MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Ebay perfume ruling and Stock Photography ......  (Read 4512 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 22, 2009, 23:42 »
0
Ebay won a court ruling in the UK this week, L'Oreal one of the big perfume companies claimed Ebay was jointly responsible for the goods they sell being genuine, there are several cases with the first few going against L'Oreal, and the court ruling that Ebay were not jointly liable for the goods they advertised being genuine, so this puts the liability firmly back with the seller, and I can not see companies like L'Oreal going after the little Ebay sellers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8064066.stm

If we look at it from a stock imaging perspective, this means that the stocksites are not responsible for the content of photographers (vendors) goods, which they examine and allow into thier library.

Stocksites are like Ebay and do not own the goods only act as a merchant, after this ruling I wonder if this now effects liability for things like cloning, fit for purpose, IP infringment etc, and image buying customers, if there is a violation and claims against the image buyer, with any cross claims there would be no point the buyer going after the stocksites and the courts could only really come after the contributing photographers, as this ruling states the merchant is not liable for any goods they sell where the third party owns the goods.

David ;D
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 23:49 by Adeptris »


« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2009, 01:48 »
0
I think legal liability has always been on the photographer and not the stock sites. The sites do what they do (inspect, require releases, etc) to create confidence amongst buyers, not to protect the producers.

« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2009, 05:59 »
0
As a photographer YOU are responsable for any image you submit to any site. If there are lawsuits for fraud, fake Model releases, missing Property releases, etc., The lawsuit will be naming the site and the photographer, but the end result is the photographer is the one to end up in court. As a photographer YOU are the suppler and the responsable party.

On the other hand you have released your images to a stock site to sell and protect your interest as well as theirs .... sounds good ..... But when did you last hear of a stock site taking a image thief to court and suing the crap out of them? Never!

If your a Pro Photographer with a studio and belong to the PPA (Professional photographers of America) and some one violates your copyright they will sick their lawyers on them big time and win. every time! (I retired from the PPA in 2002)

No one is protecting the interest of stock photographers. And thousands of images are stolen every day, many at full resolution with purchases made by stolen credit cards. You and I get nothing for this and no help in stopping it.

This business needs some big changes before it falls flat on it's face and photographers quit like flies. As an old timer (72 yrs old this June) I have seen many industries come and go.

If I was not fully retired I would quit right now. I do not need the money and have nothing else to do, so I will go along with the system until it collapes on to its self. (Soon)

My 2 cents,
-Larry
« Last Edit: May 23, 2009, 06:02 by Lcjtripod »

« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2009, 06:53 »
0
to my knowledge it has always been that any problem with the use of an image is either the purchasers fault or the photographers (and usually it is blamed on photog, editorial use?)

« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2009, 07:20 »
0
I wouldn't go so far as to say that stock sites take no responsibility in copyright infringement, IP,etc...  As in any business, it's a two way street. If I stock goods on consignment, my customers take that I have been vigilant and not to fence stolen property. Likewise for the stock sites, if as a buyer I am being hurt once too many times from using images that are questionable, there comes a time that I will say enough is enough. Time is money, regardless of the outcome. A stock site that turns a blind eye at the review stage is only going to shoot itself in the foot. That is, unless they plan to close shop as soon as they take the money and run.

To my knowledge, there are certain sites that take this IP, MR, requirement very seriously, and these are the sites that will stay viable as their buyers have the confidence of their reviewers being vigilant in this sense.

« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2009, 11:09 »
0
If a seller knowingly sells fake perfume, he's committed fraud.  But if a buyer sprays it in someone's eye's, the buyer has committed assault, not the seller.  We aren't responsible for all the uses to which our photos might be put.   The law has concepts like "intent" and "good faith".   

« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2009, 16:48 »
0
<...>Stocksites are like Ebay and do not own the goods only act as a merchant<...>
no, stocksites aren't like eBay:
* eBay is the tool, but every purchase is a transaction between the seller (not eBay) and the buyer. Yes, eBay takes commission from the seller, but there is no sale contract between eBay and the buyer
* stocksites do sell to the buyer, not the photographers. There is sale transaction between the buyer and stocksite, not between buyer and photographers.

This makes it fundamentally different - as stocksites do sell something, they are responsible for what they sell.

« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2009, 18:50 »
0
<...>Stocksites are like Ebay and do not own the goods only act as a merchant<...>
no, stocksites aren't like eBay:
* eBay is the tool, but every purchase is a transaction between the seller (not eBay) and the buyer. Yes, eBay takes commission from the seller, but there is no sale contract between eBay and the buyer
* stocksites do sell to the buyer, not the photographers. There is sale transaction between the buyer and stocksite, not between buyer and photographers.

This makes it fundamentally different - as stocksites do sell something, they are responsible for what they sell.

Exactely what I was about to reply, Thanks Miklav

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2009, 19:01 »
0
<...>Stocksites are like Ebay and do not own the goods only act as a merchant<...>
no, stocksites aren't like eBay:
* eBay is the tool, but every purchase is a transaction between the seller (not eBay) and the buyer. Yes, eBay takes commission from the seller, but there is no sale contract between eBay and the buyer
* stocksites do sell to the buyer, not the photographers. There is sale transaction between the buyer and stocksite, not between buyer and photographers.

This makes it fundamentally different - as stocksites do sell something, they are responsible for what they sell.

Exactely what I was about to reply, Thanks Miklav

Yes, excellent point Miklav

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2009, 04:04 »
0
to my knowledge it has always been that any problem with the use of an image is either the purchasers fault or the photographers (and usually it is blamed on photog, editorial use?)

Do you have examples of this? If a photog. on a site which sells editorial indicates No MR and restricts the usages to editorial, how can they be responsible if a buyer uses and image in another way? I'd think that was the responsibility of the buyer, like the abuse of iStock images by the BNP party, contrary to iStock's T&C:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/local-elections/5331700/British-pensioners-on-BNP-election-leaflet-are-actually-Italian-models.html

RacePhoto

« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2009, 09:31 »
0
<...>Stocksites are like Ebay and do not own the goods only act as a merchant<...>
no, stocksites aren't like eBay:
* eBay is the tool, but every purchase is a transaction between the seller (not eBay) and the buyer. Yes, eBay takes commission from the seller, but there is no sale contract between eBay and the buyer
* stocksites do sell to the buyer, not the photographers. There is sale transaction between the buyer and stocksite, not between buyer and photographers.

This makes it fundamentally different - as stocksites do sell something, they are responsible for what they sell.

Thank You for saving me the time to try to say the same thing and explain why hosting products, including photos, for sellers (eBay) is not the same as marketing photos for sellers (stock).

I am beginning to buy into, the end user is responsible for how a photo is used, argument. If I sell you a pencil and you use it to poke someone in the eye, is that my fault? If I sell you a photo as editorial only and you use it for something else, it's not my fault. If I sell a photo without a model or property release, it's the users responsibility, not the photographer. All the BS about registered logos, trademarks, colors and shapes, is the responsibility of the BUYER.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3654 Views
Last post August 26, 2006, 07:15
by Wisent
13 Replies
6137 Views
Last post February 01, 2009, 00:59
by lephotography
53 Replies
9693 Views
Last post February 02, 2012, 16:38
by doglikehorse
12 Replies
3877 Views
Last post May 01, 2012, 02:00
by Microbius
15 Replies
6399 Views
Last post May 22, 2013, 17:23
by cascoly

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle