somebody stole my ebay photos

Interesting. Thanks for posting the official eBay policy. I guess I can't "borrow" B&H's images anymore. :( Or their text. :(

Every product I've sold has always sold for more than I expected and I've received 100% positive feedback from all buyers so far. It'll be interesting to see how stuff sells when I shoot the product myself. And, I better not catch any of y'all using my images! Especially you, Mark... you know who you are, pizza-boy.

It's been a fun discussion, Robert, ... you argue very well... take care.
Robert Smith wrote...
 
Be proud of your work! Such wonderful flattery!

Alashi
 
symphony musician, that's really cool.

After a year of bankruptcy hiatus our San Antonio symphony is back up and running. Bravisimo...

Oh, to be honest, downloading bootleg symphonic or classical music is pretty unsatisfying, but not for lack of trying! 3 of the 4 movements of a work, each from different orchestras is just plain painfull to listen to. :-D

http://www.kazaa.com/us/index.htm

ASCAP scoundrel
Vernix
Good God, man. You take ONE rhetorical question "Can I sue?" in my
opening post, and continue to characterize me as someone who "wants
to sue", "intends to sue", and now is "into lawsuits". Can you give
it up, please? I have stated repeatedly, ad nauseum, that I have no
intention to sue. I merely wanted to explore the issue. Gee
whiz.....
Didn't know your "can I sue" was rhetorical; I thought you were
serious.
I realize we've had a contentious discussion,
And, you have to admit it's been fun! :)
I have asked you several times where you really
stand on copyright issues, and specifically using others' images,
and whether or not you would follow these rules if they are
expressly stated. Do you care to answer that?
I believe in copyright. I'm a photographer and I copyright my
images. But, I also realize that not all of my images have value
(and a few people, like that Mark guy in New Yawk City, would say
that NONE of my images have value!). If someone wants to borrow
one of my silly little eBay images, they're more than welcome to do
so. I just don't care to fight those battles. Same thing with
images I sell customers. I know they're going to try to scan them,
so I sell images in packages to ensure I get paid and I texturize
many of my prints to make it harder to scan.
It's interesting to me to see you're a musician. I would think
you'd be way more concerned about people downloading your music for
free than you would be about an eBay photo of an S1 on a bathrobe.
It was a lovely shade of navy blue, though. :)
Finally, here is some official policy found on the eBay site:

"eBay members are not allowed to use another eBay user's pictures
or descriptions in their listings or About Me page without the
owner's permission. Listings that violate eBay's Picture and
Description Theft policy may be removed early. Multiple violations
of this policy can result in suspension.

The following examples are not allowed on eBay.

A seller doesn't know the best way to describe an item. The seller
copies a substantial amount of another's description and pastes it
into a listing.

A seller takes someone else's picture and includes it in a listing
since it looks very similar to the item the seller is offering.

A seller likes the way a competitor's About Me page looks. The
seller copies the look and feel and a substantial amount of the
text and creates an About Me page."

Well, there you have it. eBay does not condone this practice, and
"multiple violations" can result in suspension. No more conjecture
needed. I still haven't received a response from eBay customer
service in my case.

Funny you should mention the music downloading thing. I happen to
be in a sector of the music business that doesn't suffer much from
this sort of thing (I am a symphony musician), but I WOULD be
hopping mad about it if I were an emerging recording artist (of
whatever musical genre) and people were freely sharing and
distributing my stuff, and I was losing money as a result of it. I
don't practice this, and I think that others also should not. Real
people, trying to make a living like you and me, are hurt by this.
This is another example of people saying that since "everybody does
it" it must be OK. Well, it's not, and we should be able to see
that if we put ourselves in each others' shoes. Practice a little
empathy, the golden rule, that sort of thing. And those of us who
think we're just "socialist vigilantes" by doing this, and that the
only people we're affecting are ultra-rich rapacious capitalists,
are only fooling ourselves.

Well, I'm exhausted. It's been fun.
--
http://www.pbase.com/vernix
 
symphony musician, that's really cool.
After a year of bankruptcy hiatus our San Antonio symphony is back
up and running. Bravisimo...
Oh, to be honest, downloading bootleg symphonic or classical music
is pretty unsatisfying, but not for lack of trying! 3 of the 4
movements of a work, each from different orchestras is just plain
painfull to listen to. :-D

http://www.kazaa.com/us/index.htm

ASCAP scoundrel
Vernix
Yaaahhhh...

Sounds like the geeky stuff I used to do as a young music student!! Except I'd BUY four renditions of a single work. Yes, I have a very redundant record collection. ("Records? What are those?")

