I think neither using the picture without authorization, nor misleading buyers to think the picture represents a beamshot from another flashlight is something acceptable. Both should not be tolerated.
I also think that publicly apologizing, both here and on e-bay (bid itself at least) and posting a real photo would alleviate the bad deeds.
One flashlight as a free gift from 365bid to Foy might make right the debt as well.
You think he meant no harm? Would you feel that way if he took photos off of your facebook page or website and posted them on his website without permission?
That is a just an assumption that may or may not be correct, but is still not an excuse. So it's OK for poor people or small companies to pirate copyrighted material? The guy has sold 800+ items on ebay, he should know the rules there, which forbid copyright infringement.
Even if it is illegal does anyone care ?or Is it worth the effort to sue someone even if you're right .right or wrong you can sue anyone for anything . Is there any real measurable loss ?
I don't think anyone including Foy thinks a beamshot is ART .
Pretty sure their isn't a judge on the planet going to award even a bad flashlight to the offended party ..The defendant wins by default ..case dismissed
Gimme the keys to the Mustang..!!
* No one seems concerned with the feelings of the cactus ..Even tree huggers won't hug cacti.
You are totally correct. However, very sadly a lot of sellers do it. I'm pretty sure I saw pics of a BLF'ers garden on DD a while back and that was for the wrong light and wrong emitter.
The truth remains we want lights cheap from China. We hope that they pass through our own country's customs departments without being too closely scrutinized. We hope to avoid our own country's import taxes or purchase/sales taxes. It is somewhat difficult therefore, as I see it, for us to too lay too much of a claim to the moral high ground.
I think we've all made the point to 365bid firmly enough. It's now over to him to make sure that Foy's pics are removed from ALL his pages.
A balanced copyright law provides an economic benefit to many high tech businesses such as search engines and software developers. Fair Use is also crucial to non-technology industries such as insurance, legal services, and newspaper publishers.[24] On September 12, 2007, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA),[24] a group representing companies including Google Inc., Microsoft Inc.,[25]Oracle Corporation, Sun Microsystems, Yahoo[26] and other high tech companies, released a study that found that Fair Use exceptions to US copyright laws were responsible for more than $4,500 billion dollars in annual revenue for the United States economy representing one-sixth of the total US GDP.[24] The study was conducted using a methodology developed by the World Intellectual Property Organization.[24] The study found that fair use dependent industries are directly responsible for more than eighteen percent of US economic growth and nearly eleven million American jobs.[24] “As the United States economy becomes increasingly knowledge-based, the concept of fair use can no longer be discussed and legislated in the abstract. It is the very foundation of the digital age and a cornerstone of our economy,” said Ed Black, President and CEO of CCIA.[24] “Much of the unprecedented economic growth of the past ten years can actually be credited to the doctrine of fair use, as the Internet itself depends on the ability to use content in a limited and unlicenced manner."[24]
The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.
Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously, copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he pardoned Nixon."
Linked with permission!
It is a very short and slippery slope to saying it's OK to steal photos, then to music, movies, technology, military plans, etc. Oh yeah, China does all that stuff already.
At first, it bothered me but honestly, now that I think about it, I'm wondering why I got my panties in a wad. Art? Not only is it not art - as far as beam shots go, they're not even that good. Right-click/saving flashlight pictures of some nut-job's back yard is hardly plagiarism. The only thing I have a problem with (if anything) is claiming that the light offered is capable of the performance inferred by the beam shot and I don't even know what the hell I just said.
I'm not sure if this is supposed to piss me off or not. And, the guy isn't helping by behaving like a gentleman. This would be a lot easier if he were to become indignant and tell me to pound it up my arse. Instead, he commits the felonious act of extreme courtesy. In the ocean of poor on-line etiquette we all swim in, when somebody actually does behave properly I become disoriented.
IMO you handled that exceptionally well, better than most would have.
Too bad we're not in a bar as I would buy you and everyone a round. Actually on second thought you should buy me one. Because of your contribution to this forum and your reviews, I'm always broke.
And your images are definitely photographic art, don't sell yourself short.
Very few people are able to get the lighting and image clarity that you do in your macros.
In China, what he did was probably socially acceptable, but in the rest of the world it is 100% wrong. This is by no means a 'gray' area, it is copyright infringement.
Ebay's rule on copyrighted material:you can't use someone else's picture or text without their permission.
If you believe someone else is using your photos or text without your permission, report it to us.
You're not allowed to use the following if you're not authorized to do so by the owner, its agent, or the law:
Photos and text from other eBay users
Photos and text copied from websites
Scans from catalogs or advertisements
A lot of folks (myself included) don't mind their images being copied, or displayed elsewhere, as long as it does not involve the selling or endorsement of a product. I have had a lot of my photos circulate on the Internet, and I have given permission on my 6 photo websites for images to be copied for personal use only. If someone wants to use my photos in a brochure or an ad, they need to talk to me about money.
It doesn't have to be 'pretty' to be monetized, either.
I understand Foy is not missing out on income due to the use, but since the seller ostensibly made money off it, Foy is potentially due his legal and moral share.
I have had my Intellectual Property 'appropriated,' and the loss of revenue directly affected my family. My wife may have a few things to say about fair use - as in it's fair to use lead pipes on the thieves.
I too feel that 365bid was sincere in his efforts to amend the photo situation. Foy seems to be OK with it. I hope this matter is now put to rest. I placed order with 365bid for UF-C8. Sounds promising with the upgraded driver and all. Hope to see 365bid as one of BLF's vendors
When I started this thread I had no idea it would develop into this! I just posted it as a “Hey, check this out” kind of thing and figured it would get Foy’s attention in case he wanted to do something about it. I too get the impression 365bid is sincere and hope he thinks twice about just swiping any ol’ photo to use in his advertisements.
-Garry
I just sent him another note allowing use. He may not use them because when the whole thing started, I sent a rather pointed e-mail that sounded quite legally threatening. I'm afraid Foy has behaved rather shabbily.
If this had been Manafont or some other large entity I suppose my actions may have been warranted. Things are often not what they appear to be, it seems.
Its one thing to use somebody else's work (I don't care what anyone says, to me its stealing) , but its still not truthful and may mislead people who don't know quite as much as BLFers.
