Image Theft
PC
and text from my auction he is claiming PF70 for a raw coin.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280261572027
I have reported him.
I love this gem: Also not the coins in the picture are not the exact coins
you will recive but if anything they look better than they do in this
picture.
No shame, some of these people...
Bruce Farley
that a person with 100% for 305 transactions would do that. Hopefully it
gets taken down. I do like the great use of spelling checker! And yeah,
take a look at this coin, but I will send you a different one!!
Phil DeMayo
And where did you get the majority of "your" text description of the
Silver Eagle design???
You're right....no shame.
PC
"Phil DeMayo" <flip...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a6360484-f4ad-4c66...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
You're right....no shame.
>>
Hey Phil - can you order some 2008 American Silver Eagle Proofs from the US
Mint?
You have no standing to denounce anyone, nymshifter, sock puppeteer.
Go crawl back into your troll hole. YOU have no integrity.
PC
"Bruce Farley" <afakea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ghBuk.18444$LG4....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
>I wonder if the account has been high jacked, I mean it does not seem that
>a person with 100% for 305 transactions would do that. Hopefully it gets
>taken down. I do like the great use of spelling checker! And yeah, take a
>look at this coin, but I will send you a different one!!
>
He is darn sure it is PF70 yet is willing to sell below market value for a
raw coin in what may end up being the a key or semi-key to the series.
John Mazor
"PC" <P...@Minneapolis.mn.us> wrote in message
news:7o2dnRoLY7kFSifV...@comcast.com...
You'd think that with a photo composition as distinctive as this one, he'd be smart enough
to not risk getting caught. A simpler, more generic swiped photo runs less risk of
catching the original creator's eye.
The sales blurb is classic hype marketing. Reciting tons of useless details that mean
nothing but sound impressive to a clueless buyer.
I wonder if he would accept initial payment in Monopoly money, along with a note that
"This is not the actual payment I will send you once I receive the coin and am satisfied
with my purchase. It looks just like it, and I will send you final payment that is in as
good or better form as soon as I get this graded as a PF-70 and am sure you're not ripping
me off with your wishful opining about its condition."
Jim Menning
"John Mazor" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:ZXDuk.201$sq3.44@trnddc07...
>
>
>
> You'd think that with a photo composition as distinctive as this one, he'd be smart
> enough to not risk getting caught.
What about his other auction where he whites out the slab number on someone else's
image he uses? That's even more obvious.
http://i10.ebayimg.com/03/i/001/08/c4/00f9_1.JPG
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
John Mazor
"Jim Menning" <jmennin...@new.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9e463$48bb14d0$71...@news.teranews.com...
If it's the same guy, he's a mere whisper away from gaining entry to the collections of
stories about Stupid Crook Tricks - the ones who write their bank robbery note on the back
of their electric bill or leave a trail of stolen beer can empties leading from the 7-11
to their house right up the street.
Bruce Remick
If they're drinking and emptying cans often enough to leave a clear trail,
you'll probably find them passed out close to where the trail of cans ends.
PC
>
>
> If it's the same guy, he's a mere whisper away from gaining entry to the
> collections of stories about Stupid Crook Tricks - the ones who write
> their bank robbery note on the back of their electric bill or leave a
> trail of stolen beer can empties leading from the 7-11 to their house
> right up the street.
>
In the town I grew up there was a recent vending machine break-in. The
morons were eating the stuff and discarding the wrappers as they made their
way back to the "hideout". The police followed the wrappers to a house that
just happened to have little bags of potato chips and candy bars laying
around.
Kenneth Zinger
"PC" <P...@Minneapolis.mn.us> wrote in message
news:7o2dnRoLY7kFSifV...@comcast.com...
Jim Menning
"Kenneth Zinger" <zing...@apple.spam.net> wrote in message
news:E-6dnfurPom8oibV...@bright.net...
>
> Once your images are in the public domain, they are fair game.
>
>
Merely posting images in your own auction or on your own web site does NOT put them
in "public domain". The creator of the image has copyright protection.
John Mazor
Doh! You beat me to that one. See my immediately previous posting.
John Mazor
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message news:gFFuk.22663$Rs1....@newsfe08.iad...
I think that's also on the list of Stupid Crook Tricks.
Other notable "bread crumb" trails leading right to the perp have included loose currency,
exploded dye packs, foot and tire prints, and even candy wrappers.
Bruce Remick
Don't forget that trail left by the horse with the missing nail in the right
rear shoe. I was reminded of that one in an old western last night. Traced
the bad guy's horse all the way into town and up to the saloon, where all
bad guys and strangers always go when in town. How they knew it was the
right rear shoe still puzzles me.
PC
>
> "Kenneth Zinger" <zing...@apple.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:E-6dnfurPom8oibV...@bright.net...
>>
>> Once your images are in the public domain, they are fair game.
>>
>>
>
> Merely posting images in your own auction or on your own web site does NOT
> put them in "public domain". The creator of the image has copyright
> protection.
