Copyright infringement on RFF [Archive]

Flat Earth

04-09-2009, 05:44

I am not sure whether this is the correct place to post this, but here goes.

There is an M6TTL on sale in the RFF classified section but the photos used in this ad do NOT belong to the seller. They are MY photos, used without MY permission. I sold the camera to the RFF seller (TomurHo) earlier this year on photo.net. Before the sale, I emailed him several photos of the M6TTL. All these photos now grace the RFF ad. The RFF seller also used the text of my photo.net ad verbatim. The RFF seller neither asked my permission nor has given me credit for using MY photos and MY words. If you go to my original archived photo.net ad, you will see the duplicated photo and the duplicated text (http://photo.net/gc/view-one?classified_ad_id=863930). I have original JPEGS of all the photos and I can provide documentation that what I have written above is true. Just PM me.

I believe this to be a gross violation of my copyright and amounts to theft. I have emailed the seller, but I have had no response. As a photography site, I had hoped that RFF would take this kind of thing very seriously. However, the classified section moderator has deleted my comments in the ad with respect to copyright infringement. I have also asked the RFF administrator to delete the ad, but it is still up. I don’t think this is fair.

kully

04-09-2009, 05:49

I agree, it is supremely odd that such comments would be deleted from the classiefied ad - if the photos and text are from your advert some time ago it does not seem right to reproduce them without adding anything.

Pickett Wilson

04-09-2009, 05:53

Much ado about nothing. What financial value are photos of a camera he now owns to you? Are they valuable works of art? Future resale value? Defending copyrights is a financial issue. If there is no financial harm to you, what's the point of all the angst?

__hh

04-09-2009, 05:57

I personally would not have minded if someone reused the photo of the camera.... it is still a photo of the item for sale afterall..... is there any theft in artistic talent involved?

re-using the words verbatim is another story though... either out of pure laziness or lack of ability to craft one's own description....

you have a right to object... but the way that you have JUMPED UP AND DOWN could have been done a bit more civilized :)

My guess is that although what has been done has been strange/not 100% acceptable, it may not have broken any RFF rules. However, your reaction may have.

That's my honest opinion.

mabelsound

04-09-2009, 06:05

I think you're wildly overreacting...politely ask the seller to credit you, and put it all behind you.

Rogrund

04-09-2009, 06:06

I think you're wildly overreacting...politely ask the seller to credit you, and put it all behind you.

Overreacting is the word I was looking for...

Flat Earth

04-09-2009, 06:08

I appreciate the honest response. Frankly, I am angry. Am I jumping up and down? Probably.

I don't make a living off photography. When I take pictures of my children's team sporting events, I give all the photos away, even though other people sell such things. If the seller had just asked, I probably would have said sure, no problem. But the fact that he did not meant that a line was crossed.

To me the real issue is that you shouldn't be using other people's photos without asking.

Andrew Sowerby

04-09-2009, 06:08

My guess is that although what has been done has been strange/not 100% acceptable, it may not have broken any RFF rules.

This rule was pointed out to me last week when I posted some Helen Levitt pictures in a thread:

Rule No. 6 - No Public Posting of Copyright Material
6) You will not upload, attach or post any material you are not the creator and/or copyright holder of. It is however acceptable to post links to publically accessible material.

So, clearly the seller violated the rules of the forum.

thirteen

04-09-2009, 06:10

I agree with the original poster. He has a right to be very upset - photos used without permission - comments noting copyright deleted - no response from the seller. Sometimes one has to jump up and down to get some action.
The photos are being used for financial reasons - the sale of the camera.

Pickett Wilson

04-09-2009, 06:18

I guess the current owner could object to the original photographer ever using photos of his camera. Come on, folks. Demanding recognition for snapshots of cameras is just plain silly.

yanidel

04-09-2009, 06:25

Come on, this just an ad, there 1000 of things that are probably worth being upset in this world but this is such an insignificant non-event.

Paul T.

04-09-2009, 06:26

I guess the current owner could object to the original photographer ever using photos of his camera. Come on, folks. Demanding recognition for snapshots of cameras is just plain silly.

No. It might be an over-reaction, but it is nonetheless stealing. Let's say it's 20 minutes work, taking the photos and writing the copy, let's say $5 at minimum wage. If I took $5 out of your wallet would that be OK?

