| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/30/2008 08:49:25 PM · #1 |
I was browsing Ebay tonight looking for some Cincinnati Reds tickets, when I found a seller using one of MY photos in his/her listing.
Last year, my daughter and I got a thrill by being able to sit in the "diamond seats" - right behind home plate for a game. Tickets include preferred parking, a full pregame buffet, bar, and rec area, direct access from the restaurant to the diamond seats, and full in-seat service during the game including all your food and drink.
I took a photo of the buffet area and that is the photo the seller is using to sell some diamond seats. I got a screen shot of the listing, then I sent an email to the seller. I said shame on you, and oh by the way - how about instead of my filing a complaint with Ebay (that's probably a joke, doubt they'd do anything) and not filing a copyright infringement complaint, plus granting permission to use that photo on any future Ebay listings - for one set of diamond seat tickets to one game. Face value of the tickets is over $200 each.
It's not really a photo I care about, but I figure it never hurts to ask and sounds like a fair deal to me. Of course sitting in those seats, then I'd have to rent a longer lens again.... |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 08:50:40 PM · #2 |
Hahahahaha....good on you....now that is clever thinking. Oh btw...you forgot the fee for ongoing usage of your photo with or without creditation.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2008 08:51:52 PM · #3 |
| Sounds like a fair deal to me! I hope you get some reimbursement for this one considering they probably should have known better! |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 08:55:32 PM · #4 |
I am glad you found your photo, and hope it works out like you want it to. Keep us posted as it develops.
If you don't get any reply, you might send this link to them.
Photog Gets 12 Mil Verdict
Message edited by author 2008-07-01 01:03:43.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2008 10:58:52 AM · #5 |
I have donated many of my photos for many things when I am asked. My contact information as well as my copyright info is right there by all my photos. It's not an important shot, and I hate watermarks. I watermark specific client proofs, or photos that I post at larger sizes though.
It's just the idea that this seller was using it to help MAKE A PROFIT and didn't ask at all.
Anyway, the answer I recieved was basically: sincere apologies, I'll remove it, didn't know this a photo was a big deal and ...you want what? LOL..I don't think so.
Message edited by author 2008-07-01 16:51:17. |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 11:08:28 AM · #6 |
So I sent another email (shown first below) and this is what I got ...
DearĂ¢€Â¦
Thank you for the apology but that does not remove the responsibility for compensation for copyright infringement.
I have filed a complaint with Ebay and will be seeking compensation for that infringement on at least two of your listings. I'm not trying to be a pain, but copyright issues are there for a reason. It's how I earn part of my living and for people to steal my photos is not fair, nor without consequences. You would not be happy if someone just took your tickets or paycheck without permission I think.
Jpochard
Dear jpochard,man, you are quite the firecracker. I have removed the listings, you witch, and nice job TRYING to blackmale me for some tickets. Anyone can take that picture of the buffet lignup, yours what not special. Hope things get better for you you crazy ass
|
|
|
|
07/01/2008 11:11:12 AM · #7 |
So now I'm trying to decide....is it really worth it? I mean, it's not a special photo at all. We all know it happens all the time and am I really being a PITA by pursuing this? Still, it's clearly marked, it is my photo, I have all the evidence...plus this person is just not nice :) What would you do?
Message edited by author 2008-07-01 15:11:50. |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 11:11:13 AM · #8 |
So, you firecracker you, send him an invoice for $750 dollars for use of the pictures. :)
:)
eta; What would I do? Send him an invoice and tell him that here's the bill, but "I am fully not expecting you to pay it, because I can see what kind of business ethic you have."
Actually, that is what I would WANT to do. In reality, I would probably just ignore it.
Message edited by author 2008-07-01 15:12:25. |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 11:11:52 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by jpochard:
.......instead of my filing a complaint with Ebay (that's probably a joke, doubt they'd do anything) and not filing a copyright infringement complaint.... |
In January I found an ebay listing using one of my photos, I contacted the seller (he was listing train tickets) he replied and tried to tell me he could use whatever he found on the internet for free. I complained to ebay and his listing came down within about an hour of my complaint.
Surprisingly he didn't steal it from DPC. A local company had been using this image for about six months on their website (and paying me for its use). They weren't too happy when they saw the ebay screen shots. The seller also heard from their lawyer.
 (This isn't actually the exact same photo- for copyright reason I have to remove the company name from the train and logos from the building before I can use it commercially)
edit to add the photo.
Message edited by author 2008-07-01 15:21:33.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2008 11:13:19 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by karmat:
So, you firecracker you, send him an invoice for $750 dollars for use of the pictures. :)
:)
eta; What would I do? Send him an invoice and tell him that here's the bill, but "I am fully not expecting you to pay it, because I can see what kind of business ethic you have."