Even if that was true, it is against eBay policy to use someone else's
images.
Ivan
> put them in "public domain". The creator of the image has copyright
> protection.
You are right in general, but images of coins, especially US coins are in
public domain for 2 reasons:
1. US coins are work of US government and as such cannot be copyrighted
2. They don't add any artistic value, same as a pictures of paintings
Jim Menning
"Ivan" <ivan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X86dnXfhvpC5gCHV...@giganews.com...
Please show the clause in the law to support this.
Scott Stevenson
wrote:
Well, front and back shoes are generally different (IIRC), and since
horses don't generally cross their legs, if it's on the right side of
the pattern of hoofprints, it's on the right side of the horse.
take care,
Scott
"Equine Adventures"
Jim Menning
"Scott Stevenson" <almostf...@UCKSAY.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:48bc2da0....@newsgroups.comcast.net...
And the rear prints will often come down on the same spot as the front prints,
therefore it's easy to tell front from rear. Unless the horse is galloping in
reverse.
Nick Knight
>> You are right in general, but images of coins, especially US coins are in public
>> domain for 2 reasons:
>> 1. US coins are work of US government and as such cannot be copyrighted
>> 2. They don't add any artistic value, same as a pictures of paintings
>Please show the clause in the law to support this.
Let's consider the practicalities instead of dwelling on trivial
technicalities, eh? We'll leave the exercise in futility for Phil and all
of his free time.
Now, I haven't thought much about copyright law in a long time, but when I
did my own shareware and was part of another smaller company worried about
licensing issues, I kept up on the law. All old stuff.
And I'm trying to be dead serious here and give my opinion, then prepare to
stand corrected if that case presents itself. I'm not just arguing to be
difficult.
For the sake of argument, let's say my claimed copyright of a pic posted on
eBay is infringed upon by someone else on eBay. Let's stay realistic and
"in this context" and say that it is a common recent mint product ... a pic
of a proof or mint set that I'm selling for what should end up at $100.
I'll even claim to put some type of a hypnotic pattern in my backgrounds
that inspire higher bids.
What is my recourse? What damages might I be able to seek? Realistically,
who's going to care? Does eBay have a rule againts this? Do they enforce
it? Can they enforce it?
I can hire a lawyer to get the infringer to cease and desist. *Perhaps* I
can get this done before the week long auction is over. But at what cost to
me? Have I lost any money because of the infringement? If I can somehow
bring myself to think so, can I prove it to someone else? And will that
amount be more than it will cost me to even consult on the phone with a
legal person?
Folks post pictures directly from manufacturer's web sites including
boilerplate text all of the time. Does the manufacturer, with more money
and more at stake, ever go after these folks? If the answer is as I expect,
a big "no", then what's in it for the little guy who seems to be having a
problem with it?
From a personal perspective, exactly WHAT is the problem with this? Now, I
can understand it if it's a unique coin ... something where an exact
condition and variety might matter. An older coin in a slab where the pic
shows detail to uniquely identify the coin. And sure, there is some of this
in common proof/mint sets, but I'd argue not very much. The mint does't
ship you the "exact coin pictured". It's all off-the-shelf product.
Open to other opinions ... not so much from the always-problematic,
killfiled OP, but I'd like to consider any other opinions. While it may be
a lazy and minorly sleavy thing to do, I'm trying to figure out if it
matters in all cases.
Nick
John Mazor
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message news:CkRuk.19781$_s1....@newsfe07.iad...
Whoa, Nelly! I vaguely remember that one.
As others have pointed out, it's simple to tell which hoof was involved.
Nowadays on crime shows they would have traced the original blacksmith by comparing a cast
of the shoe to a database of distinctive shoe tooling marks, interviewed the blacksmith
and gotten enough of a description of the perp to ID him, and wired a wanted poster ahead
to the town sheriff by the time the bad guy bellied up to the bar.
John Mazor
"Nick Knight" <bhnc...@mr2ice.com> wrote in message
news:48bc4b5d$2$avpx$mr2...@news.east.cox.net...
> In <4e8c4$48bc1e80$28...@news.teranews.com>, on 09/01/2008
> at 11:55 AM, "Jim Menning" <jmennin...@new.rr.com> said:
>
>>> You are right in general, but images of coins, especially US coins are in public
>>> domain for 2 reasons:
>>> 1. US coins are work of US government and as such cannot be copyrighted
>>> 2. They don't add any artistic value, same as a pictures of paintings
>
>>Please show the clause in the law to support this.
>
> Let's consider the practicalities instead of dwelling on trivial technicalities, eh?
Let's clear up a few things here.
First, like the devil, the law is in the details. The details are not "trivial"
technicalities. Decisions are rendered on the basis of details and technicalities. You
are right in separating practicalities from technicalities, and more on that in a minute,
but unless the "technicalities" establish a cause for action, there are no practicalities
to worry about. For example, if you photographed a coin as part of a "work for hire"
assignment, your employer, not you, holds the copyright. If you got the pic from the
public domain, you cannot copyright it merely by cropping it, tweaking the color balance,
etc.
Second, under copyright law, the creator of any work - be it a 4-line poem or a crudely
executed painting or a photograph of a coin - holds an inherent copyright the moment it is
created. It is his, to have and to hold, for better or for worse, until assignment or
expiration of copyright do they part. This holds true regardless of whether or not he
registers the copyright. Registration just makes it easier to establish ownership, pursue
enforcement, and collect fees from law-abiding buyers who want to track you down to
negotiate payment. Period, end of technicalities discussion for our purposes. Everything
else is enforcement and collection, or the "practicalities".
I pretty much agree with the rest, with a few observations sprinkled in below.
> We'll leave the exercise in futility for Phil and all of his free time.
>
> Now, I haven't thought much about copyright law in a long time, but when I
> did my own shareware and was part of another smaller company worried about
> licensing issues, I kept up on the law. All old stuff.
>
> And I'm trying to be dead serious here and give my opinion, then prepare to
> stand corrected if that case presents itself. I'm not just arguing to be difficult.
>
> For the sake of argument, let's say my claimed copyright of a pic posted on
> eBay is infringed upon by someone else on eBay. Let's stay realistic and
> "in this context" and say that it is a common recent mint product ... a pic
> of a proof or mint set that I'm selling for what should end up at $100.
> I'll even claim to put some type of a hypnotic pattern in my backgrounds
> that inspire higher bids.
Not necessary although that probably constitutes a substantial addition to the original
work - and if you have one that works, I'll buy rights to it!
> What is my recourse? What damages might I be able to seek? Realistically,
> who's going to care? Does eBay have a rule againts this? Do they enforce
> it? Can they enforce it?
They certainly can enforce rules against illicit activity. Many other websites do so.
> I can hire a lawyer to get the infringer to cease and desist. *Perhaps* I
> can get this done before the week long auction is over. But at what cost to
> me? Have I lost any money because of the infringement? If I can somehow
> bring myself to think so, can I prove it to someone else?
That not terribly hard to do. Assert that you are willing to sell your copyrighted
material. There are many ways to do that. One is to register copyright to a few few coin
pics and post them on a website that sells pictures and splits the revenue with you. You
are now an established creator and seller of copyrighted coin photographs. Even if no
one has yet taken your offer, your loss is the amount you would have gotten through a
legitimate purchase of the swiped picture. Set your rates as high as you dare while
staying within reason, but don't expect anything more than a couple of hundred bucks at
best and it would be a stretch to get it that far. As you said, it won't even cover the
cost of the initial legal consultation. However, you always can proceed pro se, acting as
your own counsel.
> And will that amount be more than it will cost me to even consult on the phone with a
> legal person?
Almost certainly not. For the amounts involved, this is one of the few times when it's
not at all disingenuous to say that "It's not the money, it's the principle of the thing."
> Folks post pictures directly from manufacturer's web sites including
> boilerplate text all of the time. Does the manufacturer, with more money
> and more at stake, ever go after these folks? If the answer is as I expect,
> a big "no", then what's in it for the little guy who seems to be having a
> problem with it?
Corporations do go after infringers to the extent that they need to establish a pattern of
defending their copyrights and trademarks, even if all they get is a cease and desist
order and no money. This is not a profit center but a cost of doing business. You're
going to take a dead loss on pursuing an e-Bay photo thief on "the principle of the
thing." But court archives are full of cases where people spent hundreds or thousands of
times the amount of injunctive relief they might have gotten, out of principle - and let's
admit it, in may cases, out of spite.
> From a personal perspective, exactly WHAT is the problem with this?
The answer to that itself is purely personal - you're either the type of person who
aggressively pursues and protects your rights under the law, or you're a pragmatist who
may bitch and moan but aren't willing to go against the cost-benefit equation.
> Now, I can understand it if it's a unique coin ... something where an exact
> condition and variety might matter.
What difference does that make? Either you're a pragmatist or an enforcer. The fact that
it is a rare or even unique coin isn't going to switch you from the former to the latter.
It might enhance the value of the photo, though, and therefore increase your damages
claim.
> An older coin in a slab where the pic
> shows detail to uniquely identify the coin. And sure, there is some of this
> in common proof/mint sets, but I'd argue not very much. The mint does't
> ship you the "exact coin pictured". It's all off-the-shelf product.
Because everyone knows that the Mint isn't selling you a specific piece from its
inventory, just one out of a roomful of identical examples of the item. The e-Bay seller
often is listing a specific coin he holds in his hand. Any accompanying pic ought to be
of that specific coin. If he is selling one piece out of a shoebox full of said examples,
he should disclose that, and that was done in this example. But that still doesn't
absolve him from the consequences of violating copyright laws. He needs to take his own
representative pic or acquire one through legitimate means.