Incidentally, if this were eBay, the auction would be pulled.

Gipsy

04-09-2009, 06:27

Wow if the Leica still looks the same he must not have used it either.

Pickett Wilson

04-09-2009, 06:33

You could argue that the photographer was paid for his time shooting the photos when the buyer bought the camera. It was part of the sale. So the buyer actually paid for the photos and thus own them.

See how silly this is?

tbarker13

04-09-2009, 06:38

I haven't looked at the advertisement, but these must be some very unique photos for you to get that upset over this. Should someone use your photos without permission? Probably not. But this does seem, to me, to be an overreaction.

payasam

04-09-2009, 06:39

In the strictest literal sense, what is described probably is theft. However, given that RFF is a community, persons who have something in common...

David Murphy

04-09-2009, 06:40

tbarker13

04-09-2009, 06:41

The present seller is stealing. How much? It doesn't matter.

Of course it matters.
If someone steals your car, you call the police.
If someone steals a couple flowers out of your garden, you don't.

dcsang

04-09-2009, 06:44

To me the real issue is that you shouldn't be using other people's photos without asking.

While I agree that there are "manners and etiquette" that should be observed, for the most part, on a civilized forum; I would also keep in mind that this is, after all, "Teh Internet" (misspelling intended) and as such, image theft is rampant.

I personally would just put a snide remark into the post; send a PM to the mods about the ad, and leave it at that.

Life's too short to get upset over something like this that will definitely occur over and over and over again.

Dave

Gumby

04-09-2009, 07:00

Here's a suggestion to the OP:

Send the offending RFF seller a PM saying, "You reused my ad material without my permission. Had you asked for permission I would have gladly let you. But since you didn't ask, I now offer you both permission... and forgiveness for what I believe was rude behavior on your part. Good luck wiht your sale."

Ahmed Poltroon

04-09-2009, 07:03

Ask him to PayPal you the value of the copy and the photo. Five cents.

maddoc

04-09-2009, 07:14

After all your original photos were a trademark violation, you do not have the rigjt to display trademarks for fanancial gain. Leica of course allows it.

Interesting point of view ! (... and also partial trademark violation because of Leica's slogan "My point of view" ;))

If your statement is correct, nearly all (!!) ads at eBay, craigslist, etc. would be trademark violation because they contain photos displaying trademarks for financial gain ...

Bobfrance

04-09-2009, 07:28

Storm in a teacup IMHO.

Perhaps he's selling it to buy a digital camera and a lighting rig?

Flat Earth

04-09-2009, 07:33

This post must be a joke. You are upset about someone using a photo posted on the Internet that is a crude directly lit flash shot of a used camera from someone who also bought it from you (and paid big money)!? I think you need to get a life.

David. This post is not a joke. I am a real person. I make no artistic pretensions on the shots and I do have a life that includes much more than photography. That life does include a few principles: 1. Play by the rules (see RFF Rule #6), 2. Don't use other people's stuff (crudely lit or otherwise) without permission.

sos314

04-09-2009, 07:33

right to be annoyed a bit? sure. right to be "very upset"? get a hobby.

antiquark

04-09-2009, 07:36

Theft is theft. However, in this case, I don't think it makes much sense to pursue the matter. It's just some random Joe who doesn't know the law, and probably doesn't have much money. If a big company was using your image, then it might be worthwhile to put up a fight.

Lots of ebay sellers watermark their pictures, because they have the same problems as you had.

kully

04-09-2009, 07:37

sos314

04-09-2009, 07:50

Perhaps the original post should be read completely.

'Flat Earth' did contact the seller but got no reply. He then posted this in the classified page and that was deleted (twice?).

Now, if I was buying something - I would think twice if the seller had simply used photos taken when it was bought, not as it is now without words to explain that and also didn't deem it worth the effort to explain the camera in their own words. It's just me, but I'd be wondering if they would deem it worthwhile to pack the camera correctly or post it soon as well.

