This person changed the name of My Creation, Dola, Stole MY picture, and Changed Miss Emily McKenzie, and stole that picture.
I don't know who this person is, but shame on them.
They also "named" something Pretty in Pink, and that one already exists in Canada.
I can count the people on one hand that have Dola, and this is not one of them.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300076320740
Know the person, and plant you are buying.
Ebay Buyers Beware!
I'm sorry, Paul. That's horrible. Have you confronted this person yet?
Gently, gently...
Always with an eye toward enlightenment. Some people are over enthusiastic about selling and don't understand the various protocols.
An invitation to join any of the brug societies is a good idea as well.
If it is innocent error from lack of knowledge and the person is open to gentle pursuasion, a new friend is gained.
If the person is doing this purposely, it will get around to their disadvantage, I'm sure.
Did you notify E-bay?
You're too nice Liz.
Stomp him like bug Paul!!!!
Yikes! And they say the plant is going to have hundreds of blooms this year. Quite the promise. If it seems to good to be true ..... Anyway, I'm more inclined to agree with Gary. LOL
Makes me wanna buy a couple and see what happens, lol.
I can understand your frustration Paul. It's aggravating.
Pretty in Pink is a Monika, grown and named by me. I have recently found the picture of it from my website being used up here. Someone has even been using it as their avatar on a gardening forum. It's irritating when it happens but it's usually people who are new to either ebay or posting that don't understand what's done and what's not done. I've been lucky so far, everyone I've emailed have been decent and removed it. The brug world is very small, considering how many people are now growing them. As gordo said "it will get around to their own disadvantage".
Thank you for bringing this one to my attention.
The person is from Houston, I just got burned brought brugs, he said he grew them all from seed.Now I have some brugs that are unknown
I have his name and address Paul....
I dmail u the information.
This message was edited Feb 1, 2007 9:51 PM
id go to Ebay about it
This message was edited Feb 1, 2007 10:41 PM
Yes, I did just notify ebay. Thanks everyone.
Gary's got the right idea. It's pretty low to not only use your picture but also to change the name. This person isn't a new seller and has been an EBay member since 2004.
Picture robbing is happening more and more and the people using them are getting more brazen.
Recently one of my pictures was used on EBay and when I wrote the seller it was taken down but I was informed by the seller that private and website copyrights are more or less useless.
This is part of the letter I received. It makes me wonder where the respect and honesty has gone.
*****The only way to legitimately copyright your photos is to obtain a copyright form from the United States Government Library of Congress, fill it out, and submit it with a check or money order for the fee and send it off. When the form returns and you are assigned a unique copyright number, you may affix the official seal and number to the photo. From that point on, if anyone uses that photo without your permission, you have the legal right to sue them if you choose.
In lieu of the above, your rights diminish and you are vulnerable to having your photos used elsewhere without the legitimate right to sue.
Websites that apply for or possess legitimate copyrights, through The Library Of Congress, of the material presented within them, would have to update and renew their legitimate copyright every time a single photo was added to the site. There are many kinds of copyrights available and websites that apply for copyright as an inclusive body of work do so with the understanding that legitimately copyrighted photos used with permission therein are covered as part of the body of work.
If the photos are used with permission, but not legitimately copyrighted by their owner through The Library Of Congress, both the owner and the website are vulnerable to their being used elsewhere, without permission and without recourse to sue.
If someone affixes the seal to their photo without officially registering the photo, it is misuse of the copyright symbol and by no means constitutes a legitimate copyright.*****
I hope you get it straightened out, Paul.
Wow, Gary. I wouldn't want to get on your bad side. LOL Just kidding.
(Google "copyright law" for information on the rights of copyright.) Information seems to disagree with that person's understanding of copyright and use of the symbols involved. Isn't it basically true now that if you created it originally, the copyright is yours and MAYBE registered but not necessarily.
if you read his feedback 12 BAD in last few months
That's BAD, because it's very difficult to leave negative feedback on eBay. You have to jump through several hurdles to actually leave one.
He'll probably vanish soon enough and then create a new ebay ID which will be clean as a whistle. He can create another one with no ties to his prior name..and start all over again.....:{
Copyright law in the United States grants copyright to the creator (photographer, illustrator, writer, artist, etc.) at the moment of creation. Under the Copyright laws intent, full legal protection is also granted at that moment. However, the laws intent and the realities of the legal system leave creators without any real protection unless they take the additional step of registering their work with the United States Copyright Office.
Unless a work is registered before a copyright infringement takes place OR within ninety (90) days of first publication, damage awards may be limited to actual damages. This is often the fee a creator would have been paid for the work had it been licensed properly.
The problem comes from the fact that copyright law is a federal law and copyright claims must be prosecuted in Federal court. This can be very expensive. Just filing the claim and initial briefs can cost in excess of $10,000.00! In fact, a protracted copyright case can cost hundreds thousands of dollars in legal and court costs!
If your actual damages are only a few hundred dollars, say for an infringement of photograph in a ¼ page ad in a local newspaper, you need to be really motivated or independently wealthy to bring the case to court.
