What do you think?


I was just reading through the new ads today. I came across a listing of an item, one of which I just sold. Well guess what, my picture had been lifted to use in this ad.
I have already sold my piece, but I think the seller should have emailed me first to ask permission. I will say the caption under pic said "taken from another ad without permission". Kind of surprising.
Ag insider logo xs@2xmuzikat
Legally speaking, once you put it on the internet, it becomes public property (ask these idiot movie stars caught emailing nude photos).
Ethically, the seller should have made sure that this was footnoted clearly as a "sample" picture. Should he/she ask your permission? Why? You don't own the photo any more, there is no representation of the photo pertaining to you personally and you are not being misrepresented in any manner.
It's not like he broke into your hard drive and stole the photo?
If it bugs you so much, learn how to use photoshop and put a watermark on all of your photos.
I have emailed the seller and suggested that he should have contacted me. One issue that has come up is that my pic/ad included an optional power supply. The power supply is pictured in my photo, but by his own admission he is not sure if a power supply is even inside his unopened box.
I think it is just wrong, legally maybe not, ethically certainly.
Muzikat, I love ya, BUT I think you're making much ado about nothing on this one. If it was a pic of my child, wife, etc. then, yes, I agree. As I understand it, we're talkng about a component here. No harm, no foul. Just don't see it your way on this one.
Elevick,
How does Muzikats intellectual property become everyone's property??

The fact that a photo is published on the internet does not mean that the photographer has given up his rights to the photo. The example you use, movie stars, is an exception in the law which permits the dissemination of information regarding public figures.

The photos Muzikat posted on the internet remain his intellectual property unless he expressly releases title to the photos. The use of the photos by another person or entity without Muzikats permission is legally actionable.
Hey everybody!
It was I who USED Muzikat's photo.
Frankly, I'm surprised at his response (2 emails sent to me). In the ad, I noted that I used the photo without permission. The item is a $300 phono pre in a sealed box. I hesitated about taking someone's photo to include in my ad, but since his item had already sold, I felt it would not do the person any harm.
My item is in a sealed box, never opened, never used. I did not want to open the box, "just to take a photo" since this is a red flag to me that the item is likely used and merely replaced back into the box.
As to his suggestion that I misreprented the item with regards to the power supply, HE is not being truthful! In his email he asked me if the phono had the OBH-2 power supply, I said I don't know. I am not aware of a 1 or a 2. The box does not say one or the other was my response to Muzi(photo)kat.
I have had 2 of these Creek phono stages, identical to the one I posted. I have since given 2 of them away to friends. I know what's in the box- phono amp, wall wart and power supply. There is a power supply included. I would never sell it without a power supply! I don't need to open the box myself to see what's there. So much for his hysterical accusations.
I can see if el gato's photo was an Ansell Adams. Or, an Andy warkat's, but a crappy picture taken on his living room carpet of an inanimate object worth $200 (his)?
Get a life!!!