Not to mention the fact that they might be mis-representing the condition of the real item for sale by showing a picture of an item in better condition than the actual item for sale. The new picture they put up looks like it might have been some kind of commercial ad photo. They should post the fact that the picture is not of the actual item but a picture of another item of the same make and model. In this case, since they didn't remove any of Boz's marks from the picture, they probably were trying to be honest in this respect. Though there is no shortage of naive folks shopping on ebay.
Len --- -----Original Message----- From: Aaron Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 1:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: More image theft... On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 01:54 PM, Bob Blakely wrote: > In other words, just because you infer something not said inside > something I have said > doesn't mean that I actually implied it. Sorry, Bob, I did not mean to attach to you an opinion that is not yours. Boz's site has a clearly identified terms of use statement, in which the borrowing of his images for eBaying and the like is forbidden. I would argue that what these people are doing is actually theft, in that they are breaking someone else's terms of use to use an image that they did not generate in order to make money. If an image of mine turned up on a billboard advertising a product, I would want compensation. I would also want compensation if the billboard is not physical, but on the internet. -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
