What do you think?

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!!!

Oregon,
It doesn't matter whether the photo is "crappy" or not. It doesn't matter whether the object in the photo is "inanimate" or not. It doesn't matter whether the item in the photo is of low value. All that matters is that it wasn't your photo to begin with. If a burglar takes your Amplifiers it's no defense that the amps are "crappy", "inanimate", or "low value". All that matters is that he didn't have your permission to take your property. There are no photographs on the internet that you are permitted to use unless you obtain the photographers release, or permission, or unless that permission/release is expressly granted in a statement alongside the photo.

Commcat: 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.

That is correct, and Elevick's statement about the law is incorrect. Notwithstanding the fact that violations occur all the time, which are too minor or too impractical to pursue.

Regards,
-- Al

Sorry, Oregon, you were wrong. The purpose, hopefully, of showing a real life photo as opposed to stock manufacturer is to show that you actually have it, and perhaps the condition of the unit. It doesn't necessarily mean you have it, but going on trust it should. Ebay is experiencing great problems due to this.
Also, by stating you used without permission is rather startling on its own. It makes you suspect.