A buyer won one of my auctions on Wednesday, she has listed the item today

[alloway65 10]

A buyer won one of my auctions on Wednesday, she has listed the item today on the Friday Snap Auction using my scan etc! She has not paid, as yet, for the item purchased from me….…so legally the item is not hers to sell.

 

Some people have a nerve.

[qball 11]

Please send us the trade ID and the username. Thanks.

[alloway65 10]

Kozmic Consultants 7052563

 

Thanks

[qball 11]

Thanks, will look into it

[Free Soul Styles 10]

This seller is always using my watermarked images. I have complained endlessly about this and get told "the seller has been notified" or "please watermark your images in the future"....

 

I don't think it's fair that she is STILL using my images, even after the warnings. Her auction should be cancelled. My name is on those images, and i don't want buyers thinking i'm associated with her. I have even gone as far as emailing her directly and asking her to not use them. She has purchased from me, but she bought the items, not the photo's.

 

http://www.bidorbuy.co.za/item/132591374/2008_MANDELA_90TH_BIRTHDAY_MS_65.html

 

Also, i have permission from SANGS to use their logo

[alloway65 10]

Something should be done about her!

 

I had a call from BoB re this "sale", she said she thought she had paid, and would immediately pay.....still waiting for her to pay....I will file an SNC tomorrow. She has sold my item in question. Some people.

[NooNooBug 10]

What a nerve to do that ! Surely she should get some sort of warning and seen as she just persists should have restrictions or something placed on her account ! How much clearer can the watermark be ? "Free Soul Styles DO Not Copy "!

[Miss Jewels 10]

@alloway65....Do not conclude the transaction with her. She is thus selling items not in stock....unauthorized dropshipper. Final warning and account closed:idea:

[alloway65 10]

Thanks MJ understood, no other response from BoB as yet...I can only file an SNC tomorrow, 7 days waiting period.

[Free Soul Styles 10]

How much clearer can the watermark be ? "Free Soul Styles DO Not Copy "!

 

I'm tired of having to watch other people use my personal images. I have the decency to use my own images of the actual items, as BoB requests, but then other sellers can just randomly do what they want to.

[qball 11]

Unfortunately, even if we issue warnings, we cannot enforce your legal copyright. As she now owns the actual item, I am not sure that we would be allowed to stop her from using it, as it is an actual exact image of the item. That would be like telling a guy selling a BMW secondhand, that he cannot use any images of the car because they are "owned" by BMW... ?

[qball 11]

Something should be done about her!

 

I had a call from BoB re this "sale", she said she thought she had paid, and would immediately pay.....still waiting for her to pay....I will file an SNC tomorrow. She has sold my item in question. Some people.

 

She has been warned, and you will need to file a SNC, we will find her at fault. The problem is the auction she had on already closed.

[alloway65 10]

Will file an SNC as soon as the 7 days is up and the SNC Tab shows.

[Free Soul Styles 10]

Unfortunately, even if we issue warnings, we cannot enforce your legal copyright. As she now owns the actual item, I am not sure that we would be allowed to stop her from using it, as it is an actual exact image of the item. That would be like telling a guy selling a BMW secondhand, that he cannot use any images of the car because they are "owned" by BMW... ?

 

 

I can completely understand that. However... With coins it's a bit different. There's the serial number on that coin (very viewable), that differs from 1 to the other. Therefore, she cannot use that image as that particular coin (with THAT serial number) was in fact sold to a different buyer. There were 5 coins on auction that day. Also, she stared using my images 2 weeks before she even bought an item from me.

 

Even so, is it fair that if a seller with very bad negative ratings, (not saying she does), should be allowed to use images that have another sellers name? Thereby associating my name with that of a person who is badly rated for service etc?

 

If she wanted the images why not ask? I do keep the originals without the watermark. Or even ask for permission to use the watermarked ones? I wouldn't say no, but i would ask her to please mention that she is using my images and we are not associated.

[jogesel 10]

Dear Mr qball. you may protect the copyrtight of this seller. A photograph is like a poem or a song-copyright therein belongs to the creator of the work. If I take a photo of the sun nobody may use my photo just because the sun is clearly visible in the sky and belongs to nobody. I have copyright in that photo.

 

If I take a photo of a BMW even the owner of the BMW may not use my photo because the photo is my creation. It originates from my brain and my labour. It is my idea. It belongs to me.

 

What is at issue with copyright is not whether the object in the photograph belongs to a particular person but who created the photograph. Whose idea was it to create this particular photo? A person who creates an artistic work like a photo or poem is always protected by copyright regardless of the subject matter..

