Someone just tried to scam me on eBay.

Fraud was never the issue with it. Clearly JT was going to deliever the coin so it wasn't that the guy was selling something he wasn't going to own. The issue that they take with it is that someone is stealing their work and using it to make money without paying for it or asking permission. When you buy the coin you are just buying the coin not their imaging as well. TreViews are a different story but as far as I know everyone else would at least want to be asked when they are being used for money making purposes. @messydesk and @robec do imaging as well and probably would take a similar stance to those expressed by @jtlee321 and others who have put time and effort into improving their imaging.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I would assume that those chances exponentially increase when they're being used for money making purposes

 

They don't produce the image for free. They produce it to sell the coin that you purchased. Any cost is part of that purchase price. I have yet to reproduce an image with a copywrite tag on it. But reproducing non copy written material is fair game.

 

They make the image for them to sell it, not for someone else to steal it. Photos don't have to have a copywrite tag on them for them to have ownership of it

 

So I would be breaking the law if I took a picture which showed the copy written McDonalds logo in it? Get serious.

REASONABLENESS is a pertinent fact.

 

The moment the shutter is clicked (the picture is taken), it is copyrighted, with or without a © on the image. There are precedents for this, and you would be found liable if the copyright owner can prove you profited by using his image. Buying his product does not then give you rights to his images. If you buy a bottle of Coca-Cola, can you then start using their advertising images, commercials, logos, etc., to then resell your bottle?

This is not an area for debate. The attorneys and court system already did that.

 

In all honesty, yes, you could be found to be in violation of trademark and copyright laws, depending upon what you were doing with the image. For example, if it was to portray McD's as endorsing your product, or imply that they are partners with you, then yes. And McD's has enough lawyers to pursue something as trivial as that.

 

Just call me a rebel then. You mentioned PROFIT from the image. That is a test of REASON. How many PICTURES have you sold without the coin? What are they worth? Can you steal NOTHING?

I take pictures of pictures from public forums. It's no different than taking a a landscape with a hundred logos within it.

 

Here's something that maybe will help.

It used to be on television that a bag of potato chips, or a can of soda, or a box of cereal would have the brand name altered or covered. Why? Most people think it's because the TV show didn't want to give the product free advertising, which is only half of the equation. The TV show couldn't legally use the brand name without permission. Then a lightbulb turned on in both camps, and product owners realized it would benefit them if the TV show showed their product, and the TV shows realized they could charge for the advertising. It became a win-win.

 

There are stock image companies that will buy photos like that. So yes, an oimage of a coin can be sold, without owning, or having already sold the coin (or any item that you photograph.

It's a pretty interesting topic, and seems to be stupid, until you look at it from all sides.

 

I believe in public domain and patent and copywrite protection only in limited and necessary cases.

I agree that it is stupid if too broadly demanded. but it's no different than any other frivolous lawsuit in this overly litigious society. No one will lose one dime if I use an image of MY COIN to show others. They won't lose one dime if I use an image to study die state progression. But I'm not a lawyer or politician so I still have a bit of common sense.

 

A picture doesn't become nothing just because it is digital. It's no different than taking a hard copy of it

 

It's the Law Marshall, "THE LAW" period!!! It may not be enforced very often though.
Wow, Marshall Law.

 

Obviously, you're not understanding.

IT IS NOT YOUR IMAGE TO USE!!!! It doesn't matter if you bought the coin, the IMAGE IS NOT YOURS!!!!!!!!!! (yes, I'm shouting)

From a legal standpoint, yes, they will lose money if you use their image, because..... YOU DIDN'T PAY THEM FOR THE IMAGE, OR FOR THE SERVICE OF PROVIDING YOU WITH MARKETABLE IMAGES.

BTW, you never answered a question that was directed at you earlier, maybe because he only asked permission to ask the question, ,so I'll be more direct - How old are you? (it could explain a lot)

 

That is use for educational purposes, which is allowed, as well as for use as 'news'. But if you use that die progression image to sell the specific coin in the image, then you are breaking the law, unless A) you received permission to use it or B) you took the image.

 

You are so wrong. Everything you have posted on this topic is false.

 

I don't know why I continue to respond, but....

Yes, it is automatic. Proven in courts time and time again. What you are thinking of is 'registering for a copyright', which is NOT necessary for an image (or even what you write) for it to be copyright protected. What registering an image does is just make the legal legwork simpler for those that find others using their images without permission for commercial gain (a very wide spectrum). There was a case about 3 years ago where a tire company (which one escapes me) used an image an amateur photographer took at a mud rally of a truck that happened to have the company's tires on it. The photographer posted it on his Facebook, and the tire company thought it was a great picture, and used it in their advertising. The photo was not registered, and it was too late to register the image (there is a short window of when a photo can be registered after it was taken). The photographer got a lawyer (there are lawyers that only deal with this sort of thing), and the photographer ended up netting $8,000 after legal fees. In other words, he sued, he won, and whether or not the image had been registered, didn't matter, except he probably would have gotten more had it been registered.

Sorry @Marshall , but you really are outside of your realm of expertise on this matter.

 

It wouldn't be the first stupid law on the books.

 

I'm 59 and negotiated a ton of contracts for a living. But at least THEY made sense. Copies of copies already in public domain having copywrite protection does not make sense. But if it's THE LAW, then it's just another BAD LAW! And I can SHOUT TOO!

The basic question is who has ownership of an image already out before the public and are copies of those images due protection? If so, the law is violated more than the laws of prohibition ever were and deserve the same end.

And yes, I answered the precise question asked and did not presume to know the inferred follow up question. It's a quirk.

 

By the way, did you get the permission of the US MINT or the engraver to use a photo of the Flying Eagle on your Avatar? It has to have one of those automatic copy writes. Right?