Though recorded classical music is nice, it just isn't even a fraction as great as listening to live performances. (Listening to a classical recording is to hearing a live performance as seeing an Ansel Adams print of Half Dome is to being there.) So I'm not even a big fan of recorded symphonic music. (Surprise anyone?) And for learning the interpretation of the repertoire?? These days, I'm more into interpreting (discovering) that on my own. I don't need anyone else to tell me how it's supposed to go. More fun this way! But if I were NOT a performer, yeah, I'd be more into it (the recorded classical stuff), and I might be into "borrowing" it like half the world is -- who knows? The genie is definitely out of the bottle, but I think we need to find a way to make it fair.
 
OK, now I'm confused. You lectured me and the rest of us about how sacred your "S1 on a bathrobe" image was and how it was so wrong to copy it, but now you admit to using an illegal music downloading service such as Kazaa which allows users to illegally steal music belonging to others who aren't being paid when you steal it?

Just so I'm clear on your position, are you saying it OK to use illegal music downloading services or are you saying, "do as I say, not as I do"?
Sounds like the geeky stuff I used to do as a young music student!!
Except I'd BUY four renditions of a single work. Yes, I have a very
redundant record collection. ("Records? What are those?")

But if I were NOT a performer, yeah, I'd be more into it (the
recorded classical stuff), and I might be into "borrowing" it like
half the world is -- who knows? The genie is definitely out of the
bottle, but I think we need to find a way to make it fair.
 
The ebayer may well have been in the wrong, technically, but you have blown this up to catastrophic proportions. I'm sorry, but your bathrobe photo is not all that valuable. Move on with your life, there are lots of much more important things to get upset about...
Hey guys and gals,

I know this is not a huge big deal, but I recently listed a Fuji S1
on eBay, and now somebody else (looks like a retailer or reseller)
is using the exact same photos to sell a similar item. I am 100%
certain these are mine, for a number of reasons (the mixed
lighting, the background, positioning of the multiple items -- and
MY BLUE BATHROBE I used for the staging). There's absolutely no way
these pics aren't mine.

Sorry to be such a scrooge, but I think this is very bad form, very
unethical and probably illegal, and I don't appreciate ANYone using
the pictures that I went to the trouble to produce in order to sell
their stuff. I sent him/her a short note, asking him/her to please
remove the pictures, and also stated that I would file a complaint
with eBay if he/she did not remove them within 24 hours.

Do I have any recourse here? This is apparently a very busy seller.
Can I sue? I can prove I made the original photos.

Thanks,
Robert
--
http://www.pbase.com/waterwagen/favorites

Trogdooooooooooooooor! Burninating the countryside!
 
OK, now I'm confused. You lectured me and the rest of us about how
sacred your "S1 on a bathrobe" image was and how it was so wrong to
copy it, but now you admit to using an illegal music downloading
service such as Kazaa which allows users to illegally steal music
belonging to others who aren't being paid when you steal it?

Just so I'm clear on your position, are you saying it OK to use
illegal music downloading services or are you saying, "do as I say,
not as I do"?
I am really tired of the two of you guys stuffing words into each others' mouths, trying to maximize the hysteria. You're both obsessively trying to have the last word on every thread and it's very tiresome. Both of you sit down and drink a nice steaming cup of STFU, and please just leave this thread alone. If you must bicker, do it by email or something.

For example, he did not say he used Kazaa, he was thinking about how his mindset might be different if he were not in the business he was in. He did say that when he was young, he bought many copies. Secondly, Kazaa isn't an "illegal music downloading service," as much as a photocopier isn't an "illegal paper currency production device." Look up the legal bar for "non-infringing uses," and the Betamax decision for more details. Neither of you guys are interested in reality, you're just sniping because it somehow gratifies you.
Sounds like the geeky stuff I used to do as a young music student!!
Except I'd BUY four renditions of a single work. Yes, I have a very
redundant record collection. ("Records? What are those?")

But if I were NOT a performer, yeah, I'd be more into it (the
recorded classical stuff), and I might be into "borrowing" it like
half the world is -- who knows? The genie is definitely out of the
bottle, but I think we need to find a way to make it fair.
--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ] http://www.halley.cc/pix/
 
they're just photographers at play: at least one of them is. playing

to Mr.Doodah (in order for me to don't risk any monetary loss I'm not using your nick, please notice): ok, im not gonna steal your images anymore. promise.
 
STFU yourself, Ed. The whole point of a forum is discussion. If you don't like it, go elsewhere (like Iraq) and/or don't read my posts.