It's not a matter of rules but one of being polite, if I'm going to use anything I ask first - I had presumed this was common.
we're all aware of the initial post, it's just the severity of the reaction that i find out of place. especially considering the guy hasn't responded. maybe he just didn't know? or maybe everything is in the same condition so he thought it would be easier? if it was hanging over times square and earning the guy a hefty paycheck, i'd definitely agree with you. but calling it theft is a bit overzealous. misinformed reuse maybe? its just kind of kooky to want to see this guy hanging from the gallows over a classifieds ad.

Dave Wilkinson

04-09-2009, 08:00

we're all aware of the initial post, it's just the severity of the reaction that i find out of place. especially considering the guy hasn't responded. maybe he just didn't know? or maybe everything is in the same condition so he thought it would be easier? if it was hanging over times square and earning the guy a hefty paycheck, i'd definitely agree with you. but calling it theft is a bit overzealous. misinformed reuse maybe? its just kind of kooky to want to see this guy hanging from the gallows over a classifieds ad.
Severity of the reaction....mmm!...brings to mind another current thread about a misplaced comma - in a review!, we should be used to it now!:rolleyes:

sos314

04-09-2009, 08:07

Severity of the reaction....mmm!...brings to mind another current thread about a misplaced comma - in a review!, we should be used to it now!:rolleyes:
sounds funny. where can i see that mayhem?

Flat Earth

04-09-2009, 08:10

OK,OK maybe I am overreacting. It's just that I really dislike the idea of anyone using my photos without permission. What really made me mad was that the moderator deleted my posts in the ad comments. Over and above the copyright issue, I think a prospective buyer should know that the photos in an RFF were taken some time ago and may not reflect the current condition of an item. That's what photos are for in the first place. Lot's of people say "I bought this from so and so last month and I'm selling it now. Item was just like it was when I recently bought it." I have posted a comment in the ad simply stating the provenance of the photos in the ad. Any prospective buyer can then draw his/her own conclusions. Hopefully the moderator will let it stand.

Paul T.

04-09-2009, 08:11

Get on with your life - running the same ad you did is so uninportant!

After all your original photos were a trademark violation, you do not have the rigjt to display trademarks for fanancial gain. Leica of course allows it.

Using your ad to sell your camera is so clearly fair use, morally if not legally, and surely you know it?

Life is short.... No time for this!

Utter nonsense. Photographing a mass-produced item, whether with a logo or not, is NOT a trademark violation, under US or UK law.

Your point about life being too short is correct though.

gb hill

04-09-2009, 08:13

Correct

When displaying trademarks in an ad setting you can only use the product, no seperate logos, unless the company in question provides logis for such use. When displaying tradmarks even uner fair use, you should make a note that the trademark is the property of the trademark holder

While there is in theory a copy right on the op's photos and text, since it is no likely that he registered it, the are no punitive rights attached.

Very likely reusing ad copy for the actual item is fair use. At any rate there are nodamages attached.

Myreal questuon is why the anger?????

Posted from ipod
So in other words the OP is a trademark thief!...what a hoot this place is.:D

Beemermark

04-09-2009, 08:22

I
I believe this to be a gross violation of my copyright and amounts to theft. I have emailed the seller, but I have had no response. As a photography site, I had hoped that RFF would take this kind of thing very seriously. However, the classified section moderator has deleted my comments in the ad with respect to copyright infringement. I have also asked the RFF administrator to delete the ad, but it is still up. I don’t think this is fair.

I agree 100%. You need to immediately hire a lawyer to get a Judge to issue a "cease and desist" order to have it removed from the web. The you and your lawyer need to determine a fair market price for your work and sue for monetary damages.

Roger Hicks

04-09-2009, 08:56

What really made me mad was that the moderator deleted my posts in the ad comments. Over and above the copyright issue, I think a prospective buyer should know that the photos in an RFF were taken some time ago and may not reflect the current condition of an item.

Your annoyance seems reasonable to me, though I have to say, I'd want to see your deleted comments before fully taking your side.

Are you overreacting? As you say, maybe. But I would get very annoyed with people who stole, as another poster put it, two flowers from my garden. Worth calling the police? No. But it's still theft, and inconsiderate, and leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

I'd be even more annoyed if they were acquaintances who didn't bother to ask. Other RFF members are, after all, acquaintances of a sort.

Tashi delek,

Roger

anabasis

04-09-2009, 09:01

I have mixed feeling on this. While the offense certainly didn't hurt the OP financially, it was still unethical of the seller to use his photos and ad posting without permission or credit.

