In my opinion (as someone not unfamiliar with copyright law), I believe you are incorrect. Images can and are very much covered under copyright law. More to the point, the (presumably) unathuroized use of Heritage's copywritten materials in Billionaire's auction would be against the law (as I understand it). Respectfully...Mike
Still wouldn't be shocked if he just stole the images off of Heritage's website and nothing more than vaporware is on offer.
"Still wouldn't be shocked if he just stole the images off of Heritage's website and nothing more than vaporware is on offer." Absolutely. See it on ebay often.
This is a side issue but they would lose in court and they actually have historically lost in court. A straight photo of a coin is not copyrightable any more than a printed table of census data. Ruben
Ruben, I think you are missing the point. The question is not if taking a photo of a coin is against the law. The question is if using the copywritten image of another without their consent in an eBay auction is. Respectfully...Mike
Mike I understand and what I said remains. Photo's of coins are not copyrightable. Using them on ebay, or anywhere else. An image of a coin is not copyrightable.
I always thought that the person taking an image owned the rights to it. Ebay will end an auction if the person who owns an image complains about it's use without permission. Can't see where taking someone to court over it would be worth the cost.
The 1854 O in the Heritage Sale was in an MS-63 holder. The coin was UPGRADED by NGC and now the holder reads SP for Specimen Proof. The coin WAS listed in the Mint State section of the pop report and now is in the Proof Section. When a coin gets upgraded by a service, you can throw out the old prices. I agree with the gentleman that does not rely soley on PCGS or NGC. However, I still maintain the RETAIL PUBLIC buys the plastic as well as the coin. Auction prices and retail sales of coins I personally think are overgraded still bring a minimum price because of the plastic they are in. Again, I point out that an NGC Proof 65 High Relief worth maybe $75,000 would be worth, perhaps 1/3rd that price in a PCGS holder - - - at a major auction where so called pros bid, although honestly I have seen rank newbies bid at auction feverishly on items that a pro would avoid. Some newbies fancy themselves experts. To the gentleman that doubts the NGC attribution - - do you think NGC overgrades and does not employ some of the best experts??? With all due respect, NGC is a reliable service. They are not one of the many services Ebay banned!!! The fact is NGC felt the coin was nice enough and exhibits the attributes of a specimen proof. And, with all due respect, if you had a coin that was UPGRADED from mint state to proof by NGC and it was Unique in the later grade, would you not market it for a much higher price, and tout the NGC attribution??? I mean business is business! That is an honest answer. Warmly, David
I believe that you are wrong and that we are going to have to agree to disagree. When someone takes a picture of something (even in the public domain) that image can be copywritten, and use or distribution of that image becomes limited. If you don't believe me, please contact a lawyer familiar with copyright law and I suspect they'll agree with me (the lawyers in my company certainly do).
But that's just it, the coin wasn't upgraded -- since at least 2003. To wit, the 1854-O in question was already in a "specimen" holder NOT an "MS" holder when it was purchased from Heritage, dating back to 2003, as is shown in the Heritage archives and linked earlier in this thread. Why do you suggest that the coin was upgraded subsequent to being purchased when there is evidence to the contrary for all to see? And some coin sellers believe they can (presumably) buy a coin for $X, and sell it for 20X four months later. The question is not if NGC employs some of the best experts (they do), nor if eBay has banned NGC (as if that means anything), but rather if a) this coin is in fact as specimen or proof (there is NO evidence whatsoever that indicates it), and b) if a seller is justified in asking 20x for a coin purchased four months ago (personally, I think that's ridiculous and feel sorry for someone buried in that coin at the $400k asking price, but can't deny you the right to ask that price). All that said, I can understand your persepective about the buying public buying plastic, however that doesn't change anything -- it doesn't make faulty attribution right, nor does it justify asking 20x what a coin was worth four months ago on the open market. Take care....Mike
Without seeing the current holder I think I know what has happened. It has probably been reholdered and instead of saying MS-63 Specimen It now says something like SP-63 and e is saying that SP means Specimen Proof, and that since they are now calling it a proof instead of MS it is worth a lot more. Sorry SP does not mean Specimen Proof, it just means Specimen same as it did on the old slab. And if they have dropped the MS, that doesn't mean it is a Proof 63. A "specimen" is kind of something in between, neither fish or fowl. It was a 63 Specimen before and it is a Specimen 63 now. No upgrading has taken place. And yes images of coins can be copyrighted because no two images made are the same. When I create an image I select the camera, the film if it is film, the settings, the lighting, the angles, and any adjustments or tweaking of the image before it is published. That makes that image my creation, different and unique from anyone else's and I can protect that creation through copyright.