> Open to other opinions ... not so much from the always-problematic,
> killfiled OP, but I'd like to consider any other opinions. While it may be
> a lazy and minorly sleavy thing to do, I'm trying to figure out if it
> matters in all cases.
Bottom Line: With a few noted clarifications, Nick, you're right on the money (so to
speak). Assuming that the assertions made here are correct, there is no question that
copyright law was violated. It boils down to what relief mechanisms you want to pursue
(including e-Bay) and how much time, energy, and money you're willing to put into it.
Personally, I'd like to see more sellers enforce their copyrights, if for no other reason
than that unlike much of the whining that we hear about buyers and sellers, this involves
a clear and enforceable violation of the law.
Full Disclosure: It also involves two sellers, so as a buyer, I can afford to say "Let's
you and him fight". ;-)
Jim Menning
"Nick Knight" <bhnc...@mr2ice.com> wrote in message
news:48bc4b5d$2$avpx$mr2...@news.east.cox.net...
Whatever.
Bruce Remick
"Scott Stevenson" <almostf...@UCKSAY.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:48bc2da0....@newsgroups.comcast.net...
I should have mentioned, the horseshoe in question was on one of a group of
horses ridden by a nest of bad guys, the prints from which would have been
blended like a moonscape along the trail. I could understand being able to
follow the intermittent appearance of the telltale shoe, but I still puzzle
over how it could be identified as a right rear shoe. This is important
stuff!! BTW, I was not aware that front and back shoes are different
enough to differentiate in a dirt hoofprint. This is VERY important stuff!!
Bruce Remick
Person of interest, eh?
PC
>
>
> Whatever.
Forgive Nick. He can't help himself. He and his Tweedle-Dum counterpart,
Phil, are so desparately trying to make this an issue about me. I have no
idea what their problem is.
I believe my pictures stand apart enough that it gives me an edge in sales.
If someone is using my pictures then any edge gained is diluted. eBay is
very clear that you are not to use other seller's pictures. Pretty cut and
dry to most adults.
John Mazor
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message news:Xp%uk.12199$3A4....@newsfe04.iad...
Aaowww! Don't start that one up again!
Bruce Farley
Bruce
PC
> Why has eBay let the auction run? Have you talked with them?
I got their response saying they did something but can not say what they
did. eBay has always cancelled auctions like that in the past. Go figure.
Phil DeMayo
> "Jim Menning" <jmenningNOS...@new.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c219d$48bc7033$50...@news.teranews.com...
>
>
>
> > Whatever.
>
> Forgive Nick. �He can't help himself. �He and his Tweedle-Dum counterpart,
> Phil, are so desparately trying to make this an issue about me. �I have no
> idea what their problem is.
Look, you complained about someone stealing your auction images and
text when a great deal of the text you insert in your Silver Eagle
auctions to describe the design of the coin was lifted verbatim from
the US Mint website.
I point this out and you call me a troll.
eBay says: "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."
On their "Item Description and Picture Theft" page they also state
that:"You must own the rights to the text or images you are reporting
for unauthorized use"
You clearly did not "own" much of the text you used in your item
description.
It seems every time you post about a problem you are having on eBay
there is always more to the story.
note.boy
"Scott Stevenson" <almostf...@UCKSAY.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:48bc2da0....@newsgroups.comcast.net...
A front shoe has one clip and a back shoe has two, there are 3 horse shoes
in the hall here now, £65 for a set of four every 6 to 7 weeks. :-( Billy
Nick Knight
>Why has eBay let the auction run? Have you talked with them?
Old PC seems to have problem-after-problem using eBay. I'm sure he's
"talked" to them. Again. By now, the standard reaction is probably (I'm
just guessing :) .... "uh. Him again".
Nick
Nick Knight
at 05:44 PM, "Jim Menning" <jmennin...@new.rr.com> said:
>Whatever.
Exactly. Thank you.
Nick
Nick Knight
>> Now, I can understand it if it's a unique coin ... something where an exact
>> condition and variety might matter.
>What difference does that make? Either you're a pragmatist or an enforcer.
>The fact that it is a rare or even unique coin isn't going to switch you
>from the former to the latter. It might enhance the value of the photo,
>though, and therefore increase your damages claim.
I meant it more from the point of view that the seller CAN'T be selling the
same coin as what is pictured. In the case of a proof set, this might be
very difficult to prove. In the case of a 1817 Bust Half of a certain
variety and a specific amount of wear, using "my picture" would be more
deceptive. Even if you mentioned that this was a stock picture, the buyer
is more likely to feel cheated if the coin isn't better or more to his
liking that the pic. Again, it's hard to be disappointed with a proof set,
assuming that there is no spotting or clouding or blemished that weren't in
the pictures used.
I, personally, would be more concerned if someone was borrowing a pic of a
unique coin. Not that I would feel cheated myself, but someone would be
using my pic to sell something that more than likely wasn't like my coin.