However, if your images are registered, you are eligible for actual damages as well as up to $200,000 in punitive damages per infringement. And, the courts may (and frequently do) force the infringer to pay all legal and court costs. I have found that the fear of the legal bill is often the leverage that motivates an infringer to settle a claim long before it moves to court. Registration clearly is the big stick for independent creators.
With this in mind, you would assume that creators would avail themselves of this protection. Sadly this is not the case. The Professional Photographers of America recently completed a survey of professional photographers concerning copyright. What they found was astonishing. Less than one percent (1%) of professional photographers registers at least half of their work. Worse yet, ninety-seven percent (97%) of photographers have never registered any of their work!
The main reason photographers gave for not registering was the time and complexity to prepare the submissions. Navigating copyright regulations can create the impression that the process is difficult when, in reality, it is quite easy and straightforward for most. Recent changes in copyright registration procedures, including group (bulk) registration, have greatly simplified the process.
Group registration of photographs allows photographers to register an almost unlimited number of images at one time using a simple form (Short Form VA) and for a single registration fee of $30.00. That is the good news. The bad news is with this simple registration option; the copyright office only receives about 800 group registrations from photographers per year. This is out of 600,000 to 800,000 total registrations annually. The reason for this seems simply to be that photographers are not aware of how easy the procedure to register has become. The procedure is especially easy for photographers who create their images digitally.
A note on the future of the Copyright Office is important. The Copyright Office is moving to an all-digital environment over the next two years. The physical offices will be fully revamped and over 500 employees retrained in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 to accommodate this change. However, even now, the preferred method of registration by the copyright office for photography is j-peg files on CD-ROM.
Here is the simple procedure I use to register all of my work. Keep in mind that you need to register every two months for full protection. Images must be registered before an infringement takes place OR within 90 days of first publication. Registering your current work every two months will keep you within that legal time frame.
You will bulk register all of your images as unpublished images using short form VA. http://www.copyright.gov/forms/formvas.pdf.
1.
Setup a folder on your desktop and label it Copyright
2.
On each assignment you photograph, simply make a low-resolution j-peg copy of each image and drop it in the file.
3.
At the end of the second month, write the folder to CD-ROM
4.
Fill out Short Form VA completely
5.
Write a check to the Register of Copyright for $30.00
6.
Send the submission, in a box, to: Library of Congress, Copyright Office, 101 Independence SE, Washington, DC 20559
Thats all there is to it. Now, lets look a little more in-depth at a few items.
When you set up your desktop folder, you want to make sure that you place images in the folder as part of your regular workflow on each assignment. This makes sure it is done on an ongoing basis. It also prevents you from having to go back every two months and gather all of the images for the registration.
The j-pegs only need to be large enough to view on a computer monitor. I use 5x7 images at 72ppi and use high compression to save space.
All you need on the CD-ROM are the j-peg (or tiff or giff) files. You no longer need to include software to open the images.
Make sure to fill out Short Form VA completely and make sure to sign the document. Any blank areas will result in your submission being returned.
For the title use something like I do Assignment and Personal Photographs of James Cavanaugh from 11-1-04 through 12-31-04
Items sent to the copyright office must go through a series of security checks to protect against possible terrorist threats like anthrax. This includes irradiating all envelopes with a very high dose of radiation. This can cause damage to the paperwork (It burns!) and the CD-ROM (They melt!). Send your submission in a box. The boxes are hand opened off site and are scanned for threats but not irradiated. I use the small FedEx box.
Now, if you do not shoot with digital cameras there are other deposit forms you can use instead of the CD-ROM. You can include proof sheets or photocopies of the images. It is important if the images are in color that the proofs or color copies be in color. If you use primarily transparency film, you can make 35mm slide copies of up to 30 images on a single slide and use that. For more information visit www.copyright.gov.
Now this procedure deals with registering new images as you are creating them. What about images that are older that you want to register?
You can group register any old unpublished work on a single form as outlined above. The images do not have to be from the same calendar year and you can go back as far as 1989.
For images that have been published you may now also group register. However, the images must be from the same calendar year and you must use the regular (long) Form VA. There are specific image deposit requirements that must be followed. For more information on bulk registering published work, visit: www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.html#special and look at the requirements for group registration of published work.
You may also register individual images using form VA and you must include two copies of the image as published. This is the procedure you will be required to use in the case of a copyright claim if the image was not previously registered. You may also use this method for important individual images that have been published. Keep in mind that the registration fee in these cases is $30.00 per image!
By registering all of your new work as unpublished every two months, you will fall in the 90-day regulation of first publication and gain the full legal protection of the copyright laws. By registering every two months, your cost will be $180.00 in registration fees each year. This is the best and cheapest insurance you can buy. If you set up your systems so that new work is put in your copyright registration folder as you complete each assignment, copyright registration should take you thirty minutes or less every other month. It is time well spent.
