Some one is trying to sell my car!

[drb22]

I haven't posted in a while but figured I have to share this one. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayI ... egory=6386 That is my car in this guy's auction! The guy may be legit, but it still upsets me. I just emailed him and asked him to take my picture off the auction or I would start emailing bidders - not sure what else I can do?

[mfreed]

Why do you care? He's not displaying anything that could be identified back to you. Futhermore, how do you know its your car?I would just get over it.

[drb22]

See my signature. I took the picture, I know it is mine. The guy might be trying to scam someone. I care because it is my car and not his. It is just strange.

[millster]

Well, he's a member here too. And since I recall him saying here...http://forums.genvibe.com/zerothread?id=3319that he wanted to sell his car, I doubt it's a scam. I still understand the picture thing though. You took it, it's your property.

[kaybeejay]

What signature? I don't see any signature?But I agree with you, its creepy, to use someone elses photo in an online auction. The buyer should see exactly what they are bidding on.

[rasermon]

drb22, I notice that earlier while at ebay. I seen your vibe from the snow storm pic's that you posted and the red jeep in the background. I would tell the SOB to remove the pic and take his own.

[slbpsi63]

It counts as false advertisement. He might have a "similar Vibe",but what if his was in a wreck and torn all to hell???? This really hurts his credability.

[Sputnik]

quote:Why do you care? He's not displaying anything that could be identified back to you. Futhermore, how do you know its your car?I would just get over it.How does he know its his car? How do you know its your car when you go to get in one in a parking lot? Its like a mother and child... you know your baby! Especially if you're the one who took the photo.

[m4VibeGT]

Apparently, he changed his mine a second time. He posted here at genvibe that, "Okay...I found the Eclipse of my dreams at a car dealer... " now at eBay, he found out that we he really wanted is, "I discovered I want an Acura RSX more than I want a Vibe!" Here's hoping that he finally found his ideal car.

[KSNeptune]

Contact Ebay and report the stolen picture. KSNeptune

[Vibe Rater]

That is weird.

[meathead333]

or, you could always bid on it till you win, then dont pay. just say that you already own the car in the picture.

[Stang2Vibe]

That would be an interesting court case to watch!He still has that pic up on ebay, I just checked. I would report this to ebay. The picture is your property and he stole it if he is using it without your prior permission. Not telling him to remove it might be considered implied consent. Tell him to take it off because it is yours and notify ebay of the stolen pic if that is how you feel about it. I can't say that I necessarily disagree with how you feel. If I was asked first if my pic could be used, I might not care and give permission, but when people go stealing my stuff, I get real upset.

[pmh013]

quote:Why do you care? He's not displaying anything that could be identified back to you. Futhermore, how do you know its your car?I would just get over it.In drb22's signature (the stuff at the bottom of each post), there is a link to cardomain. The exact same picture from drb's cardomain page is on the ebay listing.I would suggest (unless you want more agressive members all over you) that you actually READ the posting before posting with such a flippant remark (and if you didn't mean it to be flippant, well tough, because that's the way I interpreted it.) Remember, all we have is the words on the screen.To get back on topic, I would raise hell with ebay for allowing this & not admonishing this autioner. It's false advertising.

[vibedriver]

We should email him until it is down!!!I just did

[MiamiVibe]

REPORT HIM!!!! i hate it when people try to pull off this type of ****. Wonder what his reserve is?

[drb22]

Thanks for all the positive remarks. The seller returned my email and said he would take the picture off the auction. He has not yet. I am going to contact ebay. I am also going to try and email the bidders so they are aware of the situation.

[mfreed]

What a bunch of losers! WHO CARES? It's a picture, not your car! Did he break into your house and steal it? OR did you post it in public domain? When you turn 17 you'll understand how silly you sound. Why go through all the effort.I'm really disappointed in genvibe.com. Many of the "features" have very little content and the forums are full of crap like this.I am currently a VW owner (hate it) and belong to vwvortex.com Every forum has it share of crap but at least they have some useful stuff as well.