And, Kazaa's sole purpose is to aid in the illegal distribution of music such that the artists and composers do not receive any payment. It's substantially different than a copy machine.
I am really tired of the two of you guys stuffing words into each
others' mouths, trying to maximize the hysteria. You're both
obsessively trying to have the last word on every thread and it's
very tiresome. Both of you sit down and drink a nice steaming cup
of STFU, and please just leave this thread alone. If you must
bicker, do it by email or something.

For example, he did not say he used Kazaa, he was thinking about
how his mindset might be different if he were not in the business
he was in. He did say that when he was young, he bought many
copies. Secondly, Kazaa isn't an "illegal music downloading
service," as much as a photocopier isn't an "illegal paper currency
production device." Look up the legal bar for "non-infringing
uses," and the Betamax decision for more details. Neither of you
guys are interested in reality, you're just sniping because it
somehow gratifies you.
 
Mark,

Nobody wants to steal my images... I've tried giving them away and people won't even take them for free. It's very depressing.

I'm also granting you full use of the term "Zippy" with no royalty payments, so feel free to use as you wish. Everybody else owes me $1.

...Zippy
MarkLe wrote:
they're just photographers at play: at least one of them is. playing
to Mr.Doodah (in order for me to don't risk any monetary loss I'm
not using your nick, please notice): ok, im not gonna steal your
images anymore. promise.
 
OK, now I'm confused. You lectured me and the rest of us about how
sacred your "S1 on a bathrobe" image was and how it was so wrong to
copy it, but now you admit to using an illegal music downloading
service such as Kazaa which allows users to illegally steal music
belonging to others who aren't being paid when you steal it?

Just so I'm clear on your position, are you saying it OK to use
illegal music downloading services or are you saying, "do as I say,
not as I do"?
I am really tired of the two of you guys stuffing words into each
others' mouths, trying to maximize the hysteria. You're both
obsessively trying to have the last word on every thread and it's
very tiresome. Both of you sit down and drink a nice steaming cup
of STFU, and please just leave this thread alone. If you must
bicker, do it by email or something.

For example, he did not say he used Kazaa, he was thinking about
how his mindset might be different if he were not in the business
he was in. He did say that when he was young, he bought many
copies. Secondly, Kazaa isn't an "illegal music downloading
service," as much as a photocopier isn't an "illegal paper currency
production device." Look up the legal bar for "non-infringing
uses," and the Betamax decision for more details. Neither of you
guys are interested in reality, you're just sniping because it
somehow gratifies you.
Thank you. I'm TRYING to be as empathetic and non-judgemental as I can be. I realize I've come off quite "holier than thou" in some of my posts here. I AM legitimately concerned about copyright issues. Interestingly, in the case of the original point of this post, it was NOT a "typical" copyright issue regarding "professional photography" because it concerned the USE of photographs which were not necessarily beautiful in any meaningful sense, but which had tangential value to the owner (me) as a marketing tool, much in the same way a commercial ad has value to the company -- even a big one -- in a national magazine ad. (Yes, I stand by that analogy completely in the name of proportionality and relative value.)

When I said that I "might" feel differently about downloading music, I am trying to put myself into others' shoes -- say, the shoes of those who haven't clearly thought out the consequences -- to themselves or others -- of the unauthorized use of others' intellectual property (i.e. images, music, literature, etc.). It doesn't mean that my "judgement" of the issue is any different; I said it's wrong. I still feel it's wrong, but I'm just trying to see through others' eyes by admitting that I might see things differently in others' shoes. Look, I can even admit that perhaps plenty of folks "borrow" images to use on eBay without thinking they're doing anything wrong. I personally know someone who hired a pro photographer some years ago to do a beautiful, black and white glamour head shot for his daughter, and took it to the local photocopy stored to copy it. Guess what? That was WRONG, in my book, but I understood that HE FELT that principles or laws preventing him from doing whatever he wanted to with that image -- including copying it -- wrongly infringed upon what HE apparently thought were HIS rights to do with it whatever he wanted. After all, he PAID for the photographer's time and the original print - hmmmm??? Hopefully, we can at least try to understand a different viewpoint, even if we don't endorse it. That's what I'm trying to do.

And Ed is correct: I NEVER admitted to downloading music on the internet. And FWIW, I never have, save the free excerpts you can llsten to at internet retail outlets (like Amazon, Tower Records, etc.). For that matter, I've never used Kazaa, for any purpose, EVER. Never even visited the site. You can look for me forever on the kazaa database, and you won't find me -- except on some traded music. (Someone used a symphony broadcast tape with me playing a concerto, and traded it. Some of my colleagues were upset about it, but once it's been broadcast, it's public domain.) You won't find me on the user database. Sorry, Zip, your chance at calling me a hypocrite just fell flat.