I need someone to explain this to me. I was under the impression that specimen coins came from the early days of the US mint when they didn't have the technology to create the coins that looked like later proofs. Although the appearance of specimen strikes differed from business strikes, they did not resemble a proof coin with watery surfaces and bold even details. The mint certainly had the ability to create a high grade proof with cameo contrast as a presentation piece in 1854 if they so desired. Why would the mint use a 30+ year old process and create a specimen strike? It just does not make any sense. The mint decides to make a unique proof as a presentation piece, but then uses an out of date procedure to complete the undertaking. Considering that there are no proofs for this date, is it possible that this one is a trial piece of some kind? The only example I can even recall of a specimen strike without doing research is the 1792 Half Disme PCGS SP67 that fetched over one million dollars a few years ago.
The coin WAS in a different holder at auction than it is now. If you have a one of a kind item, you can ask what you want for it. I am not marketing by getting a little old lady to empty her pension to buy this coin. The buyer will most likely be a CEO of some type with discretionary cash.
Re Copyright Law, works of art, currency, etc. when depicted in PLAIN photos can not be copyrighted. There is legal precedent to this affect. See BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY v. COREL CORPORATION, which is the original Federal Court precedent subsequent cases have been decided on in this area.
What is different about the holder now? The addition of the word "proof" to the word "specimen"? That's not a different opinion on the origin of the coin, as I'm sure you are aware, and I still challenge you to provide even a single shred of evidence (outside of the NGC holder) that it is a special striking (and no, the written word of a pathological liar and pedophile doesn't apply). Secondly, it matters not if the buyer is a little old lady with her pension or a rich CEO with discretionary income -- 20x is 20x, and in my opinion, unjustifiable. Lastly, the only person who would buy that coin at that price would be someone completely ignorant of the true value of the coin -- and we both know that's the truth and precisely why you chose not to sell it at auction....Mike
Actually, Bridgeman v Corel spoke to taking photographs of existing works of art in the public domain, and has nothing to do with copywritten coin photographs being used without permission. If you had actually taken the photograph of the coin (which I presume you have not), and someone owning the coin said they had the rights to the image, then Bridgeman v Corel (in my opinion) could be used to argue your case. However, that's not what has happened here. What happened here is that you (presumably) took the copywritten Heritage image, stripped off the copyright, and redistributed the image by posting it to your eBay auction. That, in my most humble opinion, is clearly against copyright law. I suspect Heritage (incidentally, your former employer as I have been told) and eBay will agree with me. Time will tell..Mike
I have to laugh .. . a pedophile and pathological liar . . . you must be refering to Walter Breen. I laugh because back in 1976 he "hit" on me when I was much younger attending a coin show, but I was 15 and much too old for the man so he did not push too hard [smiles]. Anyway, there are lots of coins that exist that the mint has never officially accounted for. In the 1800's records were far less than perfect. Also, how do you value a one of a kind coin, assuming for a minute it is one of a kind??? I think any price someone is willing to pay is justifiable. This is AMERICA . . . unless you commit fraud you can ask whatever you want for something you are selling. In the past, I sold a few, not many, but a few select coins for more than 20 times thier original purchase price. If you buy the RIGHT item, you can do that. If you do that with COMMON coins, certainly there is a big difference. Anyway, do you believe there are PROOF HIGH RELIEF SAINTS???? NGC says there are, but PCGS says there aren't [ordinary] H. R. Saints in Proof at all. I am sure the Mint Records are better in 1907 than in 1854, but this remains one of the MANY mysteries of numismatics. Warmly, David
Call me crazy, but I value a coin by what it is worth to a prospective buyer or on the open market, not what the current owner/seller is asking for it. To wit, I'd say that coin is worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 to $25k, maybe $30 or $35k if you can find the right buyer. Asking $400k, while certainly your right, borders on the ridiculous, and you know it, so please don't be coy with me. Personally, I do not. However, to be completely candid, I don't follow those coins nearly as closely as proofs from the 19th century. More to the point, what does how NGC chooses to slab HR saints have to do with the coin in question or the asking price for said coin?
Actually in the BRIDGEMAN v. Corel case the court ruled that repoductions that are "slavish" in nature are NOT protected from copyright lnfrinement. The court ruled that applies even if a great deal of skill is involved in making the photo. In the BRIDGEMAN case it WAS the LIBRARY that made the images that they claimed were copyrighted. This decision was sustained by other Federal Courts in similar cases.
