Are These Authentic Ghandi Ink?

[SamCapote]

Yeah, I totally agree with you on the heart of your issue. Mine was more wondering out loud on what is actually required to make a claim of copyright (vs. the common courtesy we all deserve before our photos are "borrowed"). I'm not a lawyer either (Thank God!), but when I go to various websites that have professional photos for sale, they have the copyright information as a label or watermark on the photo....and/or websites have notices that the entire content of their website is copyright protected.

 

Please don't see my "wondering" about the legal requirements as a criticism. I support your issue wholeheartedly, and it is hard to understand what they were thinking when they took your photo review--especially with your name on it as you said.

[todayilearned]

Yeah, I totally agree with you on the heart of your issue. Mine was more wondering out loud on what is actually required to make a claim of copyright (vs. the common courtesy we all deserve before our photos are "borrowed"). I'm not a lawyer either (Thank God!), but when I go to various websites that have professional photos for sale, they have the copyright information as a label or watermark on the photo....and/or websites have notices that the entire content of their website is copyright protected.

 

Please don't see my "wondering" about the legal requirements as a criticism. I support your issue wholeheartedly, and it is hard to understand what they were thinking when they took your photo review--especially with your name on it as you said.

 

I'm curious too...

 

The pictures he put in his review are his property and people need to ask permission. What I'm in the grey about is the fact they are hosted on photobucket. When they get uploaded to photobucket or facebook don't they become public? I mean if I hypothetically went on his photobucket account and decided to use the picture of his cat in the fridge could I use it?

[NeelsK]

 

 

I'm curious too...

 

The pictures he put in his review are his property and people need to ask permission. What I'm in the grey about is the fact they are hosted on photobucket. When they get uploaded to photobucket or facebook don't they become public? I mean if I hypothetically went on his photobucket account and decided to use the picture of his cat in the fridge could I use it?

 

No,

 

Absolutely not. According to US copyright, if you find a picture/photo on the web and there are no owner information on the photo, you have to make a reasonable effort to identify the owner (and be able to show you did) and ask permission. If the owner cant be found through reasonable effort, the photo may be used until someone claims and can prove ownership. This is part of the "Orphaned Works" legislation. You can easily google it. This does NOT grant free license to use anything you find on the web.

 

For commercial photos it is always best to register them with the US copyright office, even if you live in another country.

[NeelsK]

Ah, I might have spoken too soon. The Act was PROPOSED. I'm not 100% if it actually passed through congress. I will try to follow up and let you know.

[Chrissy]

I hope I can manage to buy some Gandhi and Hitchcock ink from this seller before he runs out completely.

 

Sadly I have to wait until just before I visit Florida so that I can take advantage of his US shipping

[kushbaby]

Yeah, I totally agree with you on the heart of your issue. Mine was more wondering out loud on what is actually required to make a claim of copyright (vs. the common courtesy we all deserve before our photos are "borrowed"). I'm not a lawyer either (Thank God!), but when I go to various websites that have professional photos for sale, they have the copyright information as a label or watermark on the photo....and/or websites have notices that the entire content of their website is copyright protected.

 

Please don't see my "wondering" about the legal requirements as a criticism. I support your issue wholeheartedly, and it is hard to understand what they were thinking when they took your photo review--especially with your name on it as you said.

 

Oh, I didn't think you were criticizing - no worries.

 

I went through this when working on an educational project, and have discussed it with librarians with information technology expertise as well as our lawyers. The owner of the copyright of an image is the person who fixed the image to the medium - the person who took the photo in this case. If you take a picture, any picture, you own the copyright. Marking them as "copyright so-and-so" is a reminder to folks that you have the copyright (usually more likely to be added if a photo has a high likelihood of being snagged, or if that photo is part of someone's livelihood/business), but that does not mean that you have to mark up the photo or post a notice to own the copyright.

 

If it's not yours, you have to ask permission, unless it is specifically already granted (some folks will note on their sites that you may freely use an image if it is appropriately attributed). Not everybody does, but you are supposed to. In practice, it generally only comes up when it is business related though (taken or used for the buying or selling of stuff).

 

All of this discussion, of course, is more clarifying my impressions of how copyright works for images. For this particular instance, I wanted it taken down because he didn't have permission from me. I was going to wait to see if he did before reporting to eBay. (I'd rather not escalate and be a jerk about it, but it does include my username on it - and at least one person on this thread postulated that he might be me, esp. as he's in Texas.) As it is, all of the bottles are now sold, and the listing has ended. I have added him to my saved sellers to check back if he lists any more.

 

(edit- grammar/tense)

Edited June 21, 2012 by kushbaby

[leod]

all gone, that was fast

[SamCapote]

Yeah, I totally agree with you on the heart of your issue. Mine was more wondering out loud on what is actually required to make a claim of copyright (vs. the common courtesy we all deserve before our photos are "borrowed"). I'm not a lawyer either (Thank God!), but when I go to various websites that have professional photos for sale, they have the copyright information as a label or watermark on the photo....and/or websites have notices that the entire content of their website is copyright protected.

 

Please don't see my "wondering" about the legal requirements as a criticism. I support your issue wholeheartedly, and it is hard to understand what they were thinking when they took your photo review--especially with your name on it as you said.

 

Oh, I didn't think you were criticizing - no worries.

 

I went through this when working on an educational project, and have discussed it with librarians with information technology expertise as well as our lawyers. The owner of the copyright of an image is the person who fixed the image to the medium - the person who took the photo in this case. If you take a picture, any picture, you own the copyright. Marking them as "copyright so-and-so" is a reminder to folks that you have the copyright (usually more likely to be added if a photo has a high likelihood of being snagged, or if that photo is part of someone's livelihood/business), but that does not mean that you have to mark up the photo or post a notice to own the copyright.

