Stolen Images revisited

[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.