Nick
Ivan
online articles too:
This one is about anciet coins:
http://digitalhn.blogspot.com/2006/04/are-photos-of-ancient-coins.html
I have link to better article at home, I can post it later.
Basically, realistic photo of 2D art (which is in public domain) is not
copyrightable.
Ivan
http://www.coinsoftime.com/Greek/Articles/CopyrightandCoinPhotographs.htm
Ivan
John Mazor
> In <5YZuk.261$sq3.143@trnddc07>, on 09/01/2008
> at 10:24 PM, "John Mazor" <maz...@verizon.net> said:
>
>>> Now, I can understand it if it's a unique coin ... something where
>>> an exact
>>> condition and variety might matter.
>
>>What difference does that make? Either you're a pragmatist or an
>>enforcer.
>>The fact that it is a rare or even unique coin isn't going to
>>switch you
>>from the former to the latter. It might enhance the value of the
>>photo,
>>though, and therefore increase your damages claim.
>
> I meant it more from the point of view that the seller CAN'T be
> selling the
> same coin as what is pictured.
Okay, got it.
> In the case of a proof set, this might be
> very difficult to prove. In the case of a 1817 Bust Half of a
> certain
> variety and a specific amount of wear, using "my picture" would be
> more
> deceptive. Even if you mentioned that this was a stock picture, the
> buyer
> is more likely to feel cheated if the coin isn't better or more to
> his
> liking that the pic. Again, it's hard to be disappointed with a
> proof set,
> assuming that there is no spotting or clouding or blemished that
> weren't in
> the pictures used.
>
> I, personally, would be more concerned if someone was borrowing a
> pic of a
> unique coin. Not that I would feel cheated myself, but someone
> would be
> using my pic to sell something that more than likely wasn't like my
> coin.
True. However, that still leaves open the potential deceptiveness of
showing a nice representative pic (regardless of its provenance) and
delivering something short of the representation. That's a bit off
from the original issue, but it's still worth mentioning here.
Tony Clayton
>
> "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message news:gFFuk.22663$Rs1....@newsfe08.iad...
> >
> > "John Mazor" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:k_Euk.134$Dj1.59@trnddc02...
> >>
> >> "Jim Menning" <jmennin...@new.rr.com> wrote in message
> >> news:9e463$48bb14d0$71...@news.teranews.com...
> >>>
> >>> "John Mazor" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:ZXDuk.201$sq3.44@trnddc07...
> >>>>
> >>>> You'd think that with a photo composition as distinctive as this one, he'd be smart
> >>>> enough to not risk getting caught.
> >>>
> >>> What about his other auction where he whites out the slab number on someone else's
> >>> image he uses? That's even more obvious.
> >>>
> >>> http://i10.ebayimg.com/03/i/001/08/c4/00f9_1.JPG
> >>
> >> If it's the same guy, he's a mere whisper away from gaining entry to the collections of
> >> stories about Stupid Crook Tricks - the ones who write their bank robbery note on the
> >> back of their electric bill or leave a trail of stolen beer can empties leading from
> >> the 7-11 to their house right up the street.
> >
> > If they're drinking and emptying cans often enough to leave a clear trail, you'll
> > probably find them passed out close to where the trail of cans ends.
>
> I think that's also on the list of Stupid Crook Tricks.
>
> Other notable "bread crumb" trails leading right to the perp have included loose currency,
> exploded dye packs, foot and tire prints, and even candy wrappers.
I know a young man who took part in a robbery using his own car
with the numberplate covered with toilet paper.
This fell off as they drove away and the police arrested them shortly
after.
In Nottingham a thief broke into a car, stole the radio and went home.
There was fresh snow on the ground and the police followed his footprints!
--
Tony Clayton tony.cla...@pem.cam.ac.uk
Coins of the UK : http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS on an Acorn Strong Arm RiscPC
... Brought to you by the Mother of all Messages
John Mazor
"Tony Clayton" <to...@tclayton.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4da3b2d84f%to...@tclayton.demon.co.uk...
You really have to ask, "What were they thinking?"
("Nothing at all" being the correct answer.)
M K
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a
work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title
17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. See Copyright.
Note: This only applies to works of the Federal Government and not to
the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county,
municipality, or any other subdivision. This template also does not
apply to postage stamps published by the United States Postal Service
after 1978. (See 206.02(b) of Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices).
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wheat_Penny.jpg
The question is: how narrow or wide can you construe this to apply to
his image.
Nick Knight
at 03:31 PM, "Ivan" <ivan...@hotmail.com> said:
>and discussion
>http://www.forumancientcoins
Thanks for the references. It made for very interesting reading!
Nick
Jim Menning
"M K" <translightsp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oqedncgvZY4UYyDV...@comcast.com...
> Jim Menning wrote:
>> "Ivan" <ivan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:X86dnXfhvpC5gCHV...@giganews.com...
