn't live up to the image.
You keep arguing that you are harmed because other buyers who have been ripped off may think your product offering is also a rip-off because it's a similar image. I don't follow that logic. The vast majority of transactions on eBay are valid and fair. I don't see how you lost money as a result of someone else borrowing your image.
I enjoyed your comment about all the "time and expense" you went to to create the image. Uh, you slapped it on a blue bathrobe and pressed the button. Couldn't have taken more than 5 minutes. You've wasted hours here complaining about it. Yes, if it's a concern to you, put a watermark and/or a copyright on all your images. I think you'll find it'll still get borrowed.
You continually ask me what is so hard for me to understand, but I would ask the same to you. Why is this such a big deal where you've blown it all out of proportion to the point where you equate it with the "moral downfall and degradation of social contracts in our society."
Whatever. I'm sure you're loads of fun at parties.
Are you so paranoid that you really equate someone borrowing an image with the "moral downfall and degradation of social contracts in our society"? Don't you think you're blowing this WAY out of proportion?
Seems like we agree that it's OK to borrow an image from B&H if the product is in like-new condition, so why is it so different to borrow your image of an S1 if the one being sold is also similar to the image? Where it would be wrong (and we would be in agreement) is if the product doesn't live up to the image.
You keep arguing that you are harmed because other buyers who have been ripped off may think your product offering is also a rip-off because it's a similar image. I don't follow that logic. The vast majority of transactions on eBay are valid and fair. I don't see how you lost money as a result of someone else borrowing your image.
I enjoyed your comment about all the "time and expense" you went to to create the image. Uh, you slapped it on a blue bathrobe and pressed the button. Couldn't have taken more than 5 minutes. You've wasted hours here complaining about it. Yes, if it's a concern to you, put a watermark and/or a copyright on all your images. I think you'll find it'll still get borrowed.
You continually ask me what is so hard for me to understand, but I would ask the same to you. Why is this such a big deal where you've blown it all out of proportion to the point where you equate it with the "moral downfall and degradation of social contracts in our society."
Whatever. I'm sure you're loads of fun at parties.
rwzeitgeist
Forum Enthusiast
The only thing wrong with the actions you describe is that those actions violate B&H's user agreement. Your statements suggest you feel you can ignore agreements such as the B&H Web site agreeemnt (readily seen via the "User Agreement" link at the bottom of every B&H page), property rights, etc. Consider that your opinion of "borrowing" from B&H really doesn't matter, should B&H choose to take action.
EBay tends to act on reports of inappropriate use of others' property on the EBay service, e.g., use of photographs or text without permission, because ignoring complaints from the owner exposes EBay to liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. So while the current case might seem trivial to you, EBay is quite likely to act against at least the auction misusing the photos, if not the entire account.
Bob
Robert Smith
Leading Member
Ever hear of the "slippery slope"?
Tell you what: IF someone asks my permission to use the pictures, and IF they state to their prospective bidders that they are providing pictures OF A SIMILAR ITEM, but not the exact item, then all is fair, and no misrepresentation has occured. But if I, as a prospective bidder, am viewing "home-made" pictures of an item, I expect it to be ACTUAL PICTURES OF THAT ITEM -- PERIOD. Anything other use of my image I do consider fraud.
You don't follow the logic because you are putting words in my mouth. I stated no such thing. What I stated is that if a prospective bidder sees the SAME images on my listing and on another (whether simultaneously or not), they may harbor doubts as to whether my images are of the ACTUAL PRODUCT. This harms me, because I want my bidders to know that what they see on my ad is exactly what they will get. Furthermore, they may think that I may have misrepresented my item. Are you really so thick that you don't get this????
If you so sincerely disagree with my position -- and if you are sincerely NOT ashamed of it -- you should then have no objection to sharing with all of us your eBay member ID, so that those reading this forum will know under what moral and ethical guidelines you conduct your business on eBay, and let us decide for ourselves whether or not we would want to conduct business with you in that marketplace. FWIW, my ebay ID is rwstrumpet. Care to share yours?
You are really embarrassing yourself here.
Uhhh... I probably have a full hour invested in setting up, taking the pictures, resizing them, adjusting the dynamic qualities of the image, sending them to my website and entering them on my ad page. That time belongs to me, and the product of my effort belongs to me alone.
No, I've spent hours debating this issue with you.
