A
Ahmed Poltroon
Guest
Ask him to PayPal you the value of the copy and the photo. Five cents.
Copyright infringement on RFF
- Thread starter Flat Earth
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 83
- Views 7K
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Storm in a teacup IMHO.
Perhaps he's selling it to buy a digital camera and a lighting rig?
Perhaps he's selling it to buy a digital camera and a lighting rig?
Last edited:
Flat Earth
Member
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
collateral jamage
right to be annoyed a bit? sure. right to be "very upset"? get a hobby.
antiquark
Derek Ross
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.
Lots of ebay sellers watermark their pictures, because they have the same problems as you had.
kully
Happy Snapper
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.
'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.
sos314
collateral jamage
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
Veteran
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!🙄
sos314
collateral jamage
sounds funny. where can i see that mayhem?
Flat Earth
Member
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.
Beemermark
Veteran
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
Veteran
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
Established
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
JCA
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
JCA
Harry Lime
Practitioner
You know...., the world really isn't flat...
lensjunkie
Established
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.
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
For the Weekend
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
Established
awesome. laughing my proverbial ass off.
gb hill
Veteran
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
tall person
Photographers are a funny bunch. 🙂 (myself included)