Liz
It sounds like you are defending the person who did that to Terry (Snowhermit), who is a well known hybrizer and I personally have alot of admiration and respect for as well as others I have been forunate enough to know through the forum and correspond with. There is something that is known as "ethics" in this wonderful world and MOST people have it. Some like to cheat, lie, steal or do anything for the almighty $$$. Guess what?? They lose everything in the end! Including respect! And that is what MOST people would rather have than $$$
All your "words" in this post may be factual (by the way they are some flaws) but to me you are trying to cover someone's misdeeds...maybe your own?
Linda
"Friend to all serious Brug Addicts"
WOW Linda, I did not take it that way at all!
Just goes to show, how different people read things differently.
Thanks for the info Liz!
I leave it to individuals to use their own minds and experience to draw whatever conclusions they may about whatever is being discussed.
The information is neither an accusation nor a defense. It is useful information presented to inform and nothing more. It is an article written by a professional photographer, not myself.
After having posted thousands of advertisements using my own photos, I mistakenly posted Terry's photo
(downloaded from the Brugmansia Family Tree file at a Brugmansia Society - .a downloadable .pdf provided by the Society) when I was unwell and somewhat distracted. When he brought it to my attention, I apologized, killed the ad and provided him a copy of my own photo of the plant to prove it was an error. There is little more I can do beyond apology.
As far as cheating, lying and stealing for $$$ goes...I can't be very good at it, as I am church mouse poor and invest whatever I earn back into soil, pots and fertilizer.
For my part, I've had a number of photos hijacked. Knowing the limitations of options available, I opted not to pursue litigation (churchmouse) or pillory the person in the public square. We came to a gentle understanding and I ultimately invited the person to join the Brugmansia Society. It ended there. I believe great things can be accomplished when individuals are approached with courtesy and a sense of humor.
As far as being involved in high crimes, I have little time for such and am a rather gentle soul.
Hmm, I didn't take it that way either.?
I think this should all stop before things are said that can not be taken back Paul H
Liz,
I took your post as an informative piece of information, not as a defense of someone's wrong doing's.
And if you and Terry have worked out the mistake you made, then it is water under the bridge.
Also, I have had my pictures used without permission on eBay listings, Yes it is upsetting to know that some people will use someone else's work without asking. But at least Liz owned up to her MISTAKE and made it right. That is a lot more than I got when I had to inform people that they were using my photos without my consent.
Like Paul said, we need to watch what we say.
JMHO
Really, lets not have a another fight on the Brug Forum. What starts elsewhere should stay elsewhere. Gordo is relatively a new poster here and I sure do not want her chased away. She has brought such great pictures and fun threads to us all here.
Lets get back to brugs!! PINK ones!!!
FYI! Just for everyone's info - Terry (that would be Snowhermit --who is VERY well respected in the Brug community --is a female NOT a "he"!) Just goes to show ya gotta do your homework
Bump
Hows this one Look ?
LOL!! I love it Paul but wheres the pink? Who's the sweet pooch?
Never mind I see now Brooklyn. Wesley is looking Hot these days!
This message was edited Feb 2, 2007 6:33 PM
Thats My Daughter Broklyn a white blue eyed Doberman
is that Jack Dempsy? i use to Box in the Army Light Middle Weight
Liz is one of the good guys....too good sometimes...that's why she's my friend!
We can all solve this problem if we put a watermark with our name or some kind of identifier on each and every photo we post online. An opaque identifier will make it much more difficult (although not impossible) for someone to use our photos without intentionally altering the photos and making it obvious that they intended to "steal" the photo outright.....
This message was edited Feb 2, 2007 10:21 PM
Was that really necessary, Linda?
I am sure we all know Terry is Snowhermit.
liz
I took your post as an informative piece of information, not as a defense of someone's wrong doing's.Liz I for one love reading your posts you are always nice and very informative..... which there are some people that no matter what is posted find something wrong with it..It must be aweful to always be looking for a fight with someone...
Linda ,Yes we all know Terry is snowhermit and that she is a woman.....
Now as Kell says lets talk Brugs, I want a double red or a purple one.. Kell Get busy now..you too are well known and repected in the brug world..
Yes Gary Liz is one of the sweetest persons I know .... Just ask Boo....
Elva¢¾
This message was edited Feb 2, 2007 10:44 PM
That information could be useful to people that are professional, but most of us here just enjoy taking some shots to share with our Brug friends. Whether we can prosecute someone for stealing a picture or not doesn't make it any less morally wrong for someone to steal a picture to use on eBay or anywhere else. It's happened to several people on this site, and they've all been a little annoyed about it. In this case, the person is misrepresenting a plant for sale. The one pictured has limited distribution and they're all known by the hybridizer, so the one she/he has for sale just CAN'T be it. The likelihood of a 'mistake' having been made by the lister is somewhere between slim and none. (Even if her/his IQ is the same as their shoe size) Then to make it a double whammy it's called by a name that's already claimed for another plant. All in all, it adds up to a seller that I'd never trust, and certainly wouldn't invite to be a friend.
I'm glad for the warning Paul. Looks like the auction ended without any bids. Hopefully they'll slink away and limit themselves to some other hobby/career.
Well said Elva! Heres a double purple for you... yea not a brug but its the best I can do. ;o)
Thank You !
Elva