Stealing photographs or text on eBay - dishonest or merely lazy?

soolin

suited-aces wrote: »

Woah soolin and theonlyway, I was posting a sarcastic take on clancy's post!

Then please accept my apologies.

You will see from some threads that some users actually honestly believe that it isn't their responsibility to read anything, and we are forever getting ranting threads where they claim to have been ripped off or treated badly purely because they haven't bothered.

suited-aces

No need to apologise, I see you do a lot of good on this forum.

mishkanorman

** whispers *** suited-aces, it made me laugh !!

MoneyMiser

stevew8975 wrote: »

Am I the only one that sees the irony in that statement? A thief becomes an honest person simply by admitting they are dishonest?



Speak for yourself - but I can see what you are getting at, which is hardly a national charcter trait to be proud of.



If picture theft is not fraudulent, dishonest or criminal, would you care to share your seemingly extensive legal knowledge with "Only Dreemin/Canvas Republic"

Unfortunately as a nation we are getting worse. Lazy amongst other things. Without going into detail, look at the compensation culture, reclaiming of bank charges/PPI etc. Not proud of it but this day and age, everyone is out for themselves.

Not sure exactly what your link is supposed to show me, but if you upload a picture on the World Wide Web, expect it to be viewed by millions and used for whatever purpose. You have no control over this and there is no law preventing others using/defacing your pictures. Why do we have google images? To show us a list of images, uploaded by others to view/use/alter etc.

Back to the point, is it lazy to rip off other peoples ebay listings? As I have already stated, yes but there aint a damn thing you, me, the police, the government or the intergalatic space agency can do about it

Remember life is too short :A

MM

StaffsSW

Only Dreemin were an art publishing business that lifted images from flicker, put them onto canvas prints and sold them as their own.

Until one of the photographers found out, and hauled their donkey over the coals in court for breach of copyright. That was a very, very expensive way to learn that images that can be found on the internet are not necessarily free from copyright or for public domain use.
OD only made about £5000 from the stolen images, but it cost them close to £150k in legal fees, and compensation. Life may be too short for us but it clearly isn't for many others.

But if, as you say, image theft is not a crime, fraudulent or dishonest, then they were truly stiffed over don't you think? Maybe you would have been better representing them in court if you have some other knowledge in this area.

MoneyMiser

stevew8975 wrote: »

Only Dreemin were an art publishing business that lifted images from flicker, put them onto canvas prints and sold them as their own.

Until one of the photographers found out, and hauled their donkey over the coals in court for breach of copyright. That was a very, very expensive way to learn that images that can be found on the internet are not necessarily free from copyright or for public domain use.
OD only made about £5000 from the stolen images, but it cost them close to £150k in legal fees, and compensation. Life may be too short for us but it clearly isn't for many others.

But if, as you say, image theft is not a crime, fraudulent or dishonest, then they were truly stiffed over don't you think? Maybe you would have been better representing them in court if you have some other knowledge in this area.

These images though were probably copyright protected, not public domain pictures. There is a difference. Plus OD were selling someone elses property, literally! Back to the OP, we are talking about the lifting of text and public domain pictures from ebay. By taking someone's text and pictures you are not 'literally' selling their property, you are using their description to sell your own property. Therefore the case of OD is not relevant here.

I understand there are ebay rules against it, but I bet you there are millions of auctions on ebay right now where the text has been taken from amazon and the photo is a 'public domain' picture taken from Google images. Will these people end up in court with a 150k fine, I think not.

MM

TurkishDelight

MoneyMiser wrote: »

These images though were probably copyright protected, not public domain pictures. There is a difference. Plus OD were selling someone elses property, literally! Back to the OP, we are talking about the lifting of text and public domain pictures from ebay. By taking someone's text and pictures you are not 'literally' selling their property, you are using their description to sell your own property. Therefore the case of OD is not relevant here.

I understand there are ebay rules against it, but I bet you there are millions of auctions on ebay right now where the text has been taken from amazon and the photo is a 'public domain' picture taken from Google images. Will these people end up in court with a 150k fine, I think not.

MM

You appear to be confusing google with wikipedia. :rotfl:

Pictures are not free to use just because they are on google- as flikr appears in google searches.

Copyright is granted automatically to the creator of a work, whatever work that is- ebay photo, description, whatever.

I got stung as per my original post on this thread because my photo looked like this one:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/img-thing%3F.out%3Djpg%26size%3Dl%26tid%3D195967&imgrefurl=http://www.polyvore.com/opi_classics_nail_polish_black/thing%3Fid%3D195967&usg=__8v3vNLbXm2b5iyplWNDmNa_ucck=&h=300&w=300&sz=6&hl=en&start=17&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=qZSiQXCfgkj4AM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dopi%2Bnail%2Bvarnish%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbs%3Disch:1

Easily available on google, but my listing still got pulled
Ironically I hadn't used their image, but there we go.

soolin

I think the fact that people don't understand the basic principle of copyright shows why some people get in such a mess when they take photos that they are not allowed to use.

MoneyMiser

TurkishDelight wrote: »

You appear to be confusing google with wikipedia. :rotfl:

Pictures are not free to use just because they are on google- as flikr appears in google searches.

Copyright is granted automatically to the creator of a work, whatever work that is- ebay photo, description, whatever.

I got stung as per my original post on this thread because my photo looked like this one:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/img-thing%3F.out%3Djpg%26size%3Dl%26tid%3D195967&imgrefurl=http://www.polyvore.com/opi_classics_nail_polish_black/thing%3Fid%3D195967&usg=__8v3vNLbXm2b5iyplWNDmNa_ucck=&h=300&w=300&sz=6&hl=en&start=17&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=qZSiQXCfgkj4AM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dopi%2Bnail%2Bvarnish%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbs%3Disch:1

Easily available on google, but my listing still got pulled
Ironically I hadn't used their image, but there we go.

Not confused at all. Look at the picture below of a teapot from Google Images. I have used this picture in a general forum to 'illustrate' a point. Does this mean I will be kicked off this forum or even worse taken to the cleaners by the courts?

theonlywayisup

MoneyMiser wrote: »

I have used this picture in a general forum to 'illustrate' a point. Does this mean I will be kicked off this forum or even worse taken to the cleaners by the courts?

No.

But likewise you can rob a bank and not get caught. Just cos you do it, doesn't mean you will be caught/dealt with (by whichever appropriate authority deals with it), but this also doesn't mean it is right.