"Polynesian Produce Stand" on Ebay Using My Photos - UPDATE!

[roblack]

Suing for "sarcasm" when a reasonable resolution was offered sounds silly to me. Courts are already filled with frivolous lawsuits.

[kh0110]

 Thank you, Kevin! Another eBay seller on my black list! I just don't appreciate the attitude.

[spaugh]

Suing for "sarcasm" when a reasonable resolution was offered sounds silly to me. Courts are already filled with frivolous lawsuits.

That was my thought as well.  He removed the photos, problem solved.  No need to get the government involved.  Yikes! 

[Cookie Monster]

+1

My former neighbor is a lawyer and had a knack for drumming up lawsuits. Let's see:

 - She threatened to sue for hedge that "obstructs her view of the waterway" (in a blue-collar neighborhood, you'd need to see the location of the proposed hedge to see how ridiculous that is)
 - She threatened to sue for hedge that though planted 2 feet inside my property line had some foliage extending into her property

Folks like her can petty easily win by default, since no one is going to spend thousands on an attorney to fight the case.

In this particular case, I feel like the whole situation is being overblown. I would suspect that it was an honest mistake. Moreover, I would not have known myself how apparently egregious this situation was. Thousands of dollars?

Suing for "sarcasm" when a reasonable resolution was offered sounds silly to me. Courts are already filled with frivolous lawsuits.

That was my thought as well.  He removed the photos, problem solved.  No need to get the government involved.  Yikes!

[kh0110]

The law suit is probably exaggerated but the attitude toward a customer is unforgivable. Not typical of an islander...

[JF]

This is unacceptable and unethical conduct. I’ve had dozens of pix stolen and posted in nurseries in Fl and on websites. I don’t know if there is a legal remedy I’ll let the lawyers fight over that. the least they could do is ask or cite the webpage where they stole yr pix from.

[fruitlovers]

The law suit is probably exaggerated but the attitude toward a customer is unforgivable. Not typical of an islander...

I agree. But you gotta treat everybody ethically, not just paying customers. Don't take things without permission folks, that is definition of stealing. People here sure don't like their fruits taken without permission, right? So why take photos without asking?

[Tropheus76]

I thought this was a pretty amicable resolution and an example of how to work out issues like adults over the keyboard. If someone uses your pics simply call them on it. 

[JF]

I thought this was a pretty amicable resolution and an example of how to work out issues like adults over the keyboard. If someone uses your pics simply call them on it.

most of the times it's not that simple, I wish it was. I've personally visited fruitscape in Bokeelia and talked to Jessy, one of the owners,  and showed him my pix in their website that they stole from and are still using them. They are the LZ and Valancia Pride. This was 3 to 4 years ago. Another Ft Myers nursery( tresure of the tropics) slote my pix and posted it on ebay i told Lynn to remove them.....last time i check they are still there.
http://www.fruitscapesllc.com/CONTACT.html

[fruitlovers]

Most people that you ask to remove stolen photos will not do it, unless you start legal action against them. Starting legal action is difficult and expensive, and if the person is in a foreign country, extremely difficult. Things are never as simple as people who have not dealt with this can imagine.
Stealing from the internet is a lot easier than jumping over a fence to steal fruits from a tree, but still does not mean it's right to do.

[roblack]

So, comparatively, the offer the  vendor made in this thread is quite good then. Even better would be for him to send a box of delicious rare fruit from the islands.

I've had photos snatched. Agree it doesn't feel right if done without notice.

Time to get back to the grill...

[Cookie Monster]

This is a complex topic that extends beyond the scope of this thread. "Stealing" in a digital context is a bit odd, since things like images can be replicated. So whereas stealing a fruit deprives the owner of a fruit, utilizing a copy of a digital file deprives the owner of whatever benefit they may have obtained due to owning the exclusivity of that file. This makes sense when the owner is generating a profit from the image -- in which case exclusivity is key to revenue generation.

In the software world, individuals post snippets of code (or even entire programs) throughout the net -- be it on blogs, source code repos, stackoverflow.com, etc -- literally billions or trillions of lines of code -- and it's understood (and even encouraged) that readers are able to copy that code into their own projects, whether it be revenue generating (ie, for an employer) or simply a re-contribution to the vast repository of online code. So, it's perhaps a bit strange that photos posted to a blog or to a forum like this one are governed by a totally different set of rules (both legal and societal apparently?).

There is another angle to this -- which at least one poster touched on with a reference to "sharing plants." Hoarding possessions, whether it be generic material, images, source code, etc, generally precludes proliferation and popularity. If one has a stellar image or a novel cultivar with extraordinary characteristics, "sharing" it with the public is a great way of popularizing it, and perhaps even generating revenue from it.

[fruitlovers]

This is a complex topic that extends beyond the scope of this thread. "Stealing" in a digital context is a bit odd, since things like images can be replicated. So whereas stealing a fruit deprives the owner of a fruit, utilizing a copy of a digital file deprives the owner of whatever benefit they may have obtained due to owning the exclusivity of that file. This makes sense when the owner is generating a profit from the image -- in which case exclusivity is key to revenue generation.

In the software world, individuals post snippets of code (or even entire programs) throughout the net -- be it on blogs, source code repos, stackoverflow.com, etc -- literally billions or trillions of lines of code -- and it's understood (and even encouraged) that readers are able to copy that code into their own projects, whether it be revenue generating (ie, for an employer) or simply a re-contribution to the vast repository of online code. So, it's perhaps a bit strange that photos posted to a blog or to a forum like this one are governed by a totally different set of rules (both legal and societal apparently?).

There is another angle to this -- which at least one poster touched on with a reference to "sharing plants." Hoarding possessions, whether it be generic material, images, source code, etc, generally precludes proliferation and popularity. If one has a stellar image or a novel cultivar with extraordinary characteristics, "sharing" it with the public is a great way of popularizing it, and perhaps even generating revenue from it.

Maybe if you were a professional photographer you would not find it so odd that people can indeed steal your photos, whether digital or not, for their own enrichment? It is no different than stealing a book. Both can be used to generate income. So when you steal them you are stealing income that was potentially available. And yes people have stolen whole books and posted them online. It's true that it's nice to share. But if people want to openly share a photo or a book they will openly say so, like sharing open source photos on wikipedia, or information on wikipedia. If i have a fruit i don't yet have a photo for, then i search for such an open source. If such an open source is not available then i ask for other photos with permission to use it on my website. It's very different when people are casually using digital photos on facebook or sending a photo in a personal email. Don't think most photographers would be mad about that. They are not promoting their eBay site, or trying to sell anything with that photo. I really don't get why it's so hard for you, and some others, to understand that? Anyway, it's the law, whether you and other people like it or not, there are many ways to infringe on copyright use of photos. (Some people also can't understand why it's not alright to steal fruits out of your yard when they have fallen on the ground, you obviously are not using them, and nobody is around to watch you pick them up.)

[SoCal2warm]

I agree with Cookie Monster. There's an ethical point of view to be argued that this isn't really stealing.

It goes deep down into philosophical issues about where rights originate.

[SoCal2warm]

Hi,
I noticed you are using 3 of my Cedar Bay Cherry Photos on your Ebay ad.
That's my hand holding the plant.
I would like to exchange store credit for your continued use of my pictures.
$20 credit for each photo for a total of $60 in store credit.
Let me know if that works OK for you.
By the way... I am a repeat customer of yours, having bought "Black Star" Surinam Cherry seedlings in the past.
Thanks for your quick response.

Kevin

If I was a small business owner and received that type of letter, I would view it as extortion.

I'd feel you were just trying in inconvenience me and get something out of me that you didn't really deserve, since you had suffered no actual damage.
If I was that business owner you wouldn't be building up any good will sending that to me, and if he sent you back an impolite reply it would be perfectly understandable.

[Ulfr]

It is theft. Sure, reusing a low res photo on Facebook/ a forum is one thing (maybe covered by fair use?). I don’t think too many would get upset about that and I personally wouldn’t be too upset about eBay though I would like them to ask.

But taking a photo from someone’s website and posting on your own without permission/attribution isn’t on and I would be surprised if most didn’t know they were doing the wrong thing. Not only are you stealing the image but you are lessening the value of it for the owner and stealing website traffic that would have entered through image search etc. It isn’t hard to ask and provide a reference/attribution.

Personally I use free use images or ask and reference/link when I can’t use my own.

[SoCal2warm]

It's debatable how much it would really lessen the value for the original owner of the image, with hundreds of sellers out there.
My guess is it would be pretty negligible.

Then there's a question about whether anyone really has a right to an image (so long as it doesn't have to do with personal privacy, and a few other caveats that aren't really relevant here). Just because you were the one who took the picture, how does that give you a right to it? That doesn't seem like an obvious moral connection.

