Using Ebay Images?

[Lucan Unlordly]

Copyright question? Who owns it, the seller, the buyer, or Ebay?

A random seller has listed an old amateur Football Programme that features the team names within it's pages.

I'm guessing I'm ok to re-type the team names as these would be available in some form elsewhere. How do I stand if I copy and paste the page of interest onto our forum, or more succinctly put, what are the chances of action being taken for doing so?

 

[DontAsk]

I once had a listing removed because the seller used my photo to list a similar item.

You can't copyright facts such as a list of team members, only the presentation of them. So you can't copy the program but you can transcribe the information for your own purposes.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

I once had a listing removed because the seller used my photo to list a similar item.

You can't copyright facts such as a list of team members, only the presentation of them. So you can't copy the program but you can transcribe the information for your own purposes.

That sounds like an attempt to mislead buyers?

I'm trying to establish who owns the copyright. If it's the originator of the programme, then listing on Ebay would be mis-use, wouldn't it? If the seller has photographed the programme then I assume copyright of the image is theirs but does the content copyright still remains with the originator - so they shouldn't do it? If I then copy and paste, or get really clever and photograph the screen then what?

 

[The Byre]

This is simple copyright law 101. Information, such as the names of the team members, is just that - information. It is the statement of facts.

Ownership of the photograph rests with either the photographer or with the persons or entity that commissioned the taking of the photograph. The same applies to the layout of the programme.

Photograph copyrights expire 50 years after creation or publication. Written texts last 70 years after the death of the author.

The manipulation of a work - e.g. remixing a record, reprinting a movie, or sharpening and cleaning up of a photo - creates a new mechanical copyright. Therefore if a person publishes old material that may be out of copyright, they must be able to show that they have access to the original and not one of the later reissued copies.

So in answer to your question -

Copyright question? Who owns it, the seller, the buyer, or Ebay?

- the answer is none of the above!

 

[2020Lawyer2020]

If the magazine is very old and out of copyright then there may be a new copyright in the photograph of it (probably unlikely - there was an interesting cases about photographs of old oil paintings once and it was about if the photo was basically the same - so not "original" for copyright purposes, not a new copyright or if it was specially lit with a lot of effort so the photo DID get a new copyright - so it will depend).

The chances of action are probably very low however and it seems unlikely they will sue you as they are not losing a lot of money through your action in taking their photograph.

 

[DontAsk]

That sounds like an attempt to mislead buyers?

I'm trying to establish who owns the copyright. If it's the originator of the programme, then listing on Ebay would be mis-use, wouldn't it?

Why would you think that? Do you think every book listing on Ebay violates coyright?

If the seller has photographed the programme then I assume copyright of the image is theirs

Possibly.

but does the content copyright still remains with the originator - so they shouldn't do it?

It would probably be fair use to use a photo to advertise a sale.

If I then copy and paste, or get really clever and photograph the screen then what?

It depends...

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Why would you think that? Do you think every book listing on Ebay violates coyright?


Possibly.


It would probably be fair use to use a photo to advertise a sale.


It depends...

Very helpful 'Don't Ask', don't give up your day job ???

 

[Thomas_Stewart]

If we are talking about copyright, then I think it is quite possible to use photos from Ebay, since the photos are in the public domain. And those that are protected by copyright have a watermark that will not allow you to pass off photos as your own.

 

[The Byre]

If we are talking about copyright, then I think it is quite possible to use photos from Ebay, since the photos are in the public domain. And those that are protected by copyright have a watermark that will not allow you to pass off photos as your own.

Nope! Just because something is used publicly, does not mean that it is then in the public domain. With or without a watermark, it remains somebody's property.

 

[DontAsk]

If we are talking about copyright, then I think it is quite possible to use photos from Ebay, since the photos are in the public domain.

Why do you think that?

And those that are protected by copyright have a watermark that will not allow you to pass off photos as your own.

Copyright is automatic in the UK. You don't need a watermark or disclaimer, or...

The issue, as I see it, is that the OP wants to transcribe the facts contained within the image, rather than use the image itself, but seems unwilling/unable to accept the advice he is being given.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

The issue, as I see it, is that the OP wants to transcribe the facts contained within the image, rather than use the image itself, but seems unwilling/unable to accept the advice he is being given.

That's because you haven't read and understood the question. I do want to use the images that have no artistic or design merit, that are simply typed up lists of competitors and results.