HP Forum Archive 14

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Stolen auction? (slightly Off-Topic) Message #1 Posted by Mike on 11 June 2004, 10:19 a.m. Not a biggie. Just another example of lazy people that can't create their own auctions. So, what do you think. Copied? This link, brings up both auctions. My auction The other auction Edited: 11 June 2004, 11:02 a.m.

Re: Stolen auction? (slightly Off-Topic) Message #2 Posted by Chris Woodhouse on 11 June 2004, 11:25 a.m., in response to message #1 by Mike I don't see that for a product like that, that it makes any real difference. Unless I had my digital camera out taking photos of other stuff, I would just find a photo anywhere I could to add to my auction. Now if it was something where the cosmetic condition was important, I would certainly provide a photo of the actual item and I would provide a much higher resolution image (1024x768 or more) than most people on ebay do. Chris W

Nevertheless... Message #3 Posted by Mike on 11 June 2004, 11:50 a.m., in response to message #2 by Chris Woodhouse It is a violation of ebay rules to steal a photo. It is also against the rules to use another person's "title" and "description". Yes, it's against ebay rules. The fact is, people that use other people's photos, likely don't deliver exactly what is shown. Who knows what you actually get? The fact is, that he would likely not be able to sell his item, for a much, without a photo. The fact is, I and others have to invest in a camera to take our photos. It is not merely a question of cosmetic condition. It is a matter of his leveraging off of other peoples expenses. This may not be a big deal to buyers, but nontheless, it is against ebay rules. Edited: 11 June 2004, 11:51 a.m.

Re: Nevertheless... Message #4 Posted by Joe Edwards on 11 June 2004, 12:11 p.m., in response to message #3 by Mike I agree with both of you: 1. In regards to photos. I really don't think it is a big deal. If the seller includes a disclaimer stating the photo is represenative of the product, who cares. As Chris said, it if was in reference to specific condition, that would be different. 2. In regards to the layout. I can see Mike's point. The catch is, can you prove, beyond any question of doubt that those are your photos Mike. Unless there is some type of digital signiture, you really cannot prove that you took them, merely that you had them on your auction first. My main question is this; why are you even asking folks what their opinions are? Not trying to troll here, but if you have a problem with it and you feel ebay will shut down the other person's auction, report him. That is your call. In the long run, I don't think it really matters that much, but that is just my opinion.

Absolutely! Message #5 Posted by Mike on 11 June 2004, 12:27 p.m., in response to message #4 by Joe Edwards You say: "The catch is, can you prove, beyond any question of doubt that those are your photos Mike. Unless there is some type of digital signiture, you really cannot prove that you took them, merely that you had them on your auction first." I say: Absolutely! I have the original 2272 x 1704 image. I bet he can't produce one. If he simply tried to expand it, it would be obvious. But aside from that, eBay has a backed up database that will show my photo on ebay, before he ever joined. You say: "My main question is this; why are you even asking folks what their opinions are? Not trying to troll here, but if you have a problem with it and you feel ebay will shut down the other person's auction, report him." I say: Already did. I'm sure his auction will be pulled. The way I look at it, there is no such thing as only "slightly" violating the rules. There are two issues: Buyer point of view: No big deal, perhaps. Seller point of view: This is just as much an abuse of my photos, title and description, as if he used a photo of one of my mint calculators and sold and average calculator. No gray area here. eBay rules against photo and description theft But the point you are missing is this is about leveraging off of another persons auctions and expenses. That is the issue. This is a black and white issue. It's no different than if someone used an HP Museum photo to sell their product, without giving credit for the source. I just bring this up as a general issue. I am fully capable of dealing with it and have. Edited: 11 June 2004, 12:33 p.m.

Re: Nevertheless... Message #6 Posted by Namir on 11 June 2004, 1:22 p.m., in response to message #4 by Joe Edwards Joe, I agree with you. Any eBay seller who feels his photos and text are being hijacked by others should contact eBay itself and take the appropriate action to defend his/her material. I fail to see the point in discussing matters here! It's liek complaining about the Abu Graib prison abuse to the Brazilian government!!!

Re: Nevertheless... Message #7 Posted by Sam Hughes on 11 June 2004, 4:35 p.m., in response to message #6 by Namir There is a reason to discuss this here, it is an interesting topic and relevant to others who may be selling calculators on eBay.

Oh, please... Message #8 Posted by Richard Estmer on 11 June 2004, 1:20 p.m., in response to message #1 by Mike Not to play the devil's advocate, but... 1) This is a sealed tape, if the other seller had made its own picture, it would look all the same, excepted maybe your blue towel which nicely prevents light reflection; 2) the other seller doesn't get any advantage in using your picture, and you don't loose a cent in having your public picture cloned; 3) above all, you (and other sellers of vintage material) make huge, repeated profit on collectors' items. Nothing against that, but considering the amount of eBay transactions you make, and your oh-so-high prices, this is a huge, no-tax, easy money scheme for you. Why whine on a copied photo, then? 4) such tapes can regularly be found (any other vintage material, btw) in bulk sets in government auctions, military surplus sales (wink), old import/export shops, and bankrupt shops, just to name a few. Selling them one at a time on eBay generates lots of easy money (good legal scheme : I do it, too) which imho doesn't need claiming "intellectual property" of vintage stuff. Just my two cents; nothing personal.