The question is, does RFF, as a community, condone this behavior or not? It is clearly against the written rules, and as a photo site, people should be sensitive to using someone else's photos for any purpose.

Judging by the responses, people think it's too minor to get excited about, so should be allowed. I am not of that opinon and the seller should either remove the ad or obtain permission to use the photos and copy.

FWIW, the "head bartender" of this site posts something at the top and bottom of many of his pages dealing with this very matter. Check it out:

http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm (http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm)

JCA

Harry Lime

04-09-2009, 09:16

You know...., the world really isn't flat...

lensjunkie

04-09-2009, 09:18

I can understand the poster's POV in this sense:

To me, the seller's actions violate the spirit of RFF. It is a place to share knowledge, to teach and to learn, and where people sharing a passion can exchange, debate, jump up and down, etc etc. It would take mere minutes to have asked permission to use the material, and to have tacked an acknowledgement of the poster's work on. I don't think that this is a grievous case of fraud, but it is still totally lame.

Merkin

04-09-2009, 09:20

OP, this is utterly ridiculous. The current seller did you a favor by buying your camera at your price. You gave him the photos. If this was really a big deal to you, you would have told him at the time you sold the camera to him that he couldn't re-use your work. If you want to make a stand on principle, consider making a stand on the principle that members of the photographic community should at least aspire to be decent to one another, and this issue is so utterly minor that the only person that comes out of this looking bad is you. Sure, "theft is theft," but did you ever copy a friend's CD or tape, or make a mixtape for a girlfriend? OH NOES! THIEF! Morrissey and Johnny Marr aren't complaining about your using "Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want" in an attempt to woo the girl that sat next to you in Sociology class. I could certainly see where this could be an issue if someone was using your photo to sell a camera other than the camera in the photo, as happened to the Head Bartender on Ebay the other day, but the seller is using the pics you made of the camera he is selling. Perhaps he doesn't have a digital camera. Would you make a big deal over a friend of yours posting a photo of you on Facebook without having a signed Model Release Form from you? I certainly hope not. This whole kerfuffle is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Man, I am glad that Macbeth isn't copyrighted.

lensjunkie

04-09-2009, 09:21

You know...., the world really isn't flat...

awesome. laughing my proverbial ass off.

gb hill

04-09-2009, 09:26

Being that it's close to Passover I'm reminded by the saying of a Jewish Rabbi, "He who is without sin cast the first stone".;)

ishpop

04-09-2009, 09:27

Photographers are a funny bunch. :) (myself included)

antiquark

04-09-2009, 09:28

I agree 100%. You need to immediately hire a lawyer to get a Judge to issue a "cease and desist" order to have it removed from the web. The you and your lawyer need to determine a fair market price for your work and sue for monetary damages.

... and then pay your lawyer his $10,000 fee, and hope you break even! :)

reagan

04-09-2009, 09:30

"...what a hoot this place is."
Now that I agree with.

http://s26.photobucket.com/albums/c138/CVBLZ4/GoK/GoK%20animated/th_chucklepuppy.gif

Gumby

04-09-2009, 09:34

Being that it's close to Passover ...

Check your calendar, goober. Passover started last night at sunset. If you don't have a Jewish calendar handy... just try ordering from B&H to find out exactly when the holiday started. :)

Dave Wilkinson

04-09-2009, 09:37

Being that it's close to Passover I'm reminded by the saying of a Jewish Rabbi, "He who is without sin cast the first stone".;)...or old Yorkshire proverb - "people who live in glass houses........ " ;)

Sparrow

04-09-2009, 09:41

...or old Yorkshire proverb - "people who live in glass houses........ " ;)

we should copyright that!...... we could make a fortune :)

Al Patterson

04-09-2009, 09:42

While one indeed needs to be careful when wording one's messages, the owner of this forum has even complained at times about just this same issue regarding people using his photos from CameraQuest in eBay ads without credit.

Stealing isn't right, and if what the OP said is factual, he has a right to be upset. I'm not sure what one can do about it in the long run though.