[drb22]

mfreed - go take your unwanted opinion and shove it - lucky for me, when I was 17 I had more respect than you obviously do and I cared about the possibility someone might be getting ripped off. If you do not like message boards where people like to talk about "their" cars, maybe should take a hike until you buy a Vibe or learn to keep your mouth shut until you have something to add.

[NovaResource]

quote:What a bunch of losers! WHO CARES? It's a picture, not your car! Did he break into your house and steal it? OR did you post it in public domain? When you turn 17 you'll understand how silly you sound.Ever hear of copyright? Maybe when you get to highschool, you'll learn about it.quote:I'm really disappointed in genvibe.com. Many of the "features" have very little content and the forums are full of crap like this.Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Geo]

And as it seems, every forum has it's own "drama king/queen" For some reason, they are always the people who complain about the very discussion that they are participating on. Speaking as someone who is over 20, I must ask you, it this place is so bad, "why are you here?"Your posting is contradiction to yourself - who's the childish one now?Now to stay ON topic: Nail the guy. It is a common courtesy to give credit where credit is do for pictures online (where possible) and the guy should at LEAST have first asked you if he could use your pic, AND let it be known that this was not the actual vehicle being bid on. The guy has no right to do that, it's simple ethics (which makes me wonder if mfreeds has any...) and hopefully this will be taken care of. Good luck with it

[mfreed]

Good luck /w the picture thing. Try not to loose too much sleep over it.©You can't use this post as a quote because I've copyrighted it. That's how it works right??? You just say it's copyrighted and it must be.

[mfreed]

Yeah Nail HIM!!! Teach him a lesson he won't forget! ©® I know, leave him negative feedback.... whoa pretty harshDON'T COPY THIS! ©

[slbpsi63]

quote:I'm really disappointed in genvibe.com. We are disappointed in you, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna ask that you be banned from posting your opinion, ask the moderator for this forum to delete your posts. A member is pissed off that someone has taken his pick and is using to make a profit!!! Also known as false advertising. That is illegal. With or without a freaking copyright!!!! Ebay has rules that sellers must follow. I am pretty sure that he violated one. Does that make sense?

[millster]

I usually try to avoid these large-scale battles, but I feel pretty strongly about this one. Misappropriation of a person or entity's intellectual property is not something to be taken lightly. SilverAWD is right as well. This photo is a misrepresentation of the product offered on Ebay and would thereby be a violation of Ebay's policies. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but the rules are the rules.

[pmh013]

I wanted really badly not to get dragged into your immature rantings, but I can't resist.Your obvious lack of knowledge regarding trademark & copyright regulations is almost astonishing. Perhaps you'd be interested in what the US copyright office has to teach you http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci Furthermore, you cannot use (R) unless you have registered that particular phrase with the USPTO or CIPO, for those of us in North America. Perhaps what you meant was TM, meaning you were claiming trademark on that particular phrase, without in fact registering it.In addition, as long as I give you credit on your "work" (as defined by title 17 of the US code), I can in fact quote you.quote:Good luck /w the picture thing. Try not to loose too much sleep over it.--mfreed, 2003.I see that drb's Vibe photo is still up on the auction. I think that ebay should pull the auction.

[mfreed]

Thanks for not plagiarizing my post.It's always nice to get credit when credit is due.

[bellwilliam]

I can't help but to jump in. but realisticly how can Ebay pull the picture, just because you said you own the picture. it is your word against his. I don't think they have enough time to investigate, and they probably wouldn't, unless a winning bidder actually complains about it. It is common for Ebay auction to not use acutual photo of the product, they usually use (and should) manufacturer's picture (which IS copyrighted).and if you do go to court and sue the guy, court would ask what your damage is? how much do you think that is. You are not an author/photographer in profession, nor are you a manufacuture of the product, such that you would have financial interest in the picture.I know I am going to get creamed for my comments

[millster]

quote:I can't help but to jump in. but realisticly how can Ebay pull the picture, just because you said you own the picture. it is your word against his. I don't think they have enough time to investigate, and they probably wouldn't, unless a winning bidder actually complains about it.You're right. It is probably not going to elicit a reaction from Ebay. I think that's sad, but it is true. quote:It is common for Ebay auction to not use acutual photo of the product, they usually use (and should) manufacturer's picture (which IS copyrighted).Again, you're very much correct. However, the photo at issue here is no less copyrighted than the manufacturer's photo. Copyright can either be implied or explicit. In this case implied. In a perfect world, you should only use your own property unless given permission by the owner. Sadly things rarely work that way.quote:and if you do go to court and sue the guy, court would ask what your damage is? how much do you think that is. You are not an author/photographer in profession, nor are you a manufacuture of the product, such that you would have financial interest in the picture.That would indeed be a bit excessive. A small claims judge would mearly rule that the unlicensed user pull the image ad apologize. The fact is, regardless of profession, the person who takes the photo has exclusive rights to that photo as intelectual property. That is unless they give license to another to use that property (implied copyright). There may not be a financial interest, but the right is there no less. Again though, sadly these things only hold up in a perfect world and the world is far from perfect.

[Cubanpete]

Its a tough call........but I believe in one of the posts mfreed, was saying that he Does not own a Vibe just a VW or something like that, perhapps mfreed and the Ebay seller are one and the same.......You never now on Ebay, I do agree about the Pic that its a scam, its like me taking a photo of a guys vette, posting it on ebay saying this is my car you are bidding on, the buyer send the cash, and I am on the next plane to mexico!....lol, Does that make sense as well?

[Stang2Vibe]

Proper reasoning has finally been applied to the case at hand toward the latter part of this discussion. Both pmh013 and bellwilliam have reasoned this one well. pmh013's post was really hitting dead on the point.The picture is not an intellectual property. It is not a thought or a series of actions for which the creator has laid exclusive claim. It is a tangible thing that can be owned. Intellectual properties are intangible. Although the picture in question is not a physical object, it is still considered a tangible item just as if it were a photographic print. What has happened here is the equivalent of someone finding your printed photo, making a copy of it, and using it for their own purposes. While this is not theft in a physical sense, it is a theft of a different kind which deprives the legal owner of the image exclusive rights to its use. Generally, pictures you find in a public domain (such as cardomain.com) can be used, without punishment, unless said picture is labeled as copyrighted (and properly registered as such) or the owner specifically expresses his/her forbidding of the use of the image without prior consent. However, if such permission is not granted and no copyright exists, the lawful owner of the image retains the right to request that continued use of the image cease and to enforce said action upon finding its use by another. The owner retains the right to exclusive ownership and use of the image unless they otherwise note that a free distribution of the image is permitted. The damage suffered by the owner in this case is the loss of the right to exclusive ownership of the image. In the grand scheme of things, not a big deal, but they have the right to request that the image be pulled immediately if they so choose. Any party hosting the unlawfully used picture is violating the true owner's rights as well by continuing to host the image after being notified of the problem. The owner must, of course, provide evidence that they are the lawful owner of the image, which, in this case, shouldn't be terribly difficult to reasonably ascertain.There really is no false advertisement in this case because for such a condition to exist, the advertiser would have to be selling something that is markedly different from what is described or not honoring their committment to sell something for the price advertised. Since no price is listed, that condition does not apply. If the car they are selling is similar to the one pictured, then the breaking of that condition does not exist, either. If the car they are selling is a 2003 Pontiac Vibe, and such a car is depicted, that is usually more than enough evidence that the car pictured and the car offered is adequately similar. If a statement is made in the ad that the picture shown is the exact vehicle for sale and it is not, then false advertisment exists if it can be proven that this was done intentionally to mislead or decieve a potential buyer(this can be difficult to prove). From what I have seen so far, the seller has not engaged in a false advertisment, but I would have to see the actual vehicle for sale to make a better determination. The seller, so far, is only guilty of using a picture without the owner's permission. Manufacturers typically allow free usage of their product's images in order to promote product awareness and/or to generate revenues. This would generally be encouraged and they are usually happy that people use their pics because it is free advertisment for them.To mfreed, I understand your postion that this is not that big of a deal and there are much bigger problems in the world. However, the owner of the picture is still the owner and has a right to request that it not be used without his permission. Many members here are fequent Ebay users, and some of them have, unfortunately, been ripped off or mislead before in one of their purchases. They are only looking out for the good of other Ebay users that they might not be ripped off as they have been. I know I would be well beyond pissed if I bought the advertised car off of Ebay and it showed up at my door a different color than what I was led to believe that it was, or missing half of the body panels, or something like that when the seller is showing a pic like they are. That is the main concern of the members here, not to get into a pissing contest over who has the right to use a picture. You are entitled to form your own opinions and to state your opinions on this site. However, you do not have the right to deprive any other member of their enjoyment of these forums. You are expected to abide by the rules just the same as the rest of us, and one of the main rules of this site is very clearly that you are not permitted to flame other members/posters on this site. Please feel free to state your opinions, but be more careful in how you choose to go about it.

[Stang2Vibe]

I don't see what's so funny. The example you give deals with a totally different set of activities. The lawsuits you mention does not deal with the ownership of the photos, but rather over how they were obtained. The paparazzi photographers often cross the line when trying to obtain their photos. If you look out your back window while standing inside your house and it just so happens that your the hot chick who lives next door is laying out in her backyard sunbathing nude, you can stand there in your window all day and take all the pictures you want and not break any laws. She is in public view, so you have the right to photograph her. If you are walking down your street taking photos of the neighborhood (from the street, mind you) and another hot neighbor down the street has a giant picture window facing the street and is in plain view getting it on in the window with her loser boyfriend, feel free to take all the pics you want. They are also in public view. But if you see the hot chick next door go inside to take a shower and you walk across your yard into hers and look into her window while standing up against her house to watch her shower, congratulations, you are now a peeping tom and might go to jail if caught and prosecuted. The first two scenarios delt with taking a picture of something in public view. You are perfectly allowed to do this. You can walk around the streets of Hollywood taking pics of all the stars you want. You can't climb their fences and walls to run up to their houses and take pics of them through their windows or in areas sheilded from public view. See, these are two completely different topics. Now, if you take a legal photo of a famous person walking around town doing whatever they are doing and post it on your website, and some tabloid magazine makes a copy of it from your website and uses it in their magazine, they have violated your rights of ownership of that picture because they have not asked you if they could use it. If you don't care that they did this, then nothing will happen because it is implied that you give permission for them to use it. However, if you don't like the fact that they stole your pic to make a profit, you have the right to sue them because they, in fact, did not get prior permission to use it and you don't want them to use it. Therefore, they can't use it. Just like in the case we have here.

[drb22]

I received the following from ebay today –“The listing you have reported has been removed by eBay. We appreciate the time you have taken to send this information to us.”Whether or not you believe my objection to the use of my picture was worthy, ebay thought it was. I feel good about the fact that ebay does look out for it’s customers in this way. I hope this will settle this thread and let everyone know that there are rules against such activity.

[Sputnik]

quote:what will happen with the people who bidded on it I wonder? Probably they just get notified that the auction has been cancelled.

[Sputnik]

I wouldn't be bothered if I was bidding and Ebay cancelled it. I'd be happy actually that Ebay stepped in and stopped it in case it was a fraudulent auction... before I shelled out my money.

[canadavibegt]

quote:mfreed - go take your unwanted opinion and shove it - lucky for me, when I was 17 I had more respect than you obviously do and I cared about the possibility someone might be getting ripped off. If you do not like message boards where people like to talk about "their" cars, maybe should take a hike until you buy a Vibe or learn to keep your mouth shut until you have something to add.I with you............

[Stang2Vibe]

I have to edit/take back some of what I said in this thread earlier. I talked to a couple of law students recently and asked about this situation. The consensus was that once you post a picture/image on the internet, it is now part of the public domain unless you have a legal copyright on it. So basically, unless it is copyrighted, you are free to take and use any pics you find for whatever purposes you wish. However, they told me that in this case, if the buyer received the car after he bought it and found that it was not the car pictured or was in a different condition from what was pictured, the buyer could sue the seller for misrepresentation. At that point, I think that the seller would have to take the car back, refund the money from the sale, plus any fees/expenses that the buyer incurred in the fraudulent sale.