Here's a little interesting tidbit: Guess who the BIGGEST violators of copyright law are, in the United States?? Think of people who are really sleazy, unconcerned of other people, respecters of no law other than what their own conscience tells them. Come up with anything???

And the answer is .....................

(drum roll)

Church music programs! Yeah, church choirs! These people (as a group, now, not ALL of them) photocopy like there's no tomorrow, and all the music publishing houses are on a 50-year backorder! Of course, in their minds, it's OK, because after all their budgets are tight, and they're doing the Lord's work, and nobody's making money off of it, yadda, yadda, yadda .........

Food for thought, especially if want a REAL "Go figure."

In any case, I'm getting out of the judging business. Sorry if I came off a bit heavy-handed. My analysis of the issue remains the same. And I DID find out that this image use is NOT allowed on eBay by their own policy, so I at least have something to work with in the future.

And Ed, if you're REALLY tired of watching us duke it out here, my recommendation is DON'T read it! But thanks, anyway, for your support. And I will have a nice cup of STFU. Sounds delicious. Children, if you don't know what that means, ask your parents. (I'm sure they can make up something appropriate.)
 
The ebayer may well have been in the wrong, technically, but you
have blown this up to catastrophic proportions. I'm sorry, but your
bathrobe photo is not all that valuable. Move on with your life,
there are lots of much more important things to get upset about...
Follow this link, if you are interested in reading a concise argument of why I think this issue is important:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=9331860

Here is some official policy found on the eBay site:

"eBay members are not allowed to use another eBay user's pictures or descriptions in their listings or About Me page without the owner's permission. Listings that violate eBay's Picture and Description Theft policy may be removed early. Multiple violations of this policy can result in suspension.
The following examples are not allowed on eBay.

A seller doesn't know the best way to describe an item. The seller copies a substantial amount of another's description and pastes it into a listing.

A seller takes someone else's picture and includes it in a listing since it looks very similar to the item the seller is offering.

A seller likes the way a competitor's About Me page looks. The seller copies the look and feel and a substantial amount of the text and creates an About Me page."

Thanks for your interest. Apparently, how important the issue is depends on what's at stake. I hope we can agree that for somebody, in some situation, this could be important. Let's try to give each other that benefit. A little understanding can go a long way.....
 
I may be splitting hairs, but I am trying to understand the subtle nuances of the Ebay rules and copyright laws.
Would my use of this photo be unethical, illegal or in bad taste?

Please note I have changed the bathrobe to chartreuse. I consider this to be an artistic embelishment. It is highly unlikely anyone would mistake it for the original. Also, it makes me long for a green bathrobe.

Additionaly, note this is a NEW photo with my own camera. I consider it my sovereign property.
What do you think?

Oh, my mention of kazaa brought a breath of fresh air to this thread. No thanks needed. Res ipsa loquitor.

 
Vernix, Vernix, Vernix,

First, isn't it rather disgusting to be splitting hares? Perhaps you need to go back and rent the movie "Fatal Attraction" to see just how disgusting a practice that can be. But, for the love of god and all things holy, dude, please stop splitting hares.

Now, we've been over this before. Chartreuse is a kind of yellow green color. Clearly the bathrobe is not chartreuse at all, but rather more of a lime green verging on forest green or possibly even medium sea green. But, you run the risk of placing yourself into the same category as Robert when you blatently show your ignorance by the use of the use of high-flown bombastic words such as "chartreuse."

And it wouldn't surprise me at all if whilst you were illegally downloading Robert's image from eBay that you were simultaneosly listing to ill-gotten music from kazaa. Probably Britney Spears "Toxic."

I have no clue what "Res Ipsa Loquitor" means but, based on my knowledge of your writing style, I'm guessing it means something along the lines of, "forgive me for having a small pee pee."
vernix wrote:

I may be splitting hairs, but I am trying to understand the subtle
nuances of the Ebay rules and copyright laws.
Would my use of this photo be unethical, illegal or in bad taste?
Please note I have changed the bathrobe to chartreuse. I consider
this to be an artistic embelishment. It is highly unlikely anyone
would mistake it for the original. Also, it makes me long for a
green bathrobe.
Additionaly, note this is a NEW photo with my own camera. I
consider it my sovereign property.
What do you think?

Oh, my mention of kazaa brought a breath of fresh air to this
thread. No thanks needed. Res ipsa loquitor.

 
First, isn't it rather disgusting to be splitting hares? Perhaps
you need to go back and rent the movie "Fatal Attraction" to see
just how disgusting a practice that can be. But, for the love of
god and all things holy, dude, please stop splitting hares.