Jonas

04-09-2009, 09:55

I really dont see the point in this post. If he had "stole" your pics and text and sold another camera I would think of it as another matter. You original text and photos were originaly made for the camera which he bought from you and now owns. If there isnt anymore wear I really dont see the issue. I would say that the proper thing would be to include a text: "I bought this from seller:xxxx here not long ago and there isnt anymore wear so im using his photos and text for my own convenience", but I personally wouldnt care and I make my sole living of photography. This is because they are made for the camera which he has bought from you. It would be another matter if he had posted the same ad for a different camera IMO. You have no use of the text or pics, but he has. I also think that he could have asked you first, but I personally wouldnt be upset about the matter... Just my 2 cent...

sos314

04-09-2009, 09:56

Morrissey and Johnny Marr aren't complaining about your using "Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want" in an attempt to woo the girl that sat next to you in Sociology class.
i saw morrissey last night. as always, damn fine show. i took a picture from the balcony. i am a thief.

pesphoto

04-09-2009, 09:59

i saw morrissey last night. as always, damn fine show. i took a picture from the balcony. i am a thief.

I saw Seal 2 nights ago.....he was taking pictures of the audience with his M8.......Can I sue him?

back alley

04-09-2009, 10:02

ok, calm down everyone!!!

first, let me say that my position here as moderator is a VOLUNTEER gig, no payment whatsoever.
i have limited time for moderating, i also have a full time job and my boss expects a few minutes of work each day, at least.

now, let me say that i emailed the op and the seller early this morning and set the rules, 'fix this or i will pull the ad.'
the complaint was deleted from the ad as it was obnoxious and it also broke the 'no negative comments' rule.
if i do not hear from the seller then i will pull the ad.

can i go back to my nap now?

joe

gb hill

04-09-2009, 10:12

Check your calendar, goober. Passover started last night at sunset. If you don't have a Jewish calendar handy... just try ordering from B&H to find out exactly when the holiday started. :)
Sorry! I'm just a dumb gentile that thinks every religious holiday comes on Sunday! I buy from KEH not B&H:p

Gumby

04-09-2009, 10:18

Sorry! I'm just a dumb gentile that thinks every religious holiday comes on Sunday! I buy from KEH not B&H:p

Ummm... Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Christmas many years... all on Sunday?... what denomination of dumb Gentile are you? :p-back at you. :D

digitalintrigue

04-09-2009, 10:21

And you can tell when it's Sunday because Chick-Fil-A is closed. ;)

swoop

04-09-2009, 10:26

You should give the seller his money back and have him return your property.

swoop

04-09-2009, 10:28

And you can tell when it's Sunday because Chick-Fil-A is closed. ;)

I LOVE chik-fil-a. There are none in NYC. First time I went South I was amazed. Now every time I wander down there I make a stop or five. I learned there's one just North of Philadelphia. And a friend of mine say's there's one in the paramus mall in NJ.

I need a fix.

mknawabi

04-09-2009, 10:37

Grow up. I sold my lens to someone on the board and they were not happy with it, so they used the images I gave them. The only reason you could have possibly been angry should have been if someone who you DIDNT sell the camera to was using your photo.

PICHA

04-09-2009, 10:45

Is still the camera in the same state now? That's THE question...

lewis44

04-09-2009, 10:52

Basically, your ad was "posted "as a description of the camera and the images were proof of condition. The buyer based his purchase on that and took ownership.

His using the statement and pictures that you posted, if he did not buy it, would be something to get upset about, but he does own it and you accepted his money.

Now, I would have let you know that I was going to do it, but really, whats the big deal.

It's like getting upset because someone is banging your ex wife.

pesphoto

04-09-2009, 10:55

It's like getting upset because someone is banging your ex wife.

cam he say that.....haha

nightfly

04-09-2009, 10:57

I think this thread just usurped "what's your favorite aperture" (or was it shutter speed?), as the stupidest thread ever.

I can only imagine how the original poster must react to all the vagaries and minor infractions of the "rules" that occur in every day life. It must be difficult to get through the day.

While technically the OP might well be in the "right" it seems an infraction beneath attention.

Sauli Särkkä

04-09-2009, 10:58

The ad reads
M6 TTL 0.72 chrome with box and paperwork. I am the orginal owner. Shutter and meter accurate. Viewfinder bright, aligned and focuses accurately. Everything works perfectly.