Why should you take offense if someone else is benefitting off your work? If you're not really being harmed.
It probably wouldn't be too much trouble for them to get around to taking their own picture, so why would you be so insistent about them putting in the extra little bit of work to do so.

I really do not understand. It just seems like jealosy to me.

As they say, immitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

I could understand if you were an artist who labored for years on painting a masterpiece so you could sell prints of it, and then someone else started making prints of it instead. But come on, these are just a couple of pictures. It wasn't that much work for you to take them.
Are you a professional freelance photographer or something?

[savemejebus]

We can debate the ethical considerations until we're all exhausted, but the point remains that the law is the law until someone changes it... and the law provides copyright protection to your images and stiff/severe penalties to anyone who impermissibly uses those images.

It's the same argument when someone gets arrested for marijuana possession in a state where such is not legal. You can argue the morality/ethics of whether marijuana should be allowed, but you're still going to jail for violating the existing laws.

This conversation veered off sharply, and it's largely my fault for being the first one to identify the copyright violation and suggest that a lawsuit might be appropriate. But we're all losing sight of 'why' I suggested that a lawsuit might be appropriate - it wasn't because of the technical violation, it was the snotty attitude of the vendor that he was somehow doing the owner a favor by swapping out the pictures. Whether it makes financial, moral, or ethical sense, that is the type of attitude that leads to lawsuits in the future. Believe it or not, as a litigation attorney, I generally encourage my clients not to file lawsuits and attempt friendly resolutions where possible. The problem was resolved here when the vendor took the photo down, but he then thought it proper to mouth off to the owner. If the owner took offense to this, was litigious by nature, wanted to teach a lesson, or held any of 100 other personality traits, there easily could be a lawsuit to which the vendor would have no defense (putting the money back in the bank vault does not excuse you from the original bank robbery). The vendor would be facing $10,000+ of liability (in addition to his own attorneys' fees), and it would all be because of his attitude. Trust me when I say that I see this all the time - lawsuits that could be avoided before someone feels compelled to open their mouth for the sole purpose of pissing the other side off.

[Kevin Jones]

"Are you a professional freelance photographer or something?"

Actually... yes I am.

And in my business, it is common practice to pay for the use of still photographs, video clips, production music, actors and voice talent.

Kevin

[Cookie Monster]

This has been an enlightening thread. As our resident attorney has pointed out, it is against the law regardless of whether a copyright has been associated with the image (I did not know that). It does feel odd, since it differs from how we treat other digital content. For example, if I were to copy a paragraph from a random post here on the forum, I would not expect to receive a copyright violation notice, nor would I expect it by copying and utilizing a snippet of code from a StackOverflow.com post (unless there were some sort of explicit copyright notice attached).

But from a personal perspective, I also realized that there are wildly different opinions on this matter. Personally, I'd have been flattered that someone else found enough value in my images to use them and would have been happy to share. Usually we project our own perspectives onto others and assume that they feel the same way. So, because of this, I would have assumed that it would be OK. But based on the feedback on this thread, I see that there is a completely different perspective. Lesson learned.

And for what it's worth, I did not interpret the vendor's response as snotty. I interpreted it as someone who was put on the defensive trying to be diplomatic after being called out publicly. And, as another poster has mentioned, the whole situation could / would feel a little like extortion.

I appreciate the differing opinions here, and I'm sorry if my own opinion is cause for offence. I just want to present the other side of the story to prevent this thread from being too one-sided.

[OCchris1]

I'm on Cookies team (sorry Jeff). It's the internet- copyright your stuff or be prepared for someone else to eventually use it. I find it unnerving, that attitude evokes lawsuit. The guy made it right and 'you' have an issue with his typed response? That seems like your problem, not the court system. I can see litigation in certain instances, but this is benign.

[roblack]

It is easy to watermark pics, especially for a photographer. Seems like the simplest solution, no attorneys required.

The majority of the op's posts are commercial in nature. Not sure if threads like these are good advertising.

The law is not supposed to (and cannot) solve all of our problems.

Could've sued lots of people by this stage of life.

Suing people because of their attitude is a manifestation of aggression. Kind of like road rage in a way. Lots of people in jail because they didn't feel respected.

Let's not forget what this forum is about. tropical fruit =)

we have wandered off topic.

Have a fruity day everyone!

[Kevin Jones]

As I stated before... No harm done.

kj

[OCchris1]

^5 Roblack. Niiiiice