>>>> Merely posting images in your own auction or on your own web site does NOT put
>>>> them in "public domain". The creator of the image has copyright protection.
>>> You are right in general, but images of coins, especially US coins are in public
>>> domain for 2 reasons:
>>> 1. US coins are work of US government and as such cannot be copyrighted
>>> 2. They don't add any artistic value, same as a pictures of paintings
>>>
>>
>> Please show the clause in the law to support this.
>
> Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.
>
>
That says anyone can take a picture of a US coin, as the coin itself is not
copyrighted. However the picture of the coin would be, as the picture itself is not
a work of the Federal Government.
Ivan
> not copyrighted. However the picture of the coin would be, as the picture
> itself is not a work of the Federal Government.
That is very questionable.
The picture must show some creativity. Realistic picture of single coin does
not.
Do you have any supporting evidence? Links? Cases?
Jim Menning
I merely read the words of the law, without adding any additional unlisted
qualifications into it.
Why does it have to show some creativity? Why does it have to be unrealistic?
Please don't add arguments that are based on your opinions rather than documented
fact.
Ivan
> unrealistic?
>
> Please don't add arguments that are based on your opinions rather than
> documented fact.
Check the links that I posted so I don't have to repeat it. It does not mean
that I am 100% convinced, but it shows some facts, while you responses and
just your opinion, without any evidence.
Ivan
while you responses are just your opinion, without any evidence.
I based my arguments on documented facts, while you did not.
Jim Menning
> read:
> while you responses are just your opinion, without any evidence.
>
> I based my arguments on documented facts, while you did not.
>
Whatever. This is going nowhere fast. Bye.
Nick Knight
>Whatever.
Dammit. I knew that was coming, and I started to record the prediction in
writing but didn't.
I thought the documentation that Ivan presented was compelling. It
certainly seems that an image has to show some reasonable creativity to be
"copyrighted". At least in the US. Certainly you can't throw a quarter on
a copy machine and claim you've got something unique.
The notion that a coin is somehow "3D" is puzzling. A stretch at least.
You might claim that it's 4D, since there are 2 x 2D sides! We could
stretch only a small bit further and claim that a painting has brushstrokes
and texture, hence it is 3D, too. I don't think that would sell (either).
This is all, of course, ignoring the discussion of practical application of
these technicalities. John's example of becoming an "image broker" was
interesting, except I do believe you'd have to actually have sold an image
or 2, or more probable THE image in question to claim you somehow lost out
on revenue. I still don't see it being worth the time and legal fees. Not
for a short-term eBay image.
Perhaps "whatever" is the proper response. For all the coin-image-copyright
dogs who have their chops on a stick and won't let go ... I'm simply trying
to point out that while there is a lot of barking and growling, it IS just a
stick, and not a very big one.
Nick
John Mazor
> In <94d5d$48c1c9bf$14...@news.teranews.com>, on 09/05/2008
> at 07:08 PM, "Jim Menning" <jmennin...@new.rr.com> said:
>
>>Whatever.
>
> Dammit. I knew that was coming, and I started to record the
> prediction in
> writing but didn't.
>
> I thought the documentation that Ivan presented was compelling. It
> certainly seems that an image has to show some reasonable creativity
> to be
> "copyrighted". At least in the US. Certainly you can't throw a
> quarter on
> a copy machine and claim you've got something unique.
All that goes to what is copyrightable. You can't copyright a view of
the Eiffel Tower. You can copyright the specific image that you made
of it on your cell phone, even if there are a zillion other drawings,
paintings, and photos of the exact same view. Your Xerox (TM) of the
quarter is protected by your copyright. No one else can take that
piece of paper and reuse the image without your permission. But
anyone else is free to make his own image of that same quarter, be it
a simple scan or a beautifully executed macro close-up, and use it
under his own copyright.
> This is all, of course, ignoring the discussion of practical
> application of
> these technicalities. John's example of becoming an "image broker"
> was
> interesting, except I do believe you'd have to actually have sold an
> image
> or 2, or more probable THE image in question to claim you somehow
> lost out
> on revenue.
At the risk of prolonging the picking of nits, I'm fairly sure that it
would be sufficient to post some images - preferably coins - for sale.
All you're trying to establish is that you're in the business of
selling images and the perpetrator could have purchased rights to the
swiped image. Evidence of some marketing attempts - it could be as
modest as periodically posting your services and wares here or on a
coin blog site - would help. Actual sales would be even better but
IMO not a necessary condition. IRS doesn't require you to make a
profit on your business enterprise in 2 out of any 5 consecutive years
which means you can declare losses when making your first two Schedule
C filings. So I don't see why the lack of any actual sales would
disqualify your copyright claim. All you're trying to do is beef up
your position in case you do bring suit.
As to whether all this is worth the effort, while I would recommend
taking those siimple steps, it's all just icing on the cake anyway.