Now, we've been over this before. Chartreuse is a kind of yellow
green color. Clearly the bathrobe is not chartreuse at all, but
rather more of a lime green verging on forest green or possibly
even medium sea green. But, you run the risk of placing yourself
into the same category as Robert when you blatently show your
ignorance by the use of the use of high-flown bombastic words such
as "chartreuse."

And it wouldn't surprise me at all if whilst you were illegally
downloading Robert's image from eBay that you were simultaneosly
listing to ill-gotten music from kazaa. Probably Britney Spears
"Toxic."

I have no clue what "Res Ipsa Loquitor" means but, based on my
knowledge of your writing style, I'm guessing it means something
along the lines of, "forgive me for having a small pee pee."
vernix wrote:

I may be splitting hairs, but I am trying to understand the subtle
nuances of the Ebay rules and copyright laws.
Would my use of this photo be unethical, illegal or in bad taste?
Please note I have changed the bathrobe to chartreuse. I consider
this to be an artistic embelishment. It is highly unlikely anyone
would mistake it for the original. Also, it makes me long for a
green bathrobe.
Additionaly, note this is a NEW photo with my own camera. I
consider it my sovereign property.
What do you think?

Oh, my mention of kazaa brought a breath of fresh air to this
thread. No thanks needed. Res ipsa loquitor.

--
http://www.pbase.com/vernix
 
sorry to interrupt, but it sounds more likely latin (roman language used in Rome, now Italy) and says, more or less.. things speak for themseves (something like that)
 
The photo of the monitor display was the best part for me. Finally, the proper use of this venerable image! (But if I were shopping, I'd still go for the blue bathrobe.) Hey, why don't we turn the camera violet? (Hmmm, could be a new marketing scheme for Fuji. If they turn out any purple cameras, can I sue?) =8p
First, isn't it rather disgusting to be splitting hares? Perhaps
you need to go back and rent the movie "Fatal Attraction" to see
just how disgusting a practice that can be. But, for the love of
god and all things holy, dude, please stop splitting hares.

Now, we've been over this before. Chartreuse is a kind of yellow
green color. Clearly the bathrobe is not chartreuse at all, but
rather more of a lime green verging on forest green or possibly
even medium sea green. But, you run the risk of placing yourself
into the same category as Robert when you blatently show your
ignorance by the use of the use of high-flown bombastic words such
as "chartreuse."

And it wouldn't surprise me at all if whilst you were illegally
downloading Robert's image from eBay that you were simultaneosly
listing to ill-gotten music from kazaa. Probably Britney Spears
"Toxic."

I have no clue what "Res Ipsa Loquitor" means but, based on my
knowledge of your writing style, I'm guessing it means something
along the lines of, "forgive me for having a small pee pee."
vernix wrote:

I may be splitting hairs, but I am trying to understand the subtle
nuances of the Ebay rules and copyright laws.
Would my use of this photo be unethical, illegal or in bad taste?
Please note I have changed the bathrobe to chartreuse. I consider
this to be an artistic embelishment. It is highly unlikely anyone
would mistake it for the original. Also, it makes me long for a
green bathrobe.
Additionaly, note this is a NEW photo with my own camera. I
consider it my sovereign property.
What do you think?

Oh, my mention of kazaa brought a breath of fresh air to this
thread. No thanks needed. Res ipsa loquitor.

--
http://www.pbase.com/vernix
 
Oops, can't BS a BSer
Res ipsa loquitor

In my profession's context:

Legal basis for not needing an expert legal opinion, when you sue me, if I do something like loose my wedding ring in you wife's abdomen during an oophorectomy.

http://www.legal-definitions.com/Q%20R/res-ipsa-loquitor.htm
sorry to interrupt, but it sounds more likely latin (roman language
used in Rome, now Italy) and says, more or less.. things speak for
themseves (something like that)
--
http://www.pbase.com/vernix
 
And I bet you're listening to illegal kazaa music (probably Back Street Boys) whilst you perform that oophorectomy. I wish your mother had one of those a year before you were born. :)
vernix wrote:
Legal basis for not needing an expert legal opinion, when you sue
me, if I do something like loose my wedding ring in you wife's
abdomen during an oophorectomy.
 
Zippman, are you old enough to have been refered to as an "agitator" on CB radio in the 70's? If so you, are a flash from my past!

Difficile est satiram non scribere. (ancient proto-farsi for "you have a small pee-pee too")
vernix wrote:
Legal basis for not needing an expert legal opinion, when you sue
me, if I do something like loose my wedding ring in you wife's
abdomen during an oophorectomy.
--
http://www.pbase.com/vernix
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top