Actually, that is what I would WANT to do. In reality, I would probably just ignore it. |
I will be surprised if Ebay provides the contact information I need, actually. Does anyone know if that can be found anyplace on Ebay? |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 11:16:18 AM · #11 |
| Most parks/stadiums/arenas have restrictions on photography. It would be interesting to know what the Reds restrictions are, and who actually retains ownership of the photo - you or the Reds? |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 11:28:15 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by fotomatt:
Most parks/stadiums/arenas have restrictions on photography. It would be interesting to know what the Reds restrictions are, and who actually retains ownership of the photo - you or the Reds? |
Excellent point. I did actually ask at the time if I could take the photo, but obviously it's a whole different thing to charge for usage of the shot instead of just for personal use. Thanks for pointing that out! |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 11:29:50 AM · #13 |
I think it is horrible when someone says that the picture you took, that they are using without permission, illegally, says that the picture was one that anyone could take and it was not special. I think that if that was the case, then you should be liable to pay out more than if it was an amazing photo that not just anyone could take. This is implying that they are too lazy to go and take that photo, because obviously they can take a photo just like that without thinking.
I just think people are so stupid to think that they can use anything they find on the internet. That is like saying that I passed your house and saw your car in the driveway, so I decided to take it for a drive... I know you won't mind!
~Jason
|
|
|
|
07/01/2008 11:32:55 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by jay6850:
I think it is horrible when someone says that the picture you took, that they are using without permission, illegally, says that the picture was one that anyone could take and it was not special. I think that if that was the case, then you should be liable to pay out more than if it was an amazing photo that not just anyone could take. This is implying that they are too lazy to go and take that photo, because obviously they can take a photo just like that without thinking.
I just think people are so stupid to think that they can use anything they find on the internet. That is like saying that I passed your house and saw your car in the driveway, so I decided to take it for a drive... I know you won't mind!
~Jason |
fotomatt did make a point I had not thought of before. I won't be pursuing it further because I believe he is correct. I might, however, change my user name to "firecracker" LOL
Message edited by author 2008-07-01 15:33:15. |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 11:38:02 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by jpochard:
Originally posted by jay6850:
I think it is horrible when someone says that the picture you took, that they are using without permission, illegally, says that the picture was one that anyone could take and it was not special. I think that if that was the case, then you should be liable to pay out more than if it was an amazing photo that not just anyone could take. This is implying that they are too lazy to go and take that photo, because obviously they can take a photo just like that without thinking.
I just think people are so stupid to think that they can use anything they find on the internet. That is like saying that I passed your house and saw your car in the driveway, so I decided to take it for a drive... I know you won't mind!
~Jason |
fotomatt did make a point I had not thought of before. I won't be pursuing it further because I believe he is correct. I might, however, change my user name to "firecracker" LOL |
I hope you do still report it to eBay. I had another eBay'r using some of the stock photos I was using for various camera equipment and they reacted very quickly. If nothing else, it will ding this guy and show up if someone else has a similar problem with him in the future. |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 11:50:09 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by jpochard:
Originally posted by jay6850:
I think it is horrible when someone says that the picture you took, that they are using without permission, illegally, says that the picture was one that anyone could take and it was not special. I think that if that was the case, then you should be liable to pay out more than if it was an amazing photo that not just anyone could take. This is implying that they are too lazy to go and take that photo, because obviously they can take a photo just like that without thinking.
I just think people are so stupid to think that they can use anything they find on the internet. That is like saying that I passed your house and saw your car in the driveway, so I decided to take it for a drive... I know you won't mind!
~Jason |
fotomatt did make a point I had not thought of before. I won't be pursuing it further because I believe he is correct. I might, however, change my user name to "firecracker" LOL |
Even if you take a photo on private property (and a stadium is only quasi-private), the copyright does not go to the owners. The copyright remains with the photographer. The owners can control what pictures are taken, but if you manage to take one, you own it.
It also sounds like the picture is of a buffet instead of baseball players or something else. I doubt there is a copyright on a buffet.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2008 12:05:45 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Even if you take a photo on private property (and a stadium is only quasi-private), the copyright does not go to the owners. The copyright remains with the photographer. The owners can control what pictures are taken, but if you manage to take one, you own it. |
They can still restrict the uses to which it may be put, even if you retain the copyright. Copyright does not confer unlimited rights to make copies, but rather enjoins anyone other than the copyright-holder from making copies without permission. |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 12:09:10 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by jpochard:
Dear jpochard,man, you are quite the firecracker. I have removed the listings, you witch, and nice job TRYING to blackmale me for some tickets. Anyone can take that picture of the buffet lignup, yours what not special. Hope things get better for you you crazy ass |
My suggested reply:
Since the photo you decided to steal was nothing special, I suggest you get off your cheap porn watching ass, get out of your parents basement and shoot your own. In addition why don't you take some of your ebay "fortune" and get some spelling and grammer lessons. Its blackmail, not blackmale and "yours what not special" are you Yoda? Or have you just not passed the fourth grade.
