Home World & Ancient Coins Forum

Scam/no scam and do you think Stacks cares if intellectual property is getting used elsewhere?

We all run across eBay auctions were a seller is flipping a recent auction purchase. No big deal and it's not a business practice that bothers me in the slightest.

That said though, when an auction on eBay is using recognizable photos from a big auction house (like Stacks in this case), it draws my attention.

I actually bid on this coin which is why I noticed. The photos vs. Stacks appear to be slightly off in color and of a lower resolution, but the same. I looked at this coin in hand and the coin's appearance is very unique, in such a way that replicating Stack's shots seems extremely unlikely unless you happen to have the exact same lighting and photo processing set up. Possible but highly improbable given the way the bead patterns look. Compare the full slab shot to the close up. The Stack's close up shots are very distinctive given the in hand look seen in the slab shot (which is also identical in terms of background and cropping).

Plus the auction description has one word changed...seriously. Is that enough to say it's not plagiarism? I mean, it's mostly the identifiers etc, but still. At least TRY and make it look original!

And finally, is this really a coin flipper? Seller's other auctions do not look like s/he is a dude (dude is gender neutral if you are from California by the way) that does coin auctions/flips for a living. Again, possible but not plausible.

In any case I'd written an email to Stacks and then wondered if they would even care. What says the forum?

eBay
Stacks
seller's other items

The wording--maybe 'wholesome' was too fancy a word for eBay! Nothing factually wrong but mix it up a bit!

Fr-40; JNDA 09-87; KM-94. Weight: 3.67 gms. Nice, problem-free gold Bu with well impressed stamps on both sides and complete obverse beaded border.

vs.

Fr-40; JNDA 09-87; KM-94. Weight: 3.67 gms. Wholesome and problem-free gold Bu with well impressed stamps on both sides and complete obverse beaded border.


Comments

  • WillieBoyd2WillieBoyd2 Posts: 5,034 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It is also interesting that the Ebay seller will only ship the coin to a United States address.

    There might be buyers in Japan interested in this (Japan) coin.

    :)

    https://www.brianrxm.com
    The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
    Coins in Movies
    Coins on Television

  • OldhoopsterOldhoopster Posts: 2,930 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Stork said:
    We all run across eBay auctions were a seller is flipping a recent auction purchase. No big deal and it's not a business practice that bothers me in the slightest.

    That said though, when an auction on eBay is using recognizable photos from a big auction house (like Stacks in this case), it draws my attention.

    I actually bid on this coin which is why I noticed. The photos vs. Stacks appear to be slightly off in color and of a lower resolution, but the same. I looked at this coin in hand and the coin's appearance is very unique, in such a way that replicating Stack's shots seems extremely unlikely unless you happen to have the exact same lighting and photo processing set up. Possible but highly improbable given the way the bead patterns look. Compare the full slab shot to the close up. The Stack's close up shots are very distinctive given the in hand look seen in the slab shot (which is also identical in terms of background and cropping).

    Plus the auction description has one word changed...seriously. Is that enough to say it's not plagiarism? I mean, it's mostly the identifiers etc, but still. At least TRY and make it look original!

    And finally, is this really a coin flipper? Seller's other auctions do not look like s/he is a dude (dude is gender neutral if you are from California by the way) that does coin auctions/flips for a living. Again, possible but not plausible.

    In any case I'd written an email to Stacks and then wondered if they would even care. What says the forum?

    eBay
    Stacks
    seller's other items

    The wording--maybe 'wholesome' was too fancy a word for eBay! Nothing factually wrong but mix it up a bit!

    Fr-40; JNDA 09-87; KM-94. Weight: 3.67 gms. Nice, problem-free gold Bu with well impressed stamps on both sides and complete obverse beaded border.

    vs.

    Fr-40; JNDA 09-87; KM-94. Weight: 3.67 gms. Wholesome and problem-free gold Bu with well impressed stamps on both sides and complete obverse beaded border.

    If it bothers you, then there's nothing wrong with notifying the Auction company, since they probably own the copyright to the photo. Whether or not they do anything is up to them. IMO, I wouldn't worry about what happens.

    Not my circus, not my monkey.

    Member of the ANA since 1982
  • pruebaspruebas Posts: 4,302 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Agreed with @Oldhoopster. Assuming the ebay seller actually owns the coin, what's the harm with him using the Stacks auction photo/description to resell it?

    Now, if he doesn't own the coin, if it is a similar coin and not actually the same coin, or some other foul play, that would be different.

  • 291fifth291fifth Posts: 23,898 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Why make someone else's problem your problem? Are you going to get a fee for rendering such a service to a large corporation? Let the corporation worry about it.

    All glory is fleeting.
  • harashaharasha Posts: 3,079 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I now take my own photos for displaying on line, but before I had a decent camera, I used to ask the vendor for permission to use his or her photos. Copyright law is a BFD for me.
    Most vendors seemed to feel that if I bought the item, I also bought the photo. Others, who were more knowledgeable, allowed me to use the photo as long as I identified its origin.

