What do you think?

I was just reading through the new ads today. I came across a listing of an item, one of which I just sold. Well guess what, my picture had been lifted to use in this ad.
I have already sold my piece, but I think the seller should have emailed me first to ask permission. I will say the caption under pic said "taken from another ad without permission". Kind of surprising.
This has been brought up a few times before actually. And you are correct, that the seller should have asked your permission before using the picture.

I assume that the seller does not have a digital camera, (or is just plain lazy), hence the reason for "stealing" your picture. The other reason could be that this seller is a scam artist, and just grabbed a picture of something he thought he could "sell" quickly and easily. You might want to contact Audiogon about this, just in case the later happens to be the situation in this case. (And since Audiogon is rather a stickler about giving credit for "intellectual property", and since it is your picture, they should take action in this case.)

My two cents worth.
Hi Kurt,
He does have a camera, two other pics were in the ad of unopened box.
Evidently his item is brand new in box and he is using my pic to show what piece looks like .
I think it's a pretty poor thing to do. If you don't have a camera, say so and use a manufacturer's picture, identifying it as such. If the product is unopened, then do the same thing. If a person wants to use another person's picture, he could have the courtesy to ask.

And here's another point, what if somebody thinks your picture is the one lifted from the other person and thinks you're the one who is being deceitful? I'd like this practice to be discouraged by the forum administrators when pointed out to them, unless it's a manufacturer's photo.

On a related point, I had an ad not too long ago. A few days after the ad expired, there was a new listing for the same product. I had a look at it out of curiosity. The guy used his own pictures but he cut and pasted my description of the product! I didn't know what to think. On the one hand I thought it was flattering he liked my description. On the other hand, you feel like the person is somewhat underhanded. It makes you wonder what else the person would do. Certainly not anyone I would trust to deal with.
I understand the feeling of having one's territory invaded. But as territorial I am, I can't see any real harm. I wouldn't do that but then I have a camera. In a case where someone does not have a camera, maybe he needs to sell his item to obtain one. All just one man's opinion, of course.
Given the circumstances (unopened box) it seems pretty harmless to me but of course who knows what is actually in the box? He should have definitely said something like "since mine is unopened, here is someone else's pix of the same item", or used manufacturer's image.
I think he should have e-mailed the original ad picture owner, (in this case Muzikat) and told him what he was doing and asked permission to use the picture.
Legally speaking, once you put it on the internet, it becomes public property (ask these idiot movie stars caught emailing nude photos).
Ethically, the seller should have made sure that this was footnoted clearly as a "sample" picture. Should he/she ask your permission? Why? You don't own the photo any more, there is no representation of the photo pertaining to you personally and you are not being misrepresented in any manner.
It's not like he broke into your hard drive and stole the photo?
If it bugs you so much, learn how to use photoshop and put a watermark on all of your photos.
I have emailed the seller and suggested that he should have contacted me. One issue that has come up is that my pic/ad included an optional power supply. The power supply is pictured in my photo, but by his own admission he is not sure if a power supply is even inside his unopened box.
I think it is just wrong, legally maybe not, ethically certainly.
Muzikat, I love ya, BUT I think you're making much ado about nothing on this one. If it was a pic of my child, wife, etc. then, yes, I agree. As I understand it, we're talkng about a component here. No harm, no foul. Just don't see it your way on this one.
How does Muzikats intellectual property become everyone's property??

The fact that a photo is published on the internet does not mean that the photographer has given up his rights to the photo. The example you use, movie stars, is an exception in the law which permits the dissemination of information regarding public figures.