 

If it's not yours, you have to ask permission, unless it is specifically already granted (some folks will note on their sites that you may freely use an image if it is appropriately attributed). Not everybody does, but you are supposed to. In practice, it generally only comes up when it is business related though (taken or used for the buying or selling of stuff).

 

All of this discussion, of course, is more clarifying my impressions of how copyright works for images. For this particular instance, I wanted it taken down because he didn't have permission from me. I was going to wait to see if he did before reporting to eBay. (I'd rather not escalate and be a jerk about it, but it does include my username on it - and at least one person on this thread postulated that he might be me, esp. as he's in Texas.) As it is, all of the bottles are now sold, and the listing has ended. I have added him to my saved sellers to check back if he lists any more.

 

(edit- grammar/tense)

 

Very useful information. Do you know what would happen if someone took a photo of someone's work...like as a ridiculous example, say that someone you showed your ink review to in person, snapped their own photo and put that on the web? It seems that you would still own the copyright, even though it is their original photo of your review. ???

 

Then the other scenario that came to mind since we are wandering off topic....I have seen t-shirts where people captured an image of a valuable work of art, or business establishment converted into a t-shirt printed image and sold. I'm sure the slippery slope is endless.

[kushbaby]

Very useful information. Do you know what would happen if someone took a photo of someone's work...like as a ridiculous example, say that someone you showed your ink review to in person, snapped their own photo and put that on the web? It seems that you would still own the copyright, even though it is their original photo of your review. ???

 

Then the other scenario that came to mind since we are wandering off topic....I have seen t-shirts where people captured an image of a valuable work of art, or business establishment converted into a t-shirt printed image and sold. I'm sure the slippery slope is endless.

 

Interesting question. I'm not really sure. For me, I'm usually in the situation where a photograph is taken of a pathology specimen - the person who takes the photo owns the copyright. If a person takes a photo of someone's art or other creative work, I'm not sure what the ruling would be on that... :hmm1:

[SamCapote]

Back to the topic at hand--not that it matters any longer....but these are indeed authentic MB with date sticker, 60ml size, and shipping box label is from Dromgoole's.

[kushbaby]

Good to hear!

 

You know, I've carefully hoarded these, but when it comes right down to it, with all the different orange inks I have and like and use, I think I probably have enough Gandhi ink to last until I am about 264 years old... Which is sort of insane. Enough folks out there can't find one bottle, so I may just sell some of my stash. (I don't think I'll be able to part with any of my MB Racing Green or old-style Lamy Blue-black though... )

 

Curious - how long does it take folks to run through a bottle of ink?

[blemt]

Re: copyright- Since 1989 you have not been required to add a copyright notice to original works. Copyright is in effect as soon as you produce the work. Adding notice is a way to explicitly notify folks that this is your work. Photographers tend to add watermarks to images in order to deter online theft. To the question of who has copyright if you take a picture of a picture, the question is generally have you changed the original. I can't take a head on photo of the Mona Lisa and claim its my work as an example. I could take a photo of the Mona Lisa, then add some additional elements, take a new picture and legitimately say its my work.

 

This is pretty clear cut copyright violation. Fair use doesn't come into play here. Photo sharing sites specifically state the images belong to the photographer unless otherwise noted.

[saskia_madding]

This thread always makes me tempted. I keep having to stringently remind myself that I don't use this ink enough to warrant having more than the 6 bottles I already own. :roflmho:

 

But it makes me so happy that people who have wanted some for a while are able to snatch some up!

[todayilearned]

Got my Hitchcock ink from him. Everything looks good.

 

He restocked the Gandhi ink again.

[kushbaby]

Got my Hitchcock ink from him. Everything looks good.

 

He restocked the Gandhi ink again.

 

And I should add that he removed the writing sample image - so it's all good.

[KCat]

Got my Hitchcock ink from him. Everything looks good.

 

He restocked the Gandhi ink again.

 

And I should add that he removed the writing sample image - so it's all good.

 

Glad to hear it. Nice folk, just a bit flaky at times. Their stock is wonderful and I have to go in there with my game face on.

[todayilearned]

Got my Hitchcock ink from him. Everything looks good.

 

He restocked the Gandhi ink again.

 

And I should add that he removed the writing sample image - so it's all good.

 

I'm guessing he got permission from you since it's back up.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mont-Blanc-Mahatma-Gandhi-Limited-Edition-Fountain-Pen-Ink-/251110633822?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a775c315e#ht_500wt_1156

 

$40/bottle isn't bad!

[kushbaby]

Got my Hitchcock ink from him. Everything looks good.

 

He restocked the Gandhi ink again.

 

And I should add that he removed the writing sample image - so it's all good.

 

I'm guessing he got permission from you since it's back up.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mont-Blanc-Mahatma-Gandhi-Limited-Edition-Fountain-Pen-Ink-/251110633822?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a775c315e#ht_500wt_1156

 

$40/bottle isn't bad!

 

No, actually, he didn't. I've once again asked him to take the writing sample down.

[funkypeanut]

I happened to be in Houston on business last week, and I stopped by Dromgoole's and bought the last bottle of MB Gandhi off the shelf. I also got a bottle of the Collodi.

 

ETA: Kushbaby, I thought that Dromgoole's had taken down your review, but it's still there. I'm very surprised that they would blatantly steal from you like that, even after you had pointed out the problem and asked them to remove your work. Now I'm beginning to regret buying the Gandhi.

Edited July 18, 2012 by funkypeanut

[SamCapote]

Yeah I agree. That is very bad form to abuse you twice.