New seller re-using photographs

[jaydentaku]

You're right. It is a moral outrage.

[JellyKnees]

Wow, this is all getting very Daily Mail... sheesh, the guy only nicked a photo of a bass off an old advert ffs It might well have been a very good photo, but it's hardly a piece of art is it?

[discreet]

[quote name='JellyKnees' timestamp='1358520535' post='1940737']
Wow, this is all getting very Daily Mail...[size=4][/quote][/size]
[size=4]Rubbish. [/size][size=4]Anyone who steals eBay pics is worse than HITLER![/size]

Edited January 18, 2013 by discreet

[Protium]

If you don't want people using your pictures, put a watermark on them.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Protium

[Mr. Foxen]

Downloading your material and using it for commercial purposes?

[The Dark Lord]

I am very disappointed by this.

[the boy]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1358441663' post='1939277']
So you'd all be happy to buy a bass when the photos advertising it are several months and one owner out of date?
[/quote]
Yes I would as long as the photos were tastefully done and not smutty.

Edited January 22, 2013 by the boy

[chrismuzz]

The guy probably did it out of ignorance, not realising that it's bad form. I wouldn't be angry AT him. Although he should have asked permission first, as well as stating in the ad that the pictures are however old, and from the previous seller.

[Beer of the Bass]

Leaving out any copyright concerns, I absolutely won't consider buying something something if I spot that the pictures are not the seller's. This is not so much for intellectual property reasons, but because he's just as likely to be a scammer selling a non-existent item with pictures taken off google images. This tends to be more of an issue on Gumtree than eBay though.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Beer of the Bass

[lefrash]

As others have said, it will be more down to the seller's ignorance rather than him trying to deceive. If they are nice photos and they portray the guitar's condition then I would probably have been guilty of it myself!