 

If Da Vinci painted or took a photo valued at R1 million of your BMW you could not make or use copies of the photo/painting without his permission because the idea of the photo/painting is his. If you own the BMW you are of course free to make your own different paintings or take your own photos.

 

Many sites similar to yours do protect the copyright of persons using their site.

 

Actually a guy selling a second hand BMW may not use exiting photos of the car because the copyright in the photos belongs to the person who created the photos. He may only use such photos with the permission of the copyright holder.

 

Theoretically BMW could stop second hand car sellers using photos which they created for advertising purposes but in reality would not do so.

[voldermort 10]

Dear Mr qball. you may protect the copyrtight of this seller. A photograph is like a poem or a song-copyright therein belongs to the creator of the work. If I take a photo of the sun nobody may use my photo just because the sun is clearly visible in the sky and belongs to nobody. I have copyright in that photo.

 

If I take a photo of a BMW even the owner of the BMW may not use my photo because the photo is my creation. It originates from my brain and my labour. It is my idea. It belongs to me.

 

What is at issue with copyright is not whether the object in the photograph belongs to a particular person but who created the photograph. Whose idea was it to create this particular photo? A person who creates an artistic work like a photo or poem is always protected by copyright regardless of the subject matter..

 

If Da Vinci painted or took a photo valued at R1 million of your BMW you could not make or use copies of the photo/painting without his permission because the idea of the photo/painting is his. If you own the BMW you are of course free to make your own different paintings or take your own photos.

 

Many sites similar to yours do protect the copyright of persons using their site.

 

Actually a guy selling a second hand BMW may not use exiting photos of the car because the copyright in the photos belongs to the person who created the photos. He may only use such photos with the permission of the copyright holder.

 

Theoretically BMW could stop second hand car sellers using photos which they created for advertising purposes but in reality would not do so.

 

Copyright exists only in work insofar as that work is original thus if you take a photo of the sun it is not original because there is no skill or labour involved in taking that image but if Da Vinci painted a picture of the sun that requires skill & labour thus copyright protected insofar as it is original....the less original your creation, the less of it is protected by copyright & is therefore very laborious to show that somebody has infringed your copyright. I'm sure the hummingbird of Woolworths last year will ring a bell with most.

[jogesel 10]

"if you take a photo of the sun it is not original because there is no skill or labour involved"

 

Sorry Voldemort. Any original work, book, poem, song, painting, photo is protected by copyright.

 

A photo of the sun will also be protected.

 

Just google for images of sun and moon. You will find thousands of different photos of the sun. These photos belong to someone and you may not use them withopuit permission.

 

Many of these images clearly state - subject to copyright.

[Colin_P 10]

A buyer won one of my auctions on Wednesday, she has listed the item today on the Friday Snap Auction using my scan etc! She has not paid, as yet, for the item purchased from me….…so legally the item is not hers to sell.

 

Some people have a nerve.

 

Going back to the original post, I wonder if she was hoping to sell it and receive payment before paying you. Then all she needs to do is give you her buyers address, and she's made a profit for no effort and no risk (save that to her reputation). Kind of drop shipping with a difference.

[alloway65 10]

I am sure that was her idea.....however to my recollection she made a loss.

[NooNooBug 10]

Dear Mr qball. you may protect the copyrtight of this seller. A photograph is like a poem or a song-copyright therein belongs to the creator of the work. If I take a photo of the sun nobody may use my photo just because the sun is clearly visible in the sky and belongs to nobody. I have copyright in that photo.

 

If I take a photo of a BMW even the owner of the BMW may not use my photo because the photo is my creation. It originates from my brain and my labour. It is my idea. It belongs to me.

 

What is at issue with copyright is not whether the object in the photograph belongs to a particular person but who created the photograph. Whose idea was it to create this particular photo? A person who creates an artistic work like a photo or poem is always protected by copyright regardless of the subject matter..

 

If Da Vinci painted or took a photo valued at R1 million of your BMW you could not make or use copies of the photo/painting without his permission because the idea of the photo/painting is his. If you own the BMW you are of course free to make your own different paintings or take your own photos.

 

Many sites similar to yours do protect the copyright of persons using their site.

 

Actually a guy selling a second hand BMW may not use exiting photos of the car because the copyright in the photos belongs to the person who created the photos. He may only use such photos with the permission of the copyright holder.

 

Theoretically BMW could stop second hand car sellers using photos which they created for advertising purposes but in reality would not do so.

 

I agree with your thinking !

[Colin_P 10]

I am sure that was her idea.....however to my recollection she made a loss.

 

Which might explain why she hasn't paid you. Pain in the butt for you to have to deal with whatever her reasons are.

 

 

I agree with your thinking !

