Stolen Images revisited

[slidekellyslide]

I understand that I don't own the image, but I do own the original cabinet photo and most certainly the seller stole the image from my photobucket. I emailed them and told them I thought it was funny they put a watermark on the photo so no one could steal it.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...e#ht_500wt_947

My cabinet

[FrankWakefield]

If they got their scan from some other person's cabinet, then that's one thing. But you are right, to have used your image and then be watermarking it... that's bunk. Makes me think you should make some reproductions yourself, and offer them for a dollar less... be sure to list them just like these guys. If they drop their price, then you drop yours. If you want to do it, I'll kick in a dollar each for the first 5 your sell, just to subsidize this contrarian retaliation.

[ksfarmboy]

Weird how he chose that one to use. Did he think that was going to be a big seller?

[slidekellyslide]

I heard back from the guy and he said that he got the photos from a lot off of ebay a couple of months ago.

[Tedw9]

Call me wrong, but I don't think his picture is a copy of yours. Look at the white corners on his picture. They are rounded, yours are sharp from being matted (?). It may be a card like yours, but I don't think he stole your photo.

Unless your is one of a kind....

Just my 2 cents.

[slidekellyslide]

It is the same exact image...The person he bought it from off of ebay stole a whole bunch of my images from my photobucket and made fake cabinet photos. I can see the same tiny flaw in the upper right corner on his image that is in mine. This guy is just trying to flip a fake photo that he unwittingly bought off of ebay...however this fella is not trying to fool anyone.

[terjung]

If he got the image off eBay a couple of months ago, it would have the little camera watermark in the bottom-right hand corner and he image doesn't.

Editted to say that I guess the camera watermark could be on the mat area instead of the photo... thereby getting cropped out. It does seem weird that he printed it on older, beat-up paper, but then as others (Leon?) have said, people treat their reprints so poorly! Trying to photomatch between the two images themselves (not the border), it does appear that they are the same. Of course if there were a benefit of the doubt on all things Nebraska-related, I'd have to give Dan the slight edge anyway.

[Bilko G]

Originally Posted by terjung

If he got the image off eBay a couple of months ago, it would have the little camera watermark in the bottom-right hand corner and he image doesn't.

That little ebay camera watermark is no longer on all ebay images.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Bilko G

That little ebay camera watermark is no longer on all ebay images.

And even if there is a little ebay watermark they are super easy to airbrush out, using the "paint" program. Even I can do it in about 2 minutes. I have done it to my own scans many times. The whole reprint/fake/xerox thing makes me go crazy. Ebay needs to police more and make them (reprints/fakes) be put in their own category, imo. regards

[slidekellyslide]

He didn't steal the image from ebay, he unwittingly bought the photo believing it to be real from another ebay seller. I don't fault the guy who is currently selling the photo...he did the right thing by posting it as a reprint. When I started the thread I assumed he was just another in a line of people who have stolen images from my photobucket site.