Attached, please find my invoice for $750. Note this is half my normal rate, and is adjusted for the length of time your listing was shown. Also please observe that after 15 days legal and collection fees will apply- and be assured my attorney is not cheap. The good ones rarely are.
The Firecracker
Just a suggestion :)
|
|
|
|
07/01/2008 12:43:36 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by vxpra:
Originally posted by jpochard:
Dear jpochard,man, you are quite the firecracker. I have removed the listings, you witch, and nice job TRYING to blackmale me for some tickets. Anyone can take that picture of the buffet lignup, yours what not special. Hope things get better for you you crazy ass |
My suggested reply:
Since the photo you decided to steal was nothing special, I suggest you get off your cheap porn watching ass, get out of your parents basement and shoot your own. In addition why don't you take some of your ebay "fortune" and get some spelling and grammer lessons. Its blackmail, not blackmale and "yours what not special" are you Yoda? Or have you just not passed the fourth grade.
Attached, please find my invoice for $750. Note this is half my normal rate, and is adjusted for the length of time your listing was shown. Also please observe that after 15 days legal and collection fees will apply- and be assured my attorney is not cheap. The good ones rarely are.
The Firecracker
Just a suggestion :) |
Don't we all wish to have great replies to jerks? Problem is that I've learned over my many years that it doesn't accomplish a thing. They don't care, don't learn, don't change...and love to just keep the fight going. 'Course we don't know anyone around here like that ...
The ONLY way to get through to people like that is to make it matter to them. That would be the only reason to go through the hassle of any type of claim for such a small item. |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 12:46:07 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Even if you take a photo on private property (and a stadium is only quasi-private), the copyright does not go to the owners. The copyright remains with the photographer. The owners can control what pictures are taken, but if you manage to take one, you own it. |
They can still restrict the uses to which it may be put, even if you retain the copyright. Copyright does not confer unlimited rights to make copies, but rather enjoins anyone other than the copyright-holder from making copies without permission. |
And just because now I'm curious and because I like to go to these games, I have an email sent to the Reds asking about those usage restrictions. I'm pretty clear that images of the game are not sellable, but the ballpark itself I'm not so sure of.
Message edited by author 2008-07-01 16:54:34. |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 01:03:53 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Even if you take a photo on private property (and a stadium is only quasi-private), the copyright does not go to the owners. The copyright remains with the photographer. The owners can control what pictures are taken, but if you manage to take one, you own it. |
They can still restrict the uses to which it may be put, even if you retain the copyright. Copyright does not confer unlimited rights to make copies, but rather enjoins anyone other than the copyright-holder from making copies without permission. |
If we are talking copyright of a building or a uniform etc, then I'd agree. If I took a picture of my buddy while at a Cincinnati Reds game and the view is of him and say background people, I don't see how they have any control over it just because I was in their facility.
Link us up to the picture!
Message edited by author 2008-07-01 17:04:19.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2008 01:07:50 PM · #22 |
Wanna make him sweat? Send the miscreant a link to eBay's own legal reference on the matter along with the hint that you're considering your options:
"You should avoid "borrowing" text or images (including photos) from other listings on eBay, a manufacturer's web site, product catalogs, or other sources without specific permission from the owner. Contrary to popular belief, simply because images and text may be found somewhere on the Internet does not necessarily mean that they are not protected by copyright laws. Copyright laws apply to the Internet, and manufacturers or other copyright owners may object to the use of text or images that they own or have created. "
|
|
|
|
07/01/2008 01:25:21 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Link us up to the picture! |
Second photo in this gallery
It is, indeed, nothing special. |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 01:28:17 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by jpochard:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Link us up to the picture! |
Second photo in this gallery
It is, indeed, nothing special. |
Well, I'd think you'd be ok, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't read nolo press. It would be interesting to see if you even hear from the Reds.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2008 01:40:01 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by jpochard:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Link us up to the picture! |
Second photo in this gallery
It is, indeed, nothing special. |
hey and I would be willing to bet that the buffet isnt owned by the Reds, but contracted out to a company like Aramark Services.. etc.. It doesnt look like an identifiable building so i am not sure the building copyright would apply.
What an arse that seller is! I agree, send him and invoice! |
|
