Copyright infringement on RFF

[Jonas]

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]

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]

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

Bob

 

[popeye]

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]

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]

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]

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.. 😀

Dave

 

[novum]

Slow day at RFF.

 

[pkuglin]

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]

"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?

just curious. anyway, on with the mud-wrestling. 😱

 

[rpsawin]

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.. 😀

Dave

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

Bob😀

 

[Gumby]

"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. 😱

LOL. You just won a free lifetime membership! 😉

 

[former member]

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]

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

 

[popeye]

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.

🙂 🙂

Difference, what difference...?

 

[climbing_vine]

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]

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

 

[Gumby]

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

 

[Benjamin Marks]

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]

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