Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

It's the Love...


elverno
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=200228931980

 

Hey, it won't last for long but I did ask please the or four times. If the auction is gone the seller inserted links to my token on my site...

 

So, I replaced the images with this:

brit92o7.jpg

 

I don't think the seller thought I really was the website owner...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=200228931980

 

Hey, it won't last for long but I did ask please the or four times. If the auction is gone the seller inserted links to my token on my site...

 

So, I replaced the images with this:

brit92o7.jpg

 

I don't think the seller thought I really was the website owner...

 

:ninja: Nice one Vern!!! ;)

 

 

 

I did something similar to a friend, he asked me to design him a little image for his page and I hosted it on my website for him, he promptly put it up on his website and eBay pages... Come April Fools' I changed the image to something else and got his wife to tell him, he thought that someone had hacked into his website and eBay account! Thankfully he found it funny so I did not get into his bad books, yet... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your nice Elverno, I would have done something a lot less tasteful, more crude but funny all the while. :ninja:

 

There is more to the story, the feedbag tells it all:

 

WowDollFashions feedbag profile

 

 

Well I do have a picture of the south-end of a north travelling mule...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, you are a lot nicer than me. I once found someone in Scotland casually and carelessly purloining one of my images from my website, and I did change the file name for the site page, and put a new pic up for the purloined image. I have also caught people pawning off Scottish banknotes with my images, even with my farking copyright notice! I reported them as a possible fraud, since they were my images, and they got NARU'ed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice touch. I get angry when a seller links to someone's website, clearly without permission. They could at least retype the information adding the description of the actual piece they are selling. Adding a further link to the pictures is a deliberate attempt at misdirection in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah the odd thing about this seller is that they put up decent "good enough for eBay" pics of their coin. But they then hunt through online sites, commercial or otherwise, and add the pics to their listing without indicating where they come from or that the pictures *aren't* of their token. Including my own site they've used pics and text from four different sites in their current listings set. Since the coins they're offering are consistently poor quality the inclusion of better pictures could easily lead someone hunting for a bargain to believe they've bought something more than they have.

 

I probably could have ignored it if they had simply said "sorry, I'll take it off". But by the time our exchanges through the eBay messages were done you'd think I was interfering with free trade and international commerce in being annoyed by the unauthorized link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was selling used pro audio equipment on eBay I had one seller lift my photos and text verbatim.

 

When I emailed them they responded "We were too busy to do it ourselves."

 

Oddly enough my wife uses the same excuse...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No other option for the seller, you cannot edit that part of the texts of an auction, all you can do is add in. :ninja:

Yeah, but the token was relisted: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=200229441901

If it isn't to expensive the seller deserve a neg because of item not as described...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, you are a lot nicer than me. I once found someone in Scotland casually and carelessly purloining one of my images from my website, and I did change the file name for the site page, and put a new pic up for the purloined image. I have also caught people pawning off Scottish banknotes with my images, even with my farking copyright notice! I reported them as a possible fraud, since they were my images, and they got NARU'ed.

 

I was told that there is no derivative copyright in photos/scans of banknotes; i.e. the only copyright is with the issuing country/bank, and if somebody wants to use your image (though not your web server resources obviously) it would be 'fair use' of the copyrighted (by the bank) banknote design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was told that there is no derivative copyright in photos/scans of banknotes; i.e. the only copyright is with the issuing country/bank, and if somebody wants to use your image (though not your web server resources obviously) it would be 'fair use' of the copyrighted (by the bank) banknote design.

 

While I realize there's nothing to stop someone from copying my pictures and representing them as their own (though the carefully outlined coin on a pure black background is a partial giveaway), my objection is the casual use of my web server to sell their product. However, if photos cannot be copyrighted because of the content then arguably nothing can be copyrighted. After all novels are made up of letters and words. If the particular combination constitutes copyrightable material then surely the composition of any photo, however badly done, is the same.

 

One of my photos was recently put into a new Latin textbook (Ecce Romani III, Prentice Hall, 4th edition, copyright 2009, pg. 77). Before including it the publishers asked for specific permission and written release. Why would use of the same photo, which they found on my website, not have the same requirement when being used on eBay? Just curious... :ninja:

 

lo-102.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you get them to do that?, my cats are good at using it of course, but not cleaning up afterwards. But at least they are better than the canine of the house.

 

They scoop it up into plastic bags and then put it into the dustbin for me, not too bad for a feline.

 

:ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They scoop it up into plastic bags and then put it into the dustbin for me, not too bad for a feline.

 

:ninja:

 

 

Obviously the smell of the cat box has taken over your senses such that you believe your cats do more than just leave their effluent and walk off contented with their load in the box. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously the smell of the cat box has taken over your senses such that you believe your cats do more than just leave their effluent and walk off contented with their load in the box. :ninja:

 

;)

 

Unfortunately I have no pets... ;) Why spend money on pets when you can spend it on coins?!? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I realize there's nothing to stop someone from copying my pictures and representing them as their own (though the carefully outlined coin on a pure black background is a partial giveaway), my objection is the casual use of my web server to sell their product. However, if photos cannot be copyrighted because of the content then arguably nothing can be copyrighted. After all novels are made up of letters and words. If the particular combination constitutes copyrightable material then surely the composition of any photo, however badly done, is the same.

 

No that isn't the case.

 

An original work is copyrightable. A novel is an original piece of work. A movie based on that novel is a derivative work of that copyrighted novel, and is also copyrightable, because there is originality in it the adaptation, the staging, and many other aspects. There is also originality in 2d representations (photographs) of complex 3d objects such as buildings, because of the judgement in selecting the exact pose. In less clear-cut cases, the relevant case law is BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP

 

at http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases...FSupp2d_191.htm

 

Whether you have created a derivative work or a slavish copy is dependent on the nature of your copy:

 

"In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co v. Sarony, [n28] the Supreme Court held that photographs are "writings" within the meaning of the Copyright Clause and that the particular portrait at issue in that case was sufficiently original -- by virtue of its pose, arrangement of accessories in the photograph, and lighting and the expression the photographer evoked -- to be subject to copyright. The Court, however, declined to decide whether "the ordinary production of a photograph" invariably satisfies the originality requirement."

 

A photocopy of a coin or banknote has no originality. Nor does a scan, they are slavish copies.

 

So if you scan hundreds of banknotes, and put them on your website, they are slavish copies, anyone can use them without your permission (the only copyright they need to worry about is that of the issuing bank).

 

One of my photos was recently put into a new Latin textbook (Ecce Romani III, Prentice Hall, 4th edition, copyright 2009, pg. 77). Before including it the publishers asked for specific permission and written release. Why would use of the same photo, which they found on my website, not have the same requirement when being used on eBay? Just curious...

 

It does depend on the photo. If the photo has been set off at an angle, or posed in some original way, it will most likely have derivative copyright. But if it is intended as a slavish copy, it will not. The distinction may be a matter of some judgement, so I would suggest that the publishers contacted you as a matter of avoiding trouble. Even if they are 95% certain that you have no derivative copyright, it is prudent for them to contact you, to avoid the 5% case, or perhaps worse, the ensuing legal action.

 

Anyway, my point was on banknotes, and the law seems clear, scans of those, will not have any copyright:

 

The allegedly greater skill required to make an exact photographic, as opposed to Xerographic or comparable, copy is immaterial. As the Privy Council wrote in Interlego AG v. Tyco Industries, Inc., [n48] "skill, labor or judgment merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality . . . ." [n49] The point is exactly the same as the unprotectibility under U.S. law of a "slavish copy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...