Ebay--reproductions, theft, copyright, etc...

[grandduchessella]

This one:

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/mm793-4-young-Granduchesses-daughters-of-Czar-Nicholas-II-Royalty-photo-/290868238563?pt=UK_Collectables_Postcards_MJ&hash=item43b91918e3&_uhb=1#ht_2943wt_1105

is listed as 'no longer available' but not sold so I would imagine the seller removed it.

 

[Neeosine]

I do not see anything that is left of the colored pictures but this one that you were talking about earlier:


It was most likely colored by someone from deviantART or other websites, but still, no matter who it is that colored any photo, selling another's hard work is not acceptable.

[Carolath Habsburg]

It was made by the same artist who did that one of Victoria and Beatrice

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dagmar_colour.jpg

[rosieposie]

I think  I will lodge a complaint too.  I'm assuming the seller must have seen this thread or eBay contacted them.

[blessOTMA]

for years  that seller has sold simple black and white photos reproductions ( and saying they are such)
But taking people's colour work and selling them is freaking unbelievable.

[rosieposie]

I know Bless it is outrageous.  As I said before it is laughable they are selling the black & white, sepia photos which any one of us can go to a photo lab print out the same pic for as less as 10 cents.  I saw their feed back someone was trilled to get their copy of an OTM photo.  Poor person not thinking there right.  What makes it worse is the seller watermarking the pictures when the pictures are common place.   As for the colored pictures again it really made me so mad. I had to bring it to your attention.

[rosieposie]

Do you think in the next Colored thread that crops up that we should make a disclaimer that from now on the colorer should watermark their work?   Then give examples to stop people like this seller profiting from others work?

[blessOTMA]

It should be stronly suggested now and then at least  I have started to put my name to posted work as well . It's the only way to be sure one gets credit. This is funny because after I posted about this ,I remember last year the seller was offering prints of a photo I posted on AP and said in the ad " scanned from an original photograph " and I wrote to them " yeah an original photo posted on AP !"  . It then disappeared. But I had not coloured it! That part really ticks me off .  Taking someone's colour work and selling it is a bridge too far as the saying goes. 

[rosieposie]

Just looked at how many feedback the seller has profited by this.  53444 GBP.

[blessOTMA]

Wow. Another point about people water marking coloured photos is then it will be less likely the photos will be thought from the Romanov time.
I have started to see confusion about that . The seller sold repros at a modest price for years...but has gone a stray by selling other's work imo

[Jen_94]

Wow, quite a profit from selling coloured photos that aren't even his?  Wow....and those buyers probably don't know they don't belong to him either...

[rosieposie]

Ooops I got that much from the total of reviews he has recieved.  So it would have been a mix of old postcards, selling "digital" prints of both sepia, black & white, colored photos. 

[Jen_94]

Ahh okay! I'm keeping an eye on what is going on there...just in case I see any colourings that look rather familiar.

Even though putting your name on the photos DOES show it is your own, there is a chance that the seller could erase that in photoshop, or crop it out (if the copyright is at the bottom).

[rosieposie]

That is why it best to place a water mark on them.   Maybe I can post some examples?

[Jen_94]

Some examples would be good! Please, do post some.