You are off on a tangeant Message #9 Posted by Mike on 11 June 2004, 2:22 p.m., in response to message #8 by Richard Estmer You seem to want to discuss this based on who is the target rather than the principle, envolved. You say: "2) the other seller doesn't get any advantage in using your picture, and you don't loose a cent in having your public picture cloned;" I say: So, using that logic, why should anyone, including Dave, if someone uses an HP Photo, without giving credit? Advantage, has absolutely zip to do with this issue. There is a principle here that is completely oblivious to you. I have invested thousands of $ in cameras for my photos. Might seem silly to you but my photos are mine. And without "credit" is simply wrong behavior. It really has zip to do with who, if anyone, is making any money on something. I have asked that he give credit for the photos used. We shall see if he complies. I guess I better drop this thread, since you'd rather make it personal issue than simply sticking to the principle here. Edited: 11 June 2004, 2:36 p.m.

Re: You are off on a tangeant Message #10 Posted by Chris Woodhouse on 11 June 2004, 4:11 p.m., in response to message #9 by Mike When I made my first post, I didn't notice that the text was also an exact copy. Quote: You seem to want to discuss this based on who is the target rather than the principle, envolved. Sure in principle it is wrong, my comment was just to indicate that in the grand scheme of things it is no big deal. However, that was before I noticed that he copied the text too. Now that is beyond lazy! Chris W

Re: You are off on a tangeant Message #11 Posted by thebullcabinet on 13 June 2004, 2:06 a.m., in response to message #10 by Chris Woodhouse I have had my text copied numerous times. I usually email the plagiarist, and seldom receive a response. So far, I haven't reported anyone to eBay though. In one case, the seller confirmed he had copied his description, but not from my auction - So it was a third generation theft :^).

Re: Oh, please... Message #12 Posted by a b on 11 June 2004, 5:45 p.m., in response to message #8 by Richard Estmer Since Mike is on the high horse about obeying the rules, we should assume that he is paying taxes on his sales, as is required. ;-)

Of course I do Message #13 Posted by Mike on 12 June 2004, 11:58 a.m., in response to message #12 by a b I'm a good American. I also pay taxes on my shareware software. Your childish insinuations that I didn't is simply beneath contemptible. Being on a high-horse is much preferrable to being on the low-road. I can see why you try to be anonymous. Edited: 12 June 2004, 12:00 p.m.

No, you don't pay taxes ... Message #14 Posted by a b on 12 June 2004, 12:46 p.m., in response to message #13 by Mike ... on your huge, repeated eBay benefits. No one does. BTW, I plan to sell blue towels. Can I use your high-res, power-user, 4096x4096 digital pictures? Or will you sue me?

Don't be a jacka$$ Message #15 Posted by Mike on 12 June 2004, 1:42 p.m., in response to message #14 by a b If you can't focus on the subject, perhaps you should just stay out of the thread. It is funny how those that take a free ride through life, think everyone else does too. Edited: 12 June 2004, 2:15 p.m.

Re: Don't be a jacka$$ Message #16 Posted by a b on 13 June 2004, 11:33 a.m., in response to message #15 by Mike So that wasn't me. Someone stole by initials (well, I guess they could have the same initials as me, but it is still poor form to post in the same branch of a thread as my message). Anyway...I don't know about that jacka$$, but I was being sincere in my response that you probably do pay taxes.

Re: No, you don't pay taxes ... Message #17 Posted by thebullcabinet on 13 June 2004, 2:09 a.m., in response to message #14 by a b I do. Seems like there's a law or something about that.

Re: Stolen auction? - 100% with Mike Message #18 Posted by Jim Creybohm on 11 June 2004, 3:04 p.m., in response to message #1 by Mike I agree 100% with Mike on this. To me, it is the PRINCIPLE involved, not the actual items. To do this in this manner tells me that the person who has hijacked the images/code is either lazy or crooked. Either way, not a strong recommendation for a person I want to deal with. I most likely wouldn't have noticed it as I am not in the market for tapes. That having been said, I am not sure that this is the correct forum for bringing it up - however as we are almost all Ebayers here, I think it is good to be aware that this type of nonsense goes on. I'll be more careful when posting pictures of the items I am selling. I believe the Mike actually thought he was doing the readers of this board a service - I don't think he thought this was advertising his product, nor do I think he was whining. 12345

Re: Stolen auction? (slightly Off-Topic) Message #19 Posted by Gordon Dyer on 11 June 2004, 4:02 p.m., in response to message #1 by Mike I completely agree with you Mike. Others should not take your description and photo.

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall