Stupid I know but help needed

Flyonthewall

Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »

Im not trying to scare anyone, least of all someone who will never come back to the thread.. Im just attempting to educate a few people so that next time this situation raises its ugly head you will be able to offer valid advice instead of the waffle that was given to the OP originally...

I said it seems that way. And they did come back to the thread. Only a small update that they gave, but they did come back.

You realise my post wasn't against you? Sure, it's clear we haven't agreed on the matter, but I took your side on your right to be in this thread (and only this thread if you wish). As I said before, you're giving your opinion/experience on the matter. Just because I don't agree with all you've said doesn't mean I don't know why you've posted it.

movingon

Changing the subject slightly............
What I want to know is, if the OP was selling this photo on EBay, and the auction was over, how was this photographer able to gain her contact details to send her this threatening letter.

I thought you could only get details of someone you were trading with?

Rob_S_Photographer

movingon wrote: »

Changing the subject slightly............
What I want to know is, if the OP was selling this photo on EBay, and the auction was over, how was this photographer able to gain her contact details to send her this threatening letter.

I thought you could only get details of someone you were trading with?

the auction wasn't over and a letter requesting payment for the stolen image is not threatening..

Flyonthewall

movingon wrote: »

Changing the subject slightly............
What I want to know is, if the OP was selling this photo on EBay, and the auction was over, how was this photographer able to gain her contact details to send her this threatening letter.

I thought you could only get details of someone you were trading with?

Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »

the auction wasn't over

Whether it was over or not surely the question remains the same as they weren't trading with them so how did they get the details?

Flyonthewall

Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »

a letter requesting payment for the stolen image is not threatening..

We've been through the threatening letter stuff in this thread already. No ones know how it was written to say whether or not it was actually threatening.

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Yes, that bit is a fact but it may not have been worded that way.

For example,
You attempted to sell a copyrighted image that belongs to me and therefore I will be taking you to court to sue for thousands of pounds/£xxxx amount.

That is not threatening, just facts.

However,

The image you tried to sell is mine, how dare you try and sell it without my permission! Give me £350 now or I'm going to take you to court and sue you for thousands!

Although stating facts that would be horrid to read. My point was that you can not possibly know if the letter was horrid and the OP simply stated the facts from it, or they just thought the facts were horrid or even that they were just horrified by the thought of that happening.

mgdavid

Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »

the auction wasn't over and a letter requesting payment for the stolen image is not threatening..

irrelevant again - try answering the question please

melliott1963

Of course, we don't know, and, more importantly, neither does the original photographer, if the OP had actually been selling the images at car boot sales and other places and then thought they'd try selling them on eBay as well.

Just because the ebay auction didn't sell, doesn't mean that the OP hadn't already made a nice sum out of other sales.

Flyonthewall

melliott1963 wrote: »

Of course, we don't know, and, more importantly, neither does the original photographer, if the OP had actually been selling the images at car boot sales and other places and then thought they'd try selling them on eBay as well.

Just because the ebay auction didn't sell, doesn't mean that the OP hadn't already made a nice sum out of other sales.

Surely the photographer would have to prove they'd been selling elsewhere. Otherwise any photographer could just say anyone has been selling their photos offline and make them pay.

Rob_S_Photographer

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Whether it was over or not surely the question remains the same as they weren't trading with them so how did they get the details?

Contact seller option or the contact details were on the items sale page.

theonlywayisup

Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »

Contact seller option or the contact details were on the items sale page.

Contact seller option does not give you an address for a seller.

Contact details also would not offer this unless the seller was a registered business.

Nowhere in his 6 posting history does the OP state he was a business.