 

For what it's worth, and without any expert knowledge of copyright law, I too agree with that viewpoint.

[qball 11]

Dear Mr qball. you may protect the copyrtight of this seller. A photograph is like a poem or a song-copyright therein belongs to the creator of the work. If I take a photo of the sun nobody may use my photo just because the sun is clearly visible in the sky and belongs to nobody. I have copyright in that photo.

 

If I take a photo of a BMW even the owner of the BMW may not use my photo because the photo is my creation. It originates from my brain and my labour. It is my idea. It belongs to me.

 

What is at issue with copyright is not whether the object in the photograph belongs to a particular person but who created the photograph. Whose idea was it to create this particular photo? A person who creates an artistic work like a photo or poem is always protected by copyright regardless of the subject matter..

 

If Da Vinci painted or took a photo valued at R1 million of your BMW you could not make or use copies of the photo/painting without his permission because the idea of the photo/painting is his. If you own the BMW you are of course free to make your own different paintings or take your own photos.

 

Many sites similar to yours do protect the copyright of persons using their site.

 

Actually a guy selling a second hand BMW may not use exiting photos of the car because the copyright in the photos belongs to the person who created the photos. He may only use such photos with the permission of the copyright holder.

 

Theoretically BMW could stop second hand car sellers using photos which they created for advertising purposes but in reality would not do so.

 

I am afraid we cannot enforce a seller's copyright, only the seller can do that. This would mean the seller starting civil proceeding against the other user. Removing the item does not solve the bigger problem, which is the potential "illegal" use of the copyright image. As I said, we cannot always monitor this nor enforce it, as we are not the copyright holder of the image.

[alloway65 10]

Now I am in a bit of a quandary, the lady in question paid last night just before I was able to file an SNC.

For ethical reasons I would like to cancel this order & for BoB to refund her payment…..I do not mind paying for any costs incurred to reverse the transaction.

…She broke the BoB rules as she sold the item before she had paid for it so it was not hers to sell.

…My payment terms are 3 days not 7 days.

…This sort of seller gives BoB a bad name.

 

Thanks for your help,

David

[voldermort 10]

"if you take a photo of the sun it is not original because there is no skill or labour involved"

 

Sorry Voldemort. Any original work, book, poem, song, painting, photo is protected by copyright.

 

A photo of the sun will also be protected.

 

Just google for images of sun and moon. You will find thousands of different photos of the sun. These photos belong to someone and you may not use them withopuit permission.

 

Many of these images clearly state - subject to copyright.

 

That is the problem with google - anybody can put anything they like anywhere they like & assume it is what they want it to be - it does not make it necessarily true. So, to explain in plain English, your assumed photo of the sun has no copyright protection whatsoever simply because it is such a generic image, the only way something such as the sun/moon/stars/animals etc would ever have copyright protection is if you were to put skill & labour into that image....think the Niknaks man. As an example I have taken many photos of the new Green Point Park & posted them on my facebook, however all images excluding photos with me in them have no copyright protection at all. A generic image only has copyright protection if you, the person, are in the image. If I take a photo of a R5 coin laying on top of a green duvet, there is no copyright protection, millions of people have R5 coins & equally millions of people have green duvets. If however, you add a watermark to the image, that gives you some protection. You could, of course, spend hundreds of thousands of rands trying to prove that the particular image of the sun, with no watermark, is the image you took - you will never win your case though.

[oaks and acorns 10]

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

 

http://www.digitalphotographycourses.co.za/the-law-as-it-pertains-to-photographers-in-south-africa/

Firstly we will discuss copyright law. Copyright only applies to physically manifested work; this can be in the form of a photograph or a digital file. It does not apply to a thought or idea or concept for an image. Whoever ‘reduced such ideas into material form’ will then be the person holding the rights to that work regardless of whether or not it was their concept. The person who holds the rights to an image is therefore its creator, and does not need to be the person responsible for pressing the shutter release on the camera specifically, but rather the person responsible for the artistic input, which includes styling, lighting, sets and composition ... ....

... ... Copyright is automatic; you do not need to take any action to ensure your photograph is protected by the law. Adding the copyright logo to an image only serves as a reminder that the creator reserves rights on the usage of the image. Secondly it allows interested parties to know who to contact if they want to obtain rights for an image. Marking an image with copyright information should include the copyright owners name, the year the image was first made public or was published, the copyright symbol and which rights are reserved. (These can include all rights being reserved or commercial use, uses other than for educational purposes, print and publication more than a single form of media etc.)

Copyright is valid for 50 years from when an image was made public or the first date of publication.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9427111/Jack-Daniels-sends-worlds-most-polite-cease-and-desist-letter.html