posted on March 18, 2001 05:22:56 AM new
hi, I do not have any good photos of the items that i want to sell and I noticed that many people use catalog photos or other professional photos. Can I just copy another person's photos and use them for my auction? For instance, the website where i bought the items i am selling has nice photos which i could use... what do you think? thanks
posted on March 18, 2001 05:27:09 AM new
If the web site that you mentioned gives you permission to use their photos, you can. Otherwise it's copyright infringement.
posted on March 18, 2001 06:20:11 AM new
tasmanlane, If another seller has the pictures, you can ask their permission to use their photos.
When I was first starting out, I did this on a couple of items and one person was very nice about letting me copy the picture, the other said no, so I didn't.
posted on March 18, 2001 06:49:14 AM new
You must get permission.
If the copyright owner (whether it be the company or another seller) finds out that you are using their pictures without permission & complains, eBay can delete your auction.
See dubyasdaman's post above. It is absolutely not okay to copy pictures from a manufacturer's website without permission. It's illegal.
If someone spots it and notifies the manufacturer, and the manufacturer complains to eBay, at the very least your auctions will be toast. (If the manufacturer wants to make bigger headaches for you, they probably can.)
This has happened to quite a few sellers. Better to use your own pictures.
posted on March 18, 2001 11:55:12 AM new
NO NO NO!!!
If you want to start your eBay career by being unethical, unprofessional and out-the-door in a hurry, then go right ahead and steal photos!!
Someone else's photos, even the manufacturer's, will NOT be what you are selling. Period. End of Story. The bottom line is that you would be advertising something you DO NOT have -- even if if you have the particular item(s) you are auctioning, you DO NOT have the one in the photo, and that clearly comes under the definition of fraudulent (which the dictionary defines as "engaging in fraud; deceitful; obtained or performed by artifice" ).
http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/png-copyrights.html. eBay's policy on this matter states: "No Copying Allowed! When you prepare your auction listings you generally should use only material (text, photographs, etc.) and trademarks/names that you created or own yourself or licensed from the owners."
Why do people think it is okay to condone theft? Because it isn't something "tangible" do you then rationalize that you have doing nothing wrong? This week I saw a seller who was linking to another seller's photos whine, "I plan on selling the same set of books that is in the picture...There is no fraud in that...I happend to see someone selling the same books I was going to put up and I liked the layout so I used the pics." Of course Seller_With_Stolen_Photos wasn't happy when the Owner_of_Photos took them down and substituted them with photos that said she was a thief!
Buy a scanner or digital camera. If you can't afford that, then, well, don't expect any sympathy when you are turfed for theft.
[edited to fix UBB.]
[ edited by engelskdansk on Mar 18, 2001 11:57 AM ]
posted on March 19, 2001 09:42:01 AM new
Okay, I now understand that copying even manufacturer's photographs should not be done for LEGAL reasons. I never realized that it was illegal before. I did realize that you could not "Steal" a photo from a competitor, eBay competitor or otherwise. However, I really thought that it would be okay to copy a manufacturer's photograph because you were not taking it to compete against them for sales. I see now that intent doesn't matter. I will now be sure to get permission before using ANYONE'S Photos.
BUT, It is ridiculous to say:
"Someone else's photos, even the manufacturer's, will NOT be what you are selling. Period. End of Story. The bottom line is that you would be advertising something you DO NOT have -- even if if you have the particular item(s) you are auctioning, you DO NOT have the one in the photo, and that clearly comes under the definition of fraudulent (which the dictionary defines as "engaging in fraud; deceitful; obtained or performed by artifice" )."
When you purchase something off of a website or from a catalog a person with average intelligence would understand that they are not getting the EXACT ITEM shown in the picture, but an identical item. Would you call that fraudulent?
I have a digital camera, and I always include a picture of my item, new in the box. Sometimes more than one. However, sometimes people would like to see what an item would look like out of the box> I am not going to remove a brand new item from the sealed box to take a picture, and that's where taking a picture from a catalog or manufacturer's website would come in. Those photos are ALWAYS obviously a catalog or manufacturer's photo. Especially when a description states that the item being sold is BRAND NEW IN THE SEALED box or something similar. You'd have to be an idiot to be defrauded by that!
posted on March 19, 2001 10:03:33 AM new
"I am not going to remove a brand new item from the sealed box to take a picture, and that's where taking a picture from a catalog or manufacturer's website would come in."
I don't believe any catalog or manufacturer is going to give you permission to use their photos. (That doesn't mean that hundreds of sellers don't just go ahead and steal them anyway.)
"When you purchase something off of a website or from a catalog a person with average intelligence would understand that they are not getting the EXACT ITEM shown in the picture, but an identical item. Would you call that fraudulent?"
A manufacturer selling something off of their website or a catalogue merchant are using photos of THEIR product. They are not running around the Internet finding other people's photos to use.
Let's say I buy a laptop from Dell. All of their laptops are customizable, few people buy one exactly as is without some change in the specifications. I use it for a few months, then decide to sell it. Since I do not believe in using a photo that is not a direct picture of what it is I am selling, I would only auction it with a photo taken specifically of the laptop in my possession.
I have purchased several software programs that I never used. The disks were still "sealed", but I took photos of the box, the contents, the sealed disks, etc. I did not even consider hunting up the retail site to use their photos.
posted on March 19, 2001 11:07:18 AM new
....A manufacturer selling something off of their website or a catalogue merchant are using photos of THEIR product. They are not running around the Internet finding other people's photos to use....
Not necessarily true. Maybe if you're talking about a manufacturer's website, but not a retail website. They didn't design the product. It is not "their" product. They purchased the product just like I did, with the intent to sell it. AND, I said nothing about where their picture came from. That I know nothing about. I was only responding to your comment of it being wrong because it was not the EXACT ITEM being purchased. I can acknowledge that stealing photos is wrong.
I can understand why you would not have the need to show a photograph of software. I mean, generally, Software looks like software. People don't usually think, "Hum, I wonder what that disc looks like on the inside of that sealed box." However, in my category, buyers often want to see in more detail what they're buying. Like your "Dell Computer" situation. If I have a used or open item, I'll just take my own photo and use it. I was only referring to sealed items that sell better with a picture of what the item will look like.
Please, understand, I am not justifying the practice of copying photos.
