Interesting find on GunBroker

F

Freakdaddy

New member
As most everyone else here, I was on GunBroker checking out the various one's I'm interested in and looking for that good deal. Imagine my surprise when I actually see a photo of MY gun up for sale. I would like to think the guy is just using it as a photo to represent what he has as it doesn't show any serial #'s or list those in the description. They also aren't including the holster, mags and mag carrier either. Still, I sent an email to GunBroker to let them know what's going on. I'll give it until the end of today before I contact the seller if GunBroker doesn't take care of it. Just another lesson to be careful with what pics you post on the net.

Here's the listing followed by pictures I've taken:
http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=125080205

DSC01336_edited.jpg


Same gun, different setup:
DSC01332.jpg
 
I would like to think the guy is just using it as a photo to represent what he has
Click to expand...
Then he should have stated that in the ad. I always tell folks if it's pics of the actual gun...especially if I'm selling it.
 
Then he should have stated that in the ad. I always tell folks if it's pics of the actual gun...especially if I'm selling it.
Click to expand...

I agree and that's what I told GunBroker as it's misleading to bidders.
 
Look at the seller's feedback: Only 11 comments and 2 of the are "F's". This seems particularly fishy to me. You might want to contact the bidders and the ultimate buyer yourself and let them know that the photo is of your gun....
 
True Creature, but still not on the up and up IMO. Makes me wonder what the actual gun looks like. Did his kid put it in mommy's dryer, or the blender? Maybe used it for a hammer? :confused:

I wanna see the actual produce I'm buying. Kinda like someone saying all " insert brand here", look like this file pic...no they don't. Not everyone takes the same care of their guns.
 
It is the responsibility of the buyer to beware. The buyer should be asking certain SIMPLE questions before actually plunking down his or her hard earned money....such as is that a photo of the actual product?

Never assume anything especially when you cant actually lay your grubby paws on the product before actually buying it.
 
Last edited:
Freakdaddy, nice photos...nice enough to put a watermark on 'em of sorts. That ought to deter most folks from using them, if not the photoshop-inclined ones.
 
Copyright resides with the photographer, unless the rights are transferred/sold...>

...you don't need to include a copyright mark on your photos. Watermarks, etc, may or may not help in preventing them being used without permission, but it is not a requirement for copyright. The photographer owns the copyright automatically when they produce the image.

This seller is breaching copyright law, apart from being misleading to potential buyers. Whether Gunbroker will do anything about it or not is up to their policy on this. Ebay, for example, will pull auctions if you supply sufficient info to prove you hold copyright, (links to prior dated postings will generally do the trick). I've done this quite few times when my photos (non-firearm) have been stolen.
 
Last edited:
Unless your photos are copyrighted, anyone can use them for whatever they want.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I am a Member of the Professional Photographers of West Virginia. You do not have to copyright your image. As soon as you push the shutter down it is copyrighted and your property, if you are taking photos of for a business, for example where you work and that is your job, they own the photograph not you. It is a good idea to put a copyright on your photo because then not one can reproduce it.

Threaten them with a lawsuit and see how fast the photo comes done.


What is Copyright?
The U.S. Constitution and the Federal Copyright Act give "copyright" protection to "authors" for their "original works," such as photographs. Among the protections that copyright owners have are the exclusive rights to:
1. Make copies of the work
2. Prepare other works based on the original
3. Distribute copies of the work to the public by sales, rental, lease, or lending
4. To publicly perform and display the work.
These rights are protected by laws which provide for damages and criminal penalties for violations. Both the customer and the lab are subject to the law.

Who Owns What?
The law says the "author" is the owner of the copyright. The author of a photo or image is usually the person who snapped the shutter or created the image. If you took the photo, you own the copyright. If a professional photographer took the photo for you, then he or she owns the copyright. If that photographer is an employee of a studio or other person in the business of making photos, then his or her employer is considered the author.
Prior to 1978, court cases said a customer who commissioned a photo was the employer of the photographer, so customers could get reprints made without any problem. In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court said that was no longer true. To be an employee, the court said a person would have to be considered an employee under the traditional tests such as are used to impose payroll taxes, social security, and similar laws. That is not the usual customer-photographer relationship.
Click to expand...

http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/consumer/doingMore/copyright.shtml
 
Last edited:
I hear so much negative crap about gun broker, that I never go there unless someone posts a link they want you to see. Probably some of the same kind of people that sell at gun shows around here.
 
Unless your photos are copyrighted, anyone can use them for whatever they want.
Click to expand...

As a professional graphic designer, I must concur with the above posters that this statement is 100% wrong.

I think you should contact the seller immediately.
 
I have run into the same problem multiple times on Gunbroker. Gunbroker is very slow to respond and in several cases did nothing about the picture use (or did not contact the seller in time).
 
One more thing, for anyone that post on one of those photos sites like Flickr. Make sure before you post anything to read the term and conditions, most of those site stipulated when you post a photo the copyright transfers to them as an agreement of being able to post on their site, so you no longer own your photos, they do. Some don’t and some do, so read carefully.
 
I sent the seller this question via gunbroker

"Hi there. I'm interested in this Kimber Item #125080205. My question is.. While I realize the second picture is a stock photo, is the first picture a photo of the actual gun the winning bidder will receive or is it also a stock photo ?

Thanks,
-Jay T."


If he responds, I will post his response here.
 
I avoid contacting the seller if at all possible...>

...it may be effective in some cases, but these sellers generally know what they are doing. They have stolen your photo because they can't produce their own that is as good. They know it will help sell their item (if, indeed, they even have a real item for sale). They are using it for financial gain and are often none too happy when you confront them about it. Unless you use a throw-away email address they have your contact details and may decide to cause you problems later.

I think the best approach is what the original poster has done here, contact the website on which the ad/auction is being hosted. It's important that you state very clearly that your intellectual/artistic property has been stolen and is being used without your permission. State that you desire the website to remove the copyrighted image(s) (or description - text gets stolen also). Give enough supporting evidence showing that you have produced and posted the images prior to the illegal use.

Unfortunately many people think, "What's the problem, it's just a photo?" Yeah, well, the seller thinks it's worth their while to steal the image to make a sale. They think it has value. Photographers also think their own work has value. Some have spent a lot of time, effort and money to be able to create such images. Not everyone can do it.
 
Last edited:
I stand corrected. But the threat of a lawsuit is one thing....and going through with it is another. Actually retaining a lawyer to pursue a lawsuit in this particular case is probably not cost beneficial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top