Let me highlight a point.

I am the orginal owner.

Did the seller buy the item when new, then re-sold it to n+1 people, bought it back to himself and now, sold it, using someone else's images?

No, the point here isn't the fact that the images were not made by him. The fact is that the seller either

a) told a 100% lie about being the original owner
b) is the original owner, (at least) a second time

0.02 €

-Sale

Jonas

04-09-2009, 11:02

Sale, this is how the ad is now:
Chrome M6 TTL 0.72 with the original box and paperwork. The shutter and light meter are accurate. The viewfinder is bright, aligned and focuses accurately. The vulcanite is in like new condition. There are a few bright spots on the top plate and the bottom plate also has a few bright spots and some light scratches and nicks in the metal. The rewind knob has a few small dents as well. However, the camera has no functional problems whatsoever. This is a great option for people who want to use the camera.

He doesnt say that he is the original owner...

Sauli Särkkä

04-09-2009, 11:07

Ah, I see that the first post had a link to his own cached ad, not the current one.

Was the text at any time a part of the ad?

-Sale

rpsawin

04-09-2009, 11:10

I think you should hunt him down, kill everyone he loves and let him live....lol

Bob

popeye

04-09-2009, 11:33

Wow, I read the whole silly thread thus far, the best part was reading rpsawin's signature... which I'm using now on another board.

rpsawin

04-09-2009, 11:52

Wow, I read the whole silly thread thus far, the best part was reading rpsawin's signature... which I'm using now on another board.

Let's avoid any problems down the road and work out the credits/compensation agreement now...lol

Best regards all,

Bob

ferider

04-09-2009, 11:56

Wow, I read the whole silly thread thus far, the best part was reading rpsawin's signature... which I'm using now on another board.

So what's the difference between "A double-venti, extra hot, white chocolate, soja moccha" and "A .85 black chrome Leica MP a la carte with 35mm/f1.4 pre-asph Summilux and LHSA, E43 aspherical 50mm/f1.4 Summilux" ?

(c) ferider, 2009.

:) :)

dcsang

04-09-2009, 11:58

So what's the difference between "A double-venti, extra hot, white chocolate, soja moccha" and "A .85 black chrome Leica MP a la carte with 35mm/f1.4 pre-asph Summilux and LHSA, E43 aspherical 50mm/f1.4 Summilux" ?

(c) ferider, 2009.

:) :)
Roland,

that's an easy one... one of those costs WAY too much money for what it's really worth...

and I'm talking about the Starbucks product here.. :D

Dave

novum

04-09-2009, 12:38

Slow day at RFF.

pkuglin

04-09-2009, 12:47

This seems to be one of those its the principal issues that have no real damage. Maybe the effort should match the impact here or you will have a heart attack. Don't sweat the small stuff, life is just to short.

Besides it is a chance to get some karma here. Try turning the other cheek.

reagan

04-09-2009, 12:50

"Check your calendar, goober."
"Gumby, goober & gb the Gentile" ... is this some kind of secret society?
If I told you I was "Groucho with a Girl," could I get in?

http://s26.photobucket.com/albums/c138/CVBLZ4/GoK/th_groucho-1.jpg

just curious. anyway, on with the mud-wrestling. :eek:

rpsawin

04-09-2009, 13:28

Originally Posted by ferider
So what's the difference between "A double-venti, extra hot, white chocolate, soja moccha" and "A .85 black chrome Leica MP a la carte with 35mm/f1.4 pre-asph Summilux and LHSA, E43 aspherical 50mm/f1.4 Summilux" ?

(c) ferider, 2009.

Roland,

that's an easy one... one of those costs WAY too much money for what it's really worth...

and I'm talking about the Starbucks product here.. :D

Dave

Not to mention one can get the Leica gear in about half the time as the Starbucks order...

Bob:D

Gumby

04-09-2009, 13:33

"Gumby, goober & gb the Gentile" ... is this some kind of secret society?
If I told you I was "Groucho with a Girl," could I get in?