Your claim is based on you holding a copyright - one that was
established the moment you made the picture. The only additional
effort - one that would cement the basis for your copyright claim -
would be to add a routine copyright notice in the images or in the
text of the posting, assuming that it doesn't run afoul of some stupid
e-Bay rule. Registering it (you can send batches of images to the
Copyright Office) would make it a virtual slam-dunk to establish your
ownership.
> I still don't see it being worth the time and legal fees. Not
> for a short-term eBay image.
>
> Perhaps "whatever" is the proper response. For all the
> coin-image-copyright
> dogs who have their chops on a stick and won't let go ... I'm
> simply trying
> to point out that while there is a lot of barking and growling, it
> IS just a
> stick, and not a very big one.
True. If you're not willing to take the steps to establish and
enforce your copyright, all you're entitled to is the right to make
idle complaints, with the possible satisfaction of having e-Bay pull a
listing with an image that was swiped from you. Which probably is all
that your copyright is worth anyway unless you have a rare,
intrinsically valuable image.
Ivan
> else can take that piece of paper and reuse the image without your
> permission. But anyone else is free to make his own image of that same
> quarter, be it a simple scan or a beautifully executed macro close-up, and
> use it under his own copyright.
I think you are wrong here.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality
the labor itself is not copyrightable and so is not your xerox copy .
See also
http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0500.asp
sections 501 and 503 and others. The photograph must have some originality
to be copyrightable. While your picture of Eiffer tower from your mobile
phone shows originiality and is protected, your xerox copy of quarter (or
realistic picture) is not. Arrange 2 quarters next to each other together
with magnifier glass and picture of it is copyrightable work.
As I said before, I am not 100% convinced, but I don't take someone else
personal opinion, unless he is a copyright lawyer or present some links to
support his opinions.
I myself would be very careful when using someone else pictures, I would try
to ask for pemission eventhough I think I don't need it.
John Mazor
>> Your Xerox (TM) of the quarter is protected by your copyright. No
>> one else can take that piece of paper and reuse the image without
>> your permission. But anyone else is free to make his own image of
>> that same quarter, be it a simple scan or a beautifully executed
>> macro close-up, and use it under his own copyright.
>
> I think you are wrong here.
>
> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality
> the labor itself is not copyrightable and so is not your xerox copy
> .
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, so I'm just opining here and
defer to actual case law that interprets the statute.
However, the Wiki article muddifies more than clarifies. Especially
the part "The meaning of "originality" in that context may be
misleading and needs to be clarified: in that case, it is not[2]
"never having occurred or existed before" (which would amount to the
protection of something new, like in patent protection), but "coming
from someone as the originator / author" (insofar as it somehow
reflects this author's personality)." Based on that, I would argue
that taking a plain photocopy of a quarter and holding it out as an
artistic rendition of a quarter in fact reflects my authorial
personality and my artisitic statement about the coin.
More useful and to the point is the statutory language, although even
its presentation of examples obscures as well as clarifies the intent.
Have I added artistic content if I photocopy the quarter by setting
the machine's contrast and brightness so that the image is more akin
to line art? If not, then your example of producing an image of two
quarters with a magnifiing glass (not sure if you meant that the glass
magnified the quarters or is merely in the composition) would not seem
to pass the test either. Repetition or alteration of a
non-copyrightable element does not per se make the image
copyrightable.
IMO if the law does not already say this, any image should hold an
inherent copyright *for that exact same image per se,* even if a
substantially similar image could be produced by anyone, as with the
photocopied quarter. You would own your print of the quarter, I would
own mine, and no one could use them without our permission. They'd
have to make their own copy. This would be logical and not at all
complicate the parsing of copyrights. If there were any disputes,
forensic anaysis should show whether you used your photocopy or mine.
Of course, if it were all that simple, what would patent attorneys do
for a living?
And what would talk about here? (Oh, yeah... coins.)
> See also
> http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0500.asp
> sections 501 and 503 and others. The photograph must have some
> originality to be copyrightable. While your picture of Eiffer tower
> from your mobile phone shows originiality and is protected, your
> xerox copy of quarter (or realistic picture) is not. Arrange 2
> quarters next to each other together with magnifier glass and
> picture of it is copyrightable work.
>
> As I said before, I am not 100% convinced, but I don't take someone
> else personal opinion, unless he is a copyright lawyer or present
> some links to support his opinions.
Amen. We're just opining here, even those of us who do have some
familiarity with the subject. The only views that count are the ones
from the people with the black robes and the little wooden mallets.
> I myself would be very careful when using someone else pictures, I
> would try to ask for pemission eventhough I think I don't need it.
Amen again.
PC
>
>
> True. If you're not willing to take the steps to establish and enforce
> your copyright, all you're entitled to is the right to make idle
> complaints, with the possible satisfaction of having e-Bay pull a listing
> with an image that was swiped from you.
Which *is* effectively enforcing a copyright, no?
