I spend some of my free time browsing clothing on eBay. I frequently see items being sold using the photograph from the source’s website–a Gap jacket will be listed with the photograph from the Gap website, for example.
I bought two blazers in the post-Christmas sales that couldn’t be returned, but that turned out to be real goose eggs. They both still had the tags on them, so yesterday I grabbed the photographs from the source’s website and listed them on eBay.
Overnight, someone from the source complained about copyright infringement and my listings were removed. Okay, fair enough. I shouldn’t have taken the source’s pictures. I took my own (much crummier) photographs of the items and re-listed.
What I want to know is, under what circumstances are people allowed to use the source’s photographs to sell items? Another person has one of the same jackets listed, using the source’s official photograph of the item. The description makes it clear that she, like me, is just another person who bought it, didn’t like it, and can’t return it to the store. What is different about us?
They may be crawling the net looking for pictures that match theirs (either as a link or a copy). The other listing may have grabbed the picture and resized it or color corrected it so it wouldn’t be a simple case of comparing the checksums.
I have a friend who takes incredible photographs that people sometimes use on their web sites. If they are commercial, he sends them a bill for several thousand dollars.
I would agree that the only reason the other photo is still there is that nobody detected it and complained.
I thought that eBay prohibited photos of merchandise unless it was the actual merchandise you are selling, not just a generic photo of the product. Did they change that policy? That is unrelated to a copyright issue, however; my impression is that they want merchandise to be represented accurately.
Technically, the copyright belongs to whoever took the photo.
If the photo is on the Gap website, then the Gap owns copyright (in theory, it could be the photographer instead, but the photographer is usually required to turn all rights over to whoever employs him, or it’s done by a staff photographer as a work for hire).
If the seller actually took the photo, then he does own copyright on the image. However, I doubt he bothered to register the copyright, so his legal recourse is solely limited to requiring you to take the photo down and trying to prove actual damages (which is next to impossible even in the best of cases).
But not in the same sense. Because an item can be photographed in many different ways, and taking a photograph requires the photographer to set up the shot and make a determination of the best angle, lighting, etc., the photograph itself contains some of the originality and creative spirit that copyright is intended to protect.
But a photo of a jacket is not making a copy of copyrighted material. If you photographed something copyrightable, then there could be an issue.
As for photos of book covers, copyright is a civil violation. If the copyright holder doesn’t choose to enforce it, then that’s his decision. Unlike trademark, you are not required to enforce a copyright to keep it valid.
A real stock photo has been officially put into the public domain, and the person who took it doesn’t care to protect it or make money off of it.
If you have a flickr account, for example, there’s an incredibly elaborate set of options for setting the copyright on your photos. You can keep it all to yourself, let other people reproduce it but not for profit, reproduce it for profit, change it in some way and then use it, etc.
Just yesterday I actually had a Web design client of mine, who works for a very large company, tell me that he occasionally sends pictures to me for use on the site that he got “from” Google Images instead of being stock photos the company owns. He said “I thought that if they were on Google Images they were free to use.” He’s not a stupid guy, but he’s definitely Joe Average Computer User.
I had no idea that people thought Google Images was some sort of repository for free images, instead of just a Google search with a filter that only returns links to image files. It must be a nightmare for professional photographers and graphic artists.
I read an interview with her where she mentioned the photographer hired her and a few other people for a day to take a whole bunch of generic “in and around school” photos for some stock photo site.
The person who made a photo or bought the rights owns it. They can refuse you the right to use it.
Not sure what the situation is of an ad featuring a book cover; obviously, if you have a book in an interesting setting (propped up against a vase of flowers, say) that’s an original work. If you scan the cover on your local Xerox, or take a photo of the Nike-branded sweatshirt - well, there must be some legal principle that says that if you obviously intend to sell the product in question, you need to show it.
I work for a manufacturer who allows dealers of our products to use photographs we took. This is desirable because the photos are of high quality and if we depended upon each dealer to take their own, who knows what quality would result.
Some of our authorized dealers sell on Ebay. If we find an Ebay seller who is advertising our products below the MAP price that the authorized dealers are bound to, we can force them to remove copyrighted photos and product descriptions. This kind of selective enforcement helps to protect the authorized dealer’s margins.
With trademarks, you must defend against all infringement or risk losing your trademark rights. This is not the case with copyrights.
Why don’t you just complain to eBay about the other seller’s image? Then they’ll be able to enforce their own policy consistently and she can take her own lousy pic of the items.
The term “stock photo” does not mean it’s public domain. Stock photos are generic photos taken and filed so that when someone needs a picture of a schnauzer with milk on its nose, a search will turn up a photo and you don’t have to set up a custom photo shoot to do it. Getty Imagesdoes a lot of stock, for example. Stock photos are copyrighted, unless explicitly released into the public domain.
