Lifting photo's off ebay onto a website!!
I am after your views on a practice I have become aware of recently which to me amounts to stealing. I have noticed that photo's I have bid on and purchased on different online auctions have been lifted/copied whilst on auction and the pictures put onto a website. I think this is wrong for a couple of reasons. Firstly, taking the image and using it without permission in my book is wrong, and secondly if the purchaser spends good money on a photo and it then gets plastered all over the web by someone who does not ever place a bid but just copies the pictures then that is not cricket.
Not being the most tecnically gifted or up to date on the ways of the internet I just wondered what your take on this may be. I can't get my head around it other than I feel its immoral and out of order.
All comments and thoughts appreciated.
02-06-2016 11:20 PM
Yes Damien, I see this a lot on another forum especially & for me it's wrong. Folks should only post their own items. Unless it's an issue of originality (and asking about it). Anyone can post something that's not theirs. Why bother? I see no point just saying "courtesy of eBay " or whatever they add. Stewy
I will save photos from auctions for personal reference, usually will not post them anywhere. The difference is, you are the only one that owns the original on period paper.
Searching for anything relating to, Anton Boos, 934 Stamm. Kp. Pz. Erz. Abt. 7, 3 Kompanie, Panzer-Regiment 2, 16th Panzer-Division (My father)
Usually, a watermark can and should be applied to an online collectible photo, but this, of course, is not fool proof either. They can be removed with a small bit of know how. Many people these days feel that if an image is on the world wide public internet, then they consider it fair game to "borrow" it. The problem is, though, that many such photos are used for cheating people into thinking that a thief actually has the object photographed in hand and for sale. Our old nemesis Pawel Nowack is quite adept at this thievery. The usage of imagery from the internet is a problematic subject. It is, 1st of all, nearly impossible to prevent and 2nd, the photo user may be anywhere in the World, and since every country's laws are different, stopping it from happening is also nearly impossible.
But, getting back to collectable photos, there are more and more tougher to get around watermarking apps out there being developed all the time -as well as privacy apps that make Any usage of material from a website more difficult to circumvent. I can't point you to any, though, as I have never had the situation where I needed to Use one, but I do know that photos even from This website have been surreptitiously lifted and used for illegal purposes. Despite vociferous objections and outrages from the original posters of the material taken, little-if anything-generally is ever done about it. The process is either too complicated or just plain not worth pursuing once the image has been taken. After it has been taken and noticed, quite literally, the cat is out of the bag and not able to be "put back in", so to speak. I've known instances where material has been successfully charged with copyright violation, but this is a drawn out and expensive road to go.
"Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."
That's a tricky one, although I understand your point completely...but legally there's no difference between a photo and say, a medal publicized for sale and then submitted somewhere else for viewing/vetting...And how would you know for sure that you've got the one and only original image to begin with...
Some people spend all their time & as far as I'm concerned wasting ours. By posting stuff that they don't own. We could all do that, but I see no point. Either you're a collector of your chosen branch of militaria collecting. Or you're a " pic lifter" due to either being a lonely weirdo who wants to be liked or you want to own the item but can't be bothered to put some hard earned money away & be proud to post it thinking, " that's mine, I worked hard to own that". Just my slant on it. Regards, Stewy
Hi, as long as the seller lists as a "copy" there is no harm. A photo is just that, a moment, captured in time, for those that are offered a look, to see. I, myself, have a collection of original bdm photos. Within my collection are a few copys. Just nice images that should be shared and seen. Nowdays everything is stolen. Coming up with a new idea is soooo hard, so take that one and expand. Well it comes down to, "wherever there is a dollar to be made" Sorry sad but true
It's not sellers, selling copies. If I want to post a pic of a STuG, Marder, Tiger or Rommel for arguments sake. I'll buy one & post it. Not trawl though eBay & the like just so I can post a pic. If I were to want to use a Soldbuch or badge for a comparison I would try my hardest to contact the owner to ask permission. A lot of dealers, the good ones. Often state that if you want an item reviewed, you can they have no problem. Which is fine. But to just say "here's a pic of a STuG. Courtesy of eBay" is wrong. If you're interested in buying it & would like to know if it's original, say so. More & more I see things posted that unless you really look you might think the poster is the owner. They make no written statement that they've just clicked "save pic" & think that's ok. Stewy
I've bought many photos on Ebay over the years, posted them here for discussion, and later resold them on Ebay...Unless I took the photos, or developed the negatives, or I'm depicted on the photos myself...I'm not the first owner anyway, and wouldn't know for sure if there are already copies out there or not...Photo-albums are often parted out for individual sale on Ebay and they may include multiple exposures...
I think people/collectors by the thousands right click and save pics off the net if that's what you're talking about. There's nothing to prevent it, unless the image can't be saved because of a feature of the website. Being a little bit of a photographer, and knowing a little bit about copyright and model releases, I'm skeptical that there's much "intellectual property" rights being protected anywhere along this game.
I save pics off the internet for my own use if I like them. I usually don't save watermarked pics, it's annoying if it's right in the middle and I probably don't need the pic that bad. I save pics for reference material. I've saved dozens if not hundreds of pics of hats, buckles, medals, etc off of this site.
Back to internet sellers, I doubt the sellers legally own the rights to the image.
Seems like a bit of a free for all to me.
And if someone is selling genuine images from soldier's photo albums, they don't have any model releases allowing them to post pics of whoever it is, unknown or personality. You can't profit from a picture of someone unless you have their written approval. In the case of Nazi personalities like Himmler, I doubt anyone post war felt like they needed to respect this, spoils of war.
Look through stickies here, say the one on Zeltbahns, one of my favorite threads ever, and probably just about every single pic is lifted off the net, maybe Bundesarchiv photos, wherever those come from originally. Originally JPhillip asked for no watermarks, but later there were. At any rate,, I didn't realize it was bad form to "steal" pics from people who make money by selling the same pics who have no right to do so.
I'm talking about the eBay sellers who constantly sell "reproductions"... which I'm guessing they're scanning pics of of books and printing them, or snatching them off the net and doing the same.
Here's a pic I got off eBay the other day. It was interesting and I'm, sure it's real, but it's getting to the point where many are fakes, pics of re-enactors, sold as the real thing.
That's getting really confusing and I've got a half dozen pics saved up I've been meaning to start a thread to ask, "is this real?
Here's the pic, it's probably good, and a couple that are probably stinkers, still sold as the real thing by people who have no particular rights to the images whatsoever, therefore I don't see anything sacred there.
Is this real, or from a movie? I think it's Matt Damon, a scene from Saving Private Ryan I forgot about?
And this one, there's no way, but maybe I'm just overly suspicious. To me it looks that first guys gear's ever been though one day of war?
And this one, I'm thinking is real, but sometimes I can't tell anymore...