Another seller saying im using his pictures!

DaveAshton

the182guy wrote: »

It's not the same photo though, the one the complainant is using has a watermark and borders, which means it would have been difficult for the OP to steal that photo and remove the borders and watermark. Also if there was a dispute, the OP could just link to a list of other websites using the unwatermarked photo.

I get that. If I were the OP, I'd just ignore them. I was just clarifying how the "someone's pinched my image" disputes often go.

the182guy wrote: »

A thief for using a manufacturers stock photo on eBay? Millions do it, and the manufacturers do not usually mind.

The missus had one pulled last week by the manufacturer (some kind of make-up... thing), so it does happen now and again.

ceepee1

DaveAshton wrote: »

I get that. If I were the OP, I'd just ignore them. I was just clarifying how the "someone's pinched my image" disputes often go.

The missus had one pulled last week by the manufacturer (some kind of make-up... thing), so it does happen now and again.

:T:T Love it how womens "stuff" baffles the sh*t out of men!!! :T:T

steven_garner

DaveAshton wrote: »

I get that. If I were the OP, I'd just ignore them. I was just clarifying how the "someone's pinched my image" disputes often go.

The missus had one pulled last week by the manufacturer (some kind of make-up... thing), so it does happen now and again.

I know some manufacturers wont allow people to re-sell the products and will report to eBay, was reading a thread last week about GHD (i think) wanting compensation form a private seller for selling used strengtheners

Dustangle

steven_garner wrote: »

How can you be so sure i have no rights?

On the manufactures website i see no mention of any copyright nor do i see any on other websites that host the same picture so i don’t see what im doing as being wrong at all.

"Finders keepers" doesn't apply to copyright law! Well, not for seventy years or so.

The fact that you and millions of others are breaking a law doesn't mean that you're not breaking a law, it just means that you're in bad company.

You wanted (free) advice and don't like what you've been told. My advice is that what you're doing is wrong, that you've nicked the image yourself and consequently have no rights over the image you nicked, and that to put yourself in the right you ought to take some good photos or get the consent of the rights owner. If you had paid for the image, you would almost certainly take this view if someone else had nicked your property.

steven_garner

Dustangle wrote: »

You wanted (free) advice and don't like what you've been told.

Yes, i asked for advise - i didn’t ask to be branded a thief and be accused of nicking things by people who dont know the facts.


And still....

Your assuming that the pictures are copyrighted - do you know this for a fact? are Amazon also stealing pictures?

the182guy

Dustangle wrote: »

"Finders keepers" doesn't apply to copyright law! Well, not for seventy years or so.

The fact that you and millions of others are breaking a law doesn't mean that you're not breaking a law, it just means that you're in bad company.

You wanted (free) advice and don't like what you've been told. My advice is that what you're doing is wrong, that you've nicked the image yourself and consequently have no rights over the image you nicked, and that to put yourself in the right you ought to take some good photos or get the consent of the rights owner. If you had paid for the image, you would almost certainly take this view if someone else had nicked your property.

The fact that millions do it just backs up the argument that most manufacturers don't mind. Although it is against the law to use a photo without permission, in this context the law is rarely enforced simply because manufacturers don't care. Furthermore if the manufacturer were to get involved then they would be more interested in the other seller than the OP, due to defacing or modifying the image.

You're taking it out of context, you're looking at it as if OP is using the other sellers own home photo, when this is not the case. It is a manufacturers photo, and the manufacturer has not got involved. It is rare and only special circumstances that a manufacturer will intervene on an eBay item because of the use of a stock photo.

Dustangle

steven_garner wrote: »

Yes, i asked for advise - i didn’t ask to be branded a thief and be accused of nicking things by people who dont know the facts.

And yet it happened! My advice - stop stealing things.

Seriously, you don't have to assert copyright over an image to have it.

Just as I don't have to have a big label on the trampoline in by back garden to own it, and if I drop my wallet in the street with a load of notes in it, the finder is still a thief if he take it and spends the money.

Like I said, "finders keepers" doesn't really work.

jasmineswhiskers

ceepee1 wrote: »

:T:T Love it how womens "stuff" baffles the sh*t out of men!!! :T:T

steven_garner wrote: »

I know some manufacturers wont allow people to re-sell the products and will report to eBay, was reading a thread last week about GHD (i think) wanting compensation form a private seller for selling used strengtheners

I think you'll find they're 'straighteners'...;)

Maysie

Why not just change the photo slightly so its unique to you. If you do a good job it might just annoy him more.

pinkshoes

I'd just email the manufacturer ASAP to get permission to use the photo. Shouldn't be an issue if you're an official seller.

If this idiot then opens a dispute, then you can show ebay your permission.

In the mean time, just ignore this person.