[self-portrait deleted]

just curious. anyway, on with the mud-wrestling. :eek:

LOL. You just won a free lifetime membership! ;)

Brian Sweeney

04-09-2009, 14:02

If I emailed photographs of a camera that I had for sale with the intention of making that sale, I would consider them as part of the sale. Same with a description of the property being placed for sale: it is a description that belongs with the property. The RFF seller was not trying to make a quick buck, and was representing property that he owned with images of his property and words that described his property. He is probably selling for less than his total cost for buying the camera. I've had this occur before. The images represented the lens in question accurately at the time of its resale.

All this thread has done is make me want to avoid buying anything from the OP.

ron1945

04-09-2009, 15:05

dont be offended, be flattered,he didnt use his own work did he?

popeye

04-09-2009, 15:32

climbing_vine

04-09-2009, 15:35

All this thread has done is make me want to avoid buying anything from the OP.

Agreed. This is the dumbest thing I've read in a long time.

1. Using the text is emphatically not copyright infringement, at least in the US. This issue has been through the courts more than once. A simple factual description of an object ("non-expressive") is NOT copyrightable. You have no copyright on "Minor brassing on the bottom plate." Suggesting otherwise is frankly small, childish, and ridiculous. Did you copyright saying "The sky is blue", too?

2. The pictures are owned by you, and he's using them without permission. It is technically a copyright infringement, but as they have no particular "expressive" value and are being used for the original purpose (selling the camera in question) and not for monetary gain, it's exceedingly likely that it would be considered fair use.

More importantly... who cares? Life is so short. You took the photos to document the condition for a buyer, and that's exactly what they're being used for. Be happy that someone thinks they're good enough and doesn't want to waste a few watts of electricity duplicating them for exactly zero reason.

It's a real study in perspective. Some things are important. Some things just aren't.

Leigh Youdale

04-09-2009, 16:18

This illustrates a frequently observed trait in RFF. Too many people with too much time on their hands!

Gumby

04-09-2009, 17:12

... and now you are part of the gang. WELCOME!

Benjamin Marks

04-10-2009, 09:44

Coming to this creamed-corn wrestling contest a little late . . . One of the comments above was that this is a community and I don't see anything wrong with testing how egregiousness of the offense by posing a few hypotheticals:

a) For instance, if I copied one of Raid's pictures and posted as my own, or even posted it with some minor modification as my own, I think there would be a general consensus that some norm of this community had been violated, quite apart from the formal violation of the forum rules. You all might care more because I was doing wrong to one of our own.

b) If I copied the work of a non-RFF photographer and passed it off as my own, I am sure that, if discovered, similar censure would follow.

c) If I was selling something here and copped a photo of a similar item from KEH, or Cameraquest or B&H's website, I'm sure that anyone who realized it would think it was tacky (and probably unreliable as an indicator of my actual item's condition), but I doubt that any of those big sellers would be banging on my door for payment. Different answer if I credited the photo? I don't think so.

d) In the current situation, do you think the seller agonized over whether to use the original photos? Probably not. He probably just thought, "how do I accomplish this sale with a minimum of effort?" He probably also thought, at some level, "well the pictures worked for me when I bought the gear, so they will work when I turn around and sell it." Tacky? Probably. Expedient? Certainly. But how great was the offense? Unless these snapshots were high art, what use would they ever be put to again?

If I saw someone picking flowers from my front yard, it wouldn't merit a lawsuit. But you can bet your bottom dollar I'd make my displeasure known, and that's just what the OP did. A capital crime? Of course not. But I think the offender would think twice before repeating the act.

Ben Marks

Dave Wilkinson

04-10-2009, 09:55

Totally amazing!....the time spent writing numerous paragraphs about trivialities here! - especially when they have been done - with slightly different phrasing, about six times! :rolleyes:

Spider67

04-10-2009, 10:17

....A girl in Germany bought a pair of Jeans on ebay, they did not fit she resold them and yessss she used the same photograph! She got mail by a lawyer who sued her and she had to pay!(German Judges do have a heart for Copyright owners) I have that from "Der Spiegel" (who at least did not fall for faked Hitler diaries)
Turns out that some lawyers in germany eke out a living by searching for opportunities like that one. Paying the copyright owner off and pulling off their shtick.
.......And so children this fairy tale has two endings a funny one in the Us and a very grim one in Germany! btw sending a minor on her way with alcoholic beverages on her one will be next case it does not matter if she has a red riding hood or not