John Mazor
"PC" <P...@Minneapolis.mn.us> wrote in message
news:veudnRedBIdaOU7V...@comcast.com...
Yes, but you're only doing it under e-Bay policies, not as a legal
action brought in the courts.
PC
Why would I bother going through all that when my only goal is to have the
picture removed from an eBay auction of another seller and the eBay process
works fairly well?
John Mazor
I already had said as much, read the threads before you jump. My
comment about taking the trouble to register and defend a copyrighted
item was a general observation about the wider issue of what a
copyright can and cannot do for you. I followed that by using the
e-Bay part as an example of the very limited kind of relief you might
be able to get without registering an item and without hauling the
violator to court. So the implied advice is that if that's all the
protection you're interested in, then by all means don't bother
registering and suing. Just don't come crying if you find that
someone has made thousands of bucks by running your images in a book
or on a poster or greeting card or catalog or whatever. It happens
all the time.
PC
>
> registering and suing. Just don't come crying if you find that someone
> has made thousands of bucks by running your images in a book or on a
> poster or greeting card or catalog or whatever. It happens all the time.
>
I would actually be quite astonished and flattered that someone thought
enough of my picture to use it in a book, poster, greeting card, etc.
As far as my clarifying questions - please don't be offended. I just wanted
to make sure you weren't pulling a Nick Knight on this subject. Thank you
for your patience and lack of "assholery".
John Mazor
>
> "John Mazor" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:zoUAk.473$pp3.462@trnddc06...
>>
>> registering and suing. Just don't come crying if you find that
>> someone has made thousands of bucks by running your images in a
>> book or on a poster or greeting card or catalog or whatever. It
>> happens all the time.
>>
> I would actually be quite astonished and flattered that someone
> thought enough of my picture to use it in a book, poster, greeting
> card, etc.
Ditto with my work (which extends beyond coins) but remember that
we're always speaking to a wider audience here. Someone out there may
have theft-worthy images. The most common form of image theft is not
for high-profile uses of spectacular shots, but more prosaic images
for annual reports, PowerPoint presentations, packaging on products
from small distributors, etc. where the user is too cheap or too lazy
to pay up. Such violations are harder to detect and there's less
money at stake, so perpetrators are rarely brought to justice.
> As far as my clarifying questions - please don't be offended. I
> just wanted to make sure you weren't pulling a Nick Knight on this
> subject. Thank you for your patience and lack of "assholery".
Likewise. This exchange certainly didn't call for hauling out the
Binford Flamethrower, but I do keep it handy and fully fueled for when
the occasion arises.
Nick Knight
>Likewise. This exchange certainly didn't call for hauling out the Binford
>Flamethrower, but I do keep it handy and fully fueled for when the
>occasion arises.
PC is one of my most active twits (most frequently kill-filed posters) at
this time. He seems to have constant problems on eBay ... someone is ALWAYS
trying to rip him off. It's amazing he bothers to even look at eBay pages,
as victimized as he is.
The rest of the world seems to use eBay without all of the whining. Seems
PC is one of very few constant victims, go figure. The others may or may
not be legitimate, who knows. Unfortunately (said quite sarcastically), I
seem to have made it on his list of victimizers for the simple act of
pointing out his silly-ness (said quite politically-correctly). Who knows
how much of his drivel I actually miss, but seeing a rare quote of his text
confirms that he is still a target for some of the world's worse eBay
atrocities <chuckle>.
No flamethrowers needed ... he's in my killfile to minimize the need to
listen to his whining. Since this thread has risen from the dead, and he
seems to be driving, I'll killfile it and go back about enjoying the start
of the weekend. Have a good one,
Nick
PC
> In <ghVAk.477$pp3.75@trnddc06>, on 09/19/2008
> at 09:59 PM, "John Mazor" <maz...@verizon.net> said:
>
>>Likewise. This exchange certainly didn't call for hauling out the
>>Binford
>>Flamethrower, but I do keep it handy and fully fueled for when the
>>occasion arises.
>
> PC is one of my most active twits (most frequently kill-filed posters) at
> this time.
Yes, you brag about it often. No one cares.
Ruben
> The most common form of image theft is not for
> high-profile uses of spectacular shots, but more prosaic images for annual
> reports, PowerPoint presentations, packaging on products from small
> distributors, etc. where the user is too cheap or too lazy to pay up.
> Such violations are harder to detect and there's less money at stake, so
> perpetrators are rarely brought to justice.
Oh poppycock
If your image is so valuable then send a registration to the copyright
office and sue for monetary loses. Brought to Justice? It was unjust
that you can copyright personal images in the first place.
Ruben
--
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Interesting Stuff
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://fairuse.nylxs.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"
"The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the ability to participate in our own society."
"> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the job, politics be damned.<
You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and technology have been attached at the hip since the 1st dynasty in Ancient Egypt. I guess you missed that one."
© Copyright for the Digital Millennium