I don't think the distinct possibility of losing money and having unsuccessful auctions because of the unscrupulous actions of others is "blowing this all out of proportion". My entire point is that these images have a distinct commercial value, and you have stated nothing to counter that argument effectively. Even if they were really crappy -- but revealing -- photos, they would have distinct commercial value in the context of an eBay ad listing. And I am one of those who think "social contracts" are just as important as legal ones. Ever hear of integrity?
It would probably surprise you (but perhaps not others reading this) that I have very good friendships. And I'm sure you're a very trustworthy business person. Man, the attitudes you have revealed here are scary. You really do have no regard for others, do you?
Zippy DooDah
Senior Member
I never agreed to any user agreement with B&H. Haven't ever read it, either.
For eBay to act (or react), someone has to complain. Even the original poster here hasn't complained to eBay regarding the travesty of someone using his treasured snapshot (that took him an hour to shoot). I'd have some respect (although probably not much) for him if he did.
For eBay to act (or react), someone has to complain. Even the original poster here hasn't complained to eBay regarding the travesty of someone using his treasured snapshot (that took him an hour to shoot). I'd have some respect (although probably not much) for him if he did.
Dave Beaman
Senior Member
To me the images in the auction are extremely important for me as a buyer and as a seller.
As a buyer, I want to know exactly what Item I am buying. All Fuji Si's are not alike. They maybe it they are new but it they are used they are not alike. To use someone elses image and to pass it off as that is a picture of your camera or item is nothing less than Fraud, AFAIAC. Period. There are marks and scuffs on every item you sell used to some extent most likely. I need to see them and to decide if I want to bid. As a buyer, If I see an ad for a used camera and the only image shown is the stock picture of a new camera, that image does me absolutely no good at all. I might as well have been a drawing made by my 6 year old grand daughter for all the good it does me. I won't bid on such auctions.
As a seller, well, I try to think that my bidders are not stupid and want to know what they are buying In that regard, I take pictures of all of my items showing the details that make it unique. If there are flaws I take a shot of that and explain about it in the description. Not only that, I want my buyer to know what he is getting so that it there is a problem he will not come back to me.
dave
As a buyer, I want to know exactly what Item I am buying. All Fuji Si's are not alike. They maybe it they are new but it they are used they are not alike. To use someone elses image and to pass it off as that is a picture of your camera or item is nothing less than Fraud, AFAIAC. Period. There are marks and scuffs on every item you sell used to some extent most likely. I need to see them and to decide if I want to bid. As a buyer, If I see an ad for a used camera and the only image shown is the stock picture of a new camera, that image does me absolutely no good at all. I might as well have been a drawing made by my 6 year old grand daughter for all the good it does me. I won't bid on such auctions.
As a seller, well, I try to think that my bidders are not stupid and want to know what they are buying In that regard, I take pictures of all of my items showing the details that make it unique. If there are flaws I take a shot of that and explain about it in the description. Not only that, I want my buyer to know what he is getting so that it there is a problem he will not come back to me.
dave
http://www.adorama.com
http://www.bhphoto.com
another source is http://www.google.com and then click on the "images" tab
to search for images. Here's a few of your S1...
http://www.canfieldsci.com/ products/fuji-s1.html
http://www.digital.idv.tw/dc-test/FujiFilm/fujis1/operation/index-fujis1-operation.htm
http://www.photographic.ru/doc/article/phototechnique/0031.shtml
I really don't see what the fuss is about. The sample images you
shot don't really show anything more than if you'd simply
"borrowed" the images from another site. eBay'ers do this all the
time simply for convenience, not to rip anyone off. You really
don't need to spend time taking pictures of your own stuff.
Good luck trying to get damages from the guy who "borrowed" your
image!
Paul T. Klein
Leading Member
Who cares? What's the big deal? I'll mail you a quarter for the use of you picture.
I bet the camera looked just precious on your bathroobe. Maybe you could have put your fllash in a fuzzy slipper?
Paul Klein
I bet the camera looked just precious on your bathroobe. Maybe you could have put your fllash in a fuzzy slipper?
Paul Klein
Robert Smith
Leading Member
Wow, this is getting interesting. First, you say I'm acting like a child for complaining at all, and now you won't respect me unless I complain to the right people????
I already noted that I wrote the user of my pictures a letter, and he wrote back apologizing for any infringement. Coincidentally, his auction was ended by that time I received his letter.
I'm willing to forgive - this once. So that's a bad thing in your book? First you criticize me for "making a big deal" out of this. Now you'll only respect me if I now "make a big deal out of it" to ebay?
You just can't admit that you're wrong on this, can you? You have to criticize me; that's all there is to it. (Hey, you might have a career in politics; go for it.)
Keep entertaining us, please.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum