eBay User Using My Photos/Text ... What to Do?

[astrostu]

I was just checking the stats of where people are coming from who visit my coin hobby website and found some from eBay. One of the auctions ended for $7000. The entire description starting at "First Spouse Series," including the photographs, appears to be directly lifted from, gee, my page on the first spouse series. The guy even included the links to the larger photos which have my © on them.

 

Is there anything I can/should do? I think if nothing else this is incredibly misleading as well as a violation of copyright (I'm a photographer too, and I'm fairly certain it's illegal for someone to use my photographs without getting permission).

[ldhair]

It looks like he is linking to your images. You could go in and change the images to anything you wish and keep the same URL. You could change the image to something a bit nasty or just a note saying the images are stolen from you. You could really have fun with this.

[jerseycat10]

It looks like he is linking to your images. You could really have fun with this.

 

Agree 100%. You could absolutely own this guy.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

It looks like he is linking to your images. You could really have fun with this.

 

Agree 100%. You could absolutely own this guy.

 

 

I agree. Of course, a less exciting option would be to contact EBay about it.

[comicdonna]

If this bothers you, I sugest getting your images watermarked.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermarking

[Oldtrader3]

I would contact Ebay. You already know that he may be dishonest or very prescient! I think that it would be a waste of time to try and convert the unconverted non-believer about protected material. The water mark is agood idea.

[brg5658]

He's a small time seller with < 200 feedback total and < 50 items sold over the past 6 years.

 

I personally would send him a message asking him to refrain from using your images in the future. If no reply within 5-7 days, then I would voice a complaint with eBay. He doesn't have any current auctions up, so changing the photos will have little effect (at least not right now).

 

To stop any other larger, and more extreme/habitual use of your images, I would suggest (if possible) blocking your images from being indexed by Google image. If that's not possible, then providing a more extreme watermarked version on your site may be helpful.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

By the way, your images are very nice!

 

-Brandon

[cpm9ball]

It really $uck$ when people do things like this.

 

How many of you remember many, many moons ago when the casinos in Las Vegas used to have (real) glass ashtrays with "Stolen from.........." as part of the design?

 

Chris

[johnny9434]

It looks like he is linking to your images. You could really have fun with this.

 

Agree 100%. You could absolutely own this guy.

 

 

I agree. Of course, a less exciting option would be to contact EBay about it.

I wonder if he could go after fleebay as well? just wondering is all

[astrostu]

I want to keep my images Google-able, but I have done as suggested and changed the images linked up on their auction page and notified eBay's intellectual property violation department. And contacted the seller. I don't like the idea that some of my work was used to help sell $7000.

[Kenneth F]

Demand a cut of the profit since your images helped sell the coins.. ha ha ha..

 

I see Judge Judy in the near future!

[brg5658]

I want to keep my images Google-able, but I have done as suggested and changed the images linked up on their auction page and notified eBay's intellectual property violation department. And contacted the seller. I don't like the idea that some of my work was used to help sell $7000.

 

From a copyright standpoint, the seller was not breaking any laws. The images are clearly marked with your copyright symbol and name, and the seller displayed said images without removing that. Thus, credit was given where credit was due....even though he didn't ask.

 

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that the "fine line" between fair use and "stealing" has been grayed by the massive amount of things that one can find when using Google image or a similar service.

 

I contacted both eBay and Teletrade recently reporting a seller on eBay who was using Teletrade copyrighted images for every one of his items for sale -- apparently this guy's livelihood is flipping Teletrade coins. Teletrade gave me a "we will look into it" reply, and eBay never even acknowledged my email. In this case the seller was even removing the Teletrade copyright information before posting the items. Long story short, the seller still has all of the same photos listed (hundreds of items) and in my mind this means that eBay didn't care all that much.

 

 

EDIT: The text is another issue!!

 

 

[astrostu]

Demand a cut of the profit since your images helped sell the coins.. ha ha ha..

 

I see Judge Judy in the near future!

 

Is it wrong I was thinking the same thing? (only half-seriously thinking about it)

 

I watch JJ a lot - it's kinda one of my vices. I can think of several eBay cases that have come up, and I can think of two cases where people have presented images on their website without acknowledgement ... all times, JJ ruled in the plaintiff's favor.

[Conder101]

in my mind this means that eBay didn't care all that much.

They care, but they need to be contacted by the owner of the copyright not a third party. If Teletrade lodged a complain they would pull the auctions.

 

 

[mtnstyne]

Hmm, didn't even think about it but I always save the TT auction photos when I buy a coin to add to my registry. I am guessing this is a violation!?

 

I have not used any to sell or trade anything, just for the registry.

[astrostu]

Just got this e-mail:

 

We are pleased to inform you that the following listing(s) you reported have been removed from eBay in response to the Notice of Claimed Infringement you recently sent. ... We have notified the seller and all participating bidders that the listing(s) has been removed due to your request.

[Raisethis2]

I've borrowed someone else's text on E-Bay to sell an item I had that I don't know much about. I'd think in that case the originator wouldn't mind however, pictures if copyrighted are to be purchased. I'd just contact the guy and tell him not to do it again. If he does, then contact E-Bay.

 

He/she might not know any better.

[Oldtrader3]

Sounds as though Ebay has done something about this? I am glad that they did. I always wonder on these, if it is bait and switch or pay for and receive no coin?

[messydesk]

Send the seller a bill for licensing fees.

[coinman_23885]

Send him a traceable message immediately, telling him that he is to refrain from using your copyrighted works without a license/authorization from you.

[kryptonitecomics]

I have folks buy coins from me and use my images all the time to resell the same coins. I don't try to stop them as usually it's these flippers who bid my auctions up to strong prices since they plan to use the images. If I were to water mark or somehow prevent them from using my images it would most likely hurt my final sale prices. Beside most of the time the BIN prices they are asking are so rediculous that the coins will never sell even with top notch images

[BKW]

 

Although an author has a copyright in his work at the moment of creation, unless that work is registered with United States Copyright Office (part of the Library of Congress), the copyright owner's rights under the law are limited.

 

So if anyone creates anything and wants the full benefit of copyright law make sure the work is registered (e.g. without registration you have no right to file suit in federal court, no right to statutory damages and no right to recover your attorneys' fees).

 

 

[coinman_23885]

I have folks buy coins from me and use my images all the time to resell the same coins. I don't try to stop them as usually it's these flippers who bid my auctions up to strong prices since they plan to use the images. If I were to water mark or somehow prevent them from using my images it would most likely hurt my final sale prices. Beside most of the time the BIN prices they are asking are so rediculous that the coins will never sell even with top notch images

 

Even though you are absolutely correct that the photographs are technically your intellectual property, I think it is distinguishable from this scenario. When people use your photographs, they have at least compensated you for something (i.e. the coin itself). In this scenario, he is getting nothing.

[coinman_23885]

Although an author has a copyright in his work at the moment of creation, unless that work is registered with United States Copyright Office (part of the Library of Congress), the copyright owner's rights under the law are limited.

 

So if anyone creates anything and wants the full benefit of copyright law make sure the work is registered (e.g. without registration you have no right to file suit in federal court, no right to statutory damages and no right to recover your attorneys' fees).

 

 

I'm admittedly not an intellectual property attorney, but I do not think this is completely correct. While a failure to register your copyright will limit your rights and remedies, you still have some remedies available as a matter of law; however, there are evidentiary issues (like proving ownership, etc.) that you don't have with proper registration (which creates certain legal presumptions). With this said, if he writes the copyright infringer and he refuses to comply, then he should have legal recourse (providing the evidentiary issues are resolved); however, I doubt he would get much or if it would be worth his time to pursue the seller. Now if he contacts eBay and they continue to host the images, then that might be a different story.

[coinman_23885]

From a copyright standpoint, the seller was not breaking any laws. The images are clearly marked with your copyright symbol and name, and the seller displayed said images without removing that. Thus, credit was given where credit was due....even though he didn't ask.

 

 

I would make a distinction between plagiarism and copyright infringement. Even if credit and citations are used, if the distributor doesn't have a license, then he or she may still be breaking the relevant copyright laws. This isn't like academia (again because of the fair use exceptions under the DMCA) where you are tolerated if you make appropriate citations. This is completely different.

[BKW]

Although an author has a copyright in his work at the moment of creation, unless that work is registered with United States Copyright Office (part of the Library of Congress), the copyright owner's rights under the law are limited.

 

So if anyone creates anything and wants the full benefit of copyright law make sure the work is registered (e.g. without registration you have no right to file suit in federal court, no right to statutory damages and no right to recover your attorneys' fees).

 

 

I'm admittedly not an intellectual property attorney, but I do not think this is completely correct. While a failure to register your copyright will limit your rights and remedies, you still have some remedies available as a matter of law; however, there are evidentiary issues (like proving ownership, etc.) that you don't have with proper registration (which creates certain legal presumptions). With this said, if he writes the copyright infringer and he refuses to comply, then he should have legal recourse (providing the evidentiary issues are resolved); however, I doubt he would get much or if it would be worth his time to pursue the seller. Now if he contacts eBay and they continue to host the images, then that might be a different story.

 

Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin. If made before or within five years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the registration certificate. If registration is made within three months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney’s fees will be available to the copyright owner. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and lost profits is available to the copyright owner.

 

Ebay likely has protection under the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. However, if they ignore a validly and properly sent "take down notice" they could be subject to liability.

 

I agree that in this case it would not be worth the OP's time and effort to attempt to file a lawsuit. However, if someone were self-publishing a book or otherwise creating numismatic literature (whether in print or on-line) that took significant time and research to create, they should make sure the work is registered. Trust me on this, I am an intellectual property attorney (though the above is not intented as specific legal advice, only general information).

[BKW]

From a copyright standpoint, the seller was not breaking any laws. The images are clearly marked with your copyright symbol and name, and the seller displayed said images without removing that. Thus, credit was given where credit was due....even though he didn't ask.

 

 

I would make a distinction between plagiarism and copyright infringement. Even if credit and citations are used, if the distributor doesn't have a license, then he or she may still be breaking the relevant copyright laws. This isn't like academia (again because of the fair use exceptions under the DMCA) where you are tolerated if you make appropriate citations. This is completely different.

 

Mere attribution of the author of a copyrighted work is not a defense to an infrigement suit. Attribution coupled with a fair use exception as codified by the Copyright Act of 1978 and subsequent case law is a defense. The DMCA is a 1998 statute that, among other things and in certain instances, limits the liability of third parties (like ISPs) for infringing materials appearing on sites which they host or are under their control.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Trust me on this, I am an intellectual property attorney (though the above is not intented as specific legal advice, only general information).

 

I never doubted or questioned your knowledge. My one comment was only meant to suggest that actual damages would still be available, but would face the quandaries that you alluded to without proper registration. I appreciate the clarification.

[BKW]

 

I never doubted or questioned your knowledge.

 

Didn't mean to imply you did. Sorry. Thinking about Iegal issues makes me feel and I try to avoid it outside of work as much as possible...coins are way more fun.

-Brian

[brg5658]

BKW, thanks so much for your clarification and expertise on this topic. It is much appreciated.

 

I happen to be a semi-pro photographer also, and I always consider the "theft" of my work (at least from the inter-webs) to be a compliment. It seems in the digital age, with billions and billions of images "available" from services such a Google image, the task of tracking down infringements would be almost insurmountable. Not to mention, I post my images on sites accessible by these search engines fully knowing that people do and will use them, without regard to copyright (or even attribution).

 

I read an article in the current issue of "American Photo" about a new venture to attempt to create a world-wide database of images and their respective copyrights/artists. While I thought it was an interesting idea, it seemed to be steeped mostly in a desire for large image copyright holding corporations to prosecute small-time infringers (somewhat similar to the "patent" debacle currently going down for such things as genes, concepts [like social media], and the likes).