    Honors flysis Income beezis Onches nobis Inob keesis

    DPOTD
  • StorkStork Posts: 5,205 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I tend to over think stuff. It offends my sense of justice knowing the photos are faked/the verbiage is lifted. Even in a low stakes issue. Especially before I'm done with my morning coffee. Oh well. No biggie. I'm sure it's just a flipper. It's not a bad little coin, I liked it enough to bid on in it, but not for the money it went for.


  • bosoxbosox Posts: 1,502 ✭✭✭✭

    That is that morality and ethics stuff the military pounds into us over twenty years. :)

    Numismatic author & owner of the Uncommon Cents collections. 2011 Fred Bowman award winner, 2020 J. Douglas Ferguson award winner, & 2022 Paul Fiocca award winner.

    http://www.victoriancent.com
  • 291fifth291fifth Posts: 23,898 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Do Disney lawyers who enforce their "intellectual property" issues work for free?

    Why should you?

    All glory is fleeting.
  • ZoharZohar Posts: 6,629 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would think that its implied that if you buy the coin you get the image as a bi-product.

  • 291fifth291fifth Posts: 23,898 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Zohar said:
    I would think that its implied that if you buy the coin you get the image as a bi-product.

    Not true. The image belongs to the photographer or to whomever he has sold the rights to the photo. You are only buying the coin unless it is stated in writing that the image comes with it.

    All glory is fleeting.
  • StorkStork Posts: 5,205 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @291fifth said:
    Do Disney lawyers who enforce their "intellectual property" issues work for free?

    Why should you?

    It's that darn sense of justice. It irritates me when people are 'wrong'. I really shouldn't post much before coffee though. And yes @bosox that probably is part of it :D.

    @Zohar said:
    I would think that its implied that if you buy the coin you get the image as a bi-product.

    But that's the rub, photographs are intellectual property and ownership is retained by the ones who created them. You can sell the rights or give permission, but technically the ownership of the photos themselves are not transferred. The internet does not make this obvious by any stretch. And, you don't even have to put the little © on the photo. It helps, but isn't necessary. Public domain laws are on the books regarding this.

    After more caffeine and upon reflection I'm sure Stacks would not care. In fact, if they were smart they could add a small watermark and get free advertising. Some producers of truly artistic and fine work would probably care more, or Disney, etc.

    But, I ask if I am using someone's photo, and have been asked in return (and always have said yes), as these were for non-commercial purposes. If someone wanted to use my photo and made money (highly unlikely) then that is a problem. I did take the time, back when I was actively working on my vanity site, to make all my own pictures--including the non coin ones--my self from my own photos, or from public domain sources.

    Ah well, who knows, in 10 years the in internet may have changed the concept of public domain some more.


  • amwldcoinamwldcoin Posts: 11,269 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Personally I would not get my panties in a wad over this! Why do you say the picture is fake? Is it not a picture of the coin forsale? Obviously a different scenario if it is not the sellers coin!

  • StorkStork Posts: 5,205 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @amwldcoin said:
    Personally I would not get my panties in a wad over this! Why do you say the picture is fake? Is it not a picture of the coin forsale? Obviously a different scenario if it is not the sellers coin!

    Not fake, just lifted from the Stack's auction. Even if he own's the coin he doesn't own the photos. He also lifted the coin description almost word for word. Not that it was a superb or detailed description, just irritating.

    Now he may or may not own the coin too...I'm assuming he does, but it's not unheard of to have eBay auctions using lifted photos and not having the coin at all. This would be an odd choice though as it's a bit esoteric. And nothing really to suggest that other than an oddball list of other items for sale. It was the only coin when I looked last.

    I did win an eBay auction for a coin once (seller in Norway IIRC, not a place I mentally tag as a hotbed of illegal activity) that was a pedigreed slab and the coin had been in the Heritage sale. Only Heritage photos. Rolled the dice and paid for it. It never arrived and I filed a claim, got my money back, and the seller has long since been banned. Don't know if s/he just didn't like the price it went for (less than the Heritage sale) and didn't ship, or if it was a scam from step one. It too would be an odd choice...a Japanese minor in a slab documenting the Norman Jacob's collection. In retrospect I should have asked for a 'live' photo to ensure it was in hand. Just lucky I didn't get mailed something else to show a valid delivery. Sad, I wanted the coin.


  • StorkStork Posts: 5,205 ✭✭✭✭✭

    And this is hardly on par for ethical egregiousness vs. that thread on the liteside. Someone was bragging about scoring a proof 1 oz coin for $25. And admitted in another thread he was buying from a kid who probably wasn't even running the estate sale and/or was worried the kid's mom would intervene. Like actively taking advantage. Legal -- well I don't know as if the kid was under 18 it may not have been legal, but pretend yes. But actively worrying the actual sale runner (the mother) would catch them, ugh. Not ethical at all.


  • YQQYQQ Posts: 3,264 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The creator always owns the Copy Right to the creation, even if it is made with someone else's equipment,
    of course the creator can have contracts with others for whom he creates or sells to.

    Today is the first day of the rest of my life
  • scubafuelscubafuel Posts: 1,723 ✭✭✭✭✭

    its Expensive to pursue a copyright claim and most pictures on the ‘net don’t rise to the level of art that someone would pay to protect.
    Personally when I sell a coin online I consider the pics I use “packaging”, similar to the way a box of Cheerios comes with box art designed to attract the buyer.

Sign In or Register to comment.