Subject:
|
Re: Ebay acution - Potential Fraud?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.auction
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Mar 2000 22:41:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1449 times
|
| |
|
|
lawrence wilkes <lawrence_wilkes@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Fs8zDC.8o4@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.market.auction, Mike Poindexter writes:
> > Well, I understand this happening. I have done it to other people's
> > pictures and they have done it to mine.
>
>
> So basically you are saying that copyright means nothing and you believe • that
> anything that anything that is on the web is up for grabs?
No, I am not basically saying that. You have a copyright for that picture
posted where they can't see it (i.e. it isn't in the auction listing) and if
this was a "public domain" set picture, it wouldn't be a big deal. Given
that the person "could have not known" that this was not a public domain
lego picture like many of the ones on ebay, then it is hard to just jump on
the guy.
Copyrights, like all laws, serve a purpose. Sometimes, they protect people
a lot, like musicians. Sometimes, they protect people only a little, if at
all, like in your instance. What were the damages? How much did this cost
you? If somebody stole $5,000, it is grand theft. If they stole 2 cents,
it is still against the law. But who gets up in arms over that, unless it
is being multiplied millions of times over with the same entity or group of
entities benefitting at the expense of another constant group?
>
> Putting that small issue to one side (as you dont seem to believe in • copyright
> judging from your post), the thing that concerned me most, and others too
> judging from these replies, is that the posting of a picture like mine in • an
> auction is clearly meant to be a picture of the actual set on sale, not • just
> some standard box cover.
>
> It was showing that the box, instructions etc were clearly there and in • good
> condition.
>
> For someone else to use the same picture is conveying an impression to any
> potential user that this is their set that is on sale.
>
> This guy said nothing about a box being included in his text (which is • very
> important to some purchasers) but my photo clearly showed one.
>
> This could therefore clearly mislead a purchaser.
> I dont know if this sale turned out to be fraudulant or not. But to me • that
> fact that it used someone elses picture, and was therefore pretending to • be
> something that it wasnt, was enough to raise suspicion.
I agree and that his taking of the picture was misrepresentative of the
condition of his used set. That misrepresentation is a seperate issue from
him taking your picture.
> If you dont understand copyright, perhaps at least you understand that.
As I have stated, I do understand at least what you stated above. I also
understand copyright, to a degree (IANAL) and believe that when another
person takes a picture from the web and uses it, it is not necessarily
right. I agree with you to a degree, but I can't sympathize with you much.
People know that many people have a feeling on the internet that you can
just take content. It is common knowledge that there are people with that
sentiment. (I am not in that group, although you might think I am).
Knowing that people are out there like that, you might be wise to protect
your pictures from theft by putting a little icon in them. Sure, it is a
pain in the butt, but so is having to lock your house, have an alarm for
your car and a list of passwords and PINs to memorize. Your bank account,
your home and your car are important enough to you to make it worth the
trouble to protect them. Are the pictures you put up on the net worth that
much to you? Maybe, maybe not.
To me, they are not worth that much. If they get copied, I don't care. I
still have them. It didn't cost me anything substantial, so it doesn't
bother me. If it did, I would put more effort into protecting them. What I
sell on ebay is not the pictures of the items listed, but the items
themselves.
Just becuase I don't think this is major doesn't mean I don't value
copyright protection. It is just a matter of how far it should go. I never
saw Lego make the club car public domain. They allow the instructions on
Kevin's site so that people who lost the instructions can still build their
set. By a strict interpretation of copyright law, every person who builds a
clubcar that doesn't own the set is violating the copyright. Ditto for the
hopper cars, space sets and anything else Lego made and coprighted. Many
people would think that gets to the point of being ridiculous. If you
carried it further, you could say that anything inspired from another
person's original creation (i.e. not a copy of a real life item) violates
the copyright as it steal the "look and feel" of their creation. Most
people I know would consider that ridiculous. At some point, we will all
draw a line of where it is ridiculous, or at least counterproductive. Just
because I draw that line sooner does not mean that I don't think it should
be drawn at all.
>
> And I though the Lugnet community was quite tough on copyright protection
> judging from the many, many posts regarding the protection of the images • on
> Lego's web site.
> Clearly, not everyone in Lugnet feels that way.
>
> regards
> lawrence
Well, I have seen a lot of knock-off TLC designs floating around. I have
seen a lot of Star Wars creations that are renditions of copyrighted
material. Clearly, most people consider that to be OK.
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: Ebay acution - Potential Fraud?
|
| (...) Loss of income (or potential income) is basically the crux of the issue. If you can prove that you potentially lost $2500 due to copyright infringement, it's a felony. I suppose if you had an auction for a really expensive item and someone (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.market.auction)
| | | Re: Ebay acution - Potential Fraud?
|
| On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 22:41:53 GMT, "Mike Poindexter" <lego@poindexter.cc> wrote: [... many snips...] (...) Wrong. There was ample evidence that this picture was not a "public domain" set picture. That evidence is that there was no statement saying (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.market.auction)
| | | Re: Ebay acution - Potential Fraud?
|
| If you look at my original posts I didnt go on about copyright. I only observed that he ignored it, and on copyright grounds alone I could have asked for the auction to be stopped. Which I didnt. The main point I made was that this was someone (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.market.auction)
| | | Re: Ebay acution - Potential Fraud?
|
| <major snip> I may be wrong and I'm certainly no lawyer but doesn't a copyright actually involve more than just SAYING its copyrighted? Similar to a patent? And doesn't abuse of a copyright mean damage to profits or income ala pirated movies and (...) (25 years ago, 1-Apr-00, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Ebay acution - Potential Fraud?
|
| (...) So basically you are saying that copyright means nothing and you believe that anything that anything that is on the web is up for grabs? Putting that small issue to one side (as you dont seem to believe in copyright judging from your post), (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
33 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
