Copyright infringement on RFF

[Flat Earth]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Rogrund]

Originally Posted by mabelsound

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]

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]

Originally Posted by hunghang

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]

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]

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]

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.]

Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson

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]

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

[Pickett Wilson]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[tbarker13]

Originally Posted by Richard Jenkinson

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]

Originally Posted by Flat Earth

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]

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]

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

[maddoc]

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

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]

Storm in a teacup IMHO.



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

[Flat Earth]

Originally Posted by David Murphy

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]

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