The photos Muzikat posted on the internet remain his intellectual property unless he expressly releases title to the photos. The use of the photos by another person or entity without Muzikats permission is legally actionable.
Hey everybody!
It was I who USED Muzikat's photo.
Frankly, I'm surprised at his response (2 emails sent to me). In the ad, I noted that I used the photo without permission. The item is a $300 phono pre in a sealed box. I hesitated about taking someone's photo to include in my ad, but since his item had already sold, I felt it would not do the person any harm.
My item is in a sealed box, never opened, never used. I did not want to open the box, "just to take a photo" since this is a red flag to me that the item is likely used and merely replaced back into the box.
As to his suggestion that I misreprented the item with regards to the power supply, HE is not being truthful! In his email he asked me if the phono had the OBH-2 power supply, I said I don't know. I am not aware of a 1 or a 2. The box does not say one or the other was my response to Muzi(photo)kat.
I have had 2 of these Creek phono stages, identical to the one I posted. I have since given 2 of them away to friends. I know what's in the box- phono amp, wall wart and power supply. There is a power supply included. I would never sell it without a power supply! I don't need to open the box myself to see what's there. So much for his hysterical accusations.
I can see if el gato's photo was an Ansell Adams. Or, an Andy warkat's, but a crappy picture taken on his living room carpet of an inanimate object worth $200 (his)?
Get a life!!!
It doesn't matter whether the photo is "crappy" or not. It doesn't matter whether the object in the photo is "inanimate" or not. It doesn't matter whether the item in the photo is of low value. All that matters is that it wasn't your photo to begin with. If a burglar takes your Amplifiers it's no defense that the amps are "crappy", "inanimate", or "low value". All that matters is that he didn't have your permission to take your property. There are no photographs on the internet that you are permitted to use unless you obtain the photographers release, or permission, or unless that permission/release is expressly granted in a statement alongside the photo.
Commcat: The photos Muzikat posted on the internet remain his intellectual property unless he expressly releases title to the photos. The use of the photos by another person or entity without Muzikats permission is legally actionable.

That is correct, and Elevick's statement about the law is incorrect. Notwithstanding the fact that violations occur all the time, which are too minor or too impractical to pursue.

-- Al
Sorry, Oregon, you were wrong. The purpose, hopefully, of showing a real life photo as opposed to stock manufacturer is to show that you actually have it, and perhaps the condition of the unit. It doesn't necessarily mean you have it, but going on trust it should. Ebay is experiencing great problems due to this.
Also, by stating you used without permission is rather startling on its own. It makes you suspect.
I committed a crime!
Where's the supreme court when we really need it?
Anybody listening to music these days???
I fought the law... and the... law won...
Oregon- Having been a member here a long time, I would advise you take a deep breath and not establish a rep you might regret. Think it over and don't post again until tomorrow or so :)
I think I can go one better. Some years ago I posted an ad with pictures.
Within a day or two, another Agon member posted an ad for the same piece of equipment
using my photos. Now we have two ads for a unit, that share the same photos, and are
running at the same time.
What could I do? I contacted the other seller and he couldn't care less.
I modified my ad to say "photos of actual equipment".
After some extensive therapy, I am happy to report that I am ok. It happens!
Nontheless it shouldn't be happening. It approaches on being fraudulent. What else might this person be up to?
Maybe what we need here is for AudioGon to establish a way to imprint the name of the seller on the photos when you post an ad. I really can't see the harm that was done here other than one seller may take the route taken and another may choose not concern himself. But if each photo had a imprint not blocking the item of course with the sellers name, that would end it. Oregon all I can say is you used the wrong photo, it wasn't yours, you didn't ask permission. If it were my photo I would have e-mailed you a file copy, and maybe another seller would have felt the same. You could have easily sold the unit without a photo most have seen or owned a Creek before. Or maybe taken a picture off of Creeks website if possible. I have seen nuberous item listed with Mfgrs. photos and text used and have not seen any reprocussions from doing so. I have also seen many ads where "box opened for photo only". I would say you made a mistake, make appologies where needed and hopefull you both can move on. As Muzikat indicated he had sold his item, if you were competing against him with his own photo, he would be entitled to more.
I have had my photos used by others on at least three occasions I can recall offhand. I suspect there are more as these are just ones I came across by chance.

The way I handle it is to just send a polite, ribbing email like 'Guess you liked that photo, eh? :)'.

I don't really strongly mind it, but I guess each time I felt like something subtly dishonest had gone on, since the item listed had now been used by the new owner for at least some period before his listing. In other words, though the item might indeed have still looked just the same, the photo being used was now 'old'.

I had a friend who had that problem with match.com...
That's funny Paul. Made me laugh.
Oregon and I are at peace with each other.
I now realize it was a mistake to use Muzikat's photo. As I stated before, his item sold, so the issue of competing with him did not exist.
My apologies.
Personally, I don't care if you use my photos to sell your items (Virgos posted at the moment- excellent speakers, but crappy photos!) Of course, if you used my photos to commit fraud, I'd take action.
It's the sheer pettiness from the pseudo moralists that I find so amusing.