FW-190's at US captured airfield (photo)

[harrison987]

Hi Zack,

Yes, all descriptions and photos ON eBay are covered by copyright. I am the author of the work (descriptions), and the author of the image ON eBay.

I am NOT claiming copyright of the original image itself, nor do I claim copyright on ANY of the photos I sell, as ALL are public domain.

That statement in the auction is ONLY pertaining to the listing itself, and it does state that.

It is the same as if I were to publish a Public Domain image (no copyright)into a book. The photo would still be in public domain, however the BOOK and ALL CONTENTS in the book are under copyright as the entire work is owned by the author or publisher.

That is why you see all sorts of manuals and handbooks on the Me109 and Fw190 scanned onto CD and sold by various individuals. Udo Hafner has a copyright on ALL of his CD's, however the copyright is on the CD in it's entirety, NOT the individual pages (meaning he does not own the contents on the CD). That is the same the other 5 + sellers of manuals and handbooks on eBay, and the 20+ worldwide.

Roger was taking numerous images off eBay and other websites and was using them on his personal website on a weekly basis...which was a major copyright violation. He has now stopped doing that, and has re-worked his website...

I own an original copy of that photo, which I bought off eBay. Regardless if an image is printed wartime...or printed 60 years after the original print date, I was selling a PRINT off an ORIGINAL photo I bought off eBay, which was on older (not modern photo paper).

I have already told you I would remove it as a professional courtesy (though not required to)...please stop taking your frustrations out on me...take them out on the original seller. I have done everything legally, and already have gone beyond what was required of me.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Zack Magnusson]

OK, so are you going to end the auctions as you stated you would?

Let me know the original seller's identity and I'll be glad to take out my frustrations on him as well.




"original copy"......................

[Kutscha]

Though I understand your frustration, there is most likely no legal copyright on this photo, and I copied it off the original I had given to me. When I say "original", I mean the post-war paper one that was sent to me. I looked at your link above, and the quality of the one I received is slightly different than the link you you have posted, so it is possible the original seller enhanced it (?).

Are you saying it is a copy of an original copy?

[Roger Gaemperle]

Hmmm, the first listing at ebay was stopped (see here)....

....but now it get's even better. Instead of $5 it was listed again by the same seller for $6.99..... (see here) At the time I am writing this this auction is still online...

I checked other photos and there are several photos that appeared in "Luftwaffe in Focus" and "Götterdämmerung". I doubt that the seller has the "originals" as he states in his auctions (but I don't claim the opposite to be true since I don't know it. I am just expressing my opinion):

"This was reproduced from an original in my collection."

And to say that he meant "original copies" with "original" is in my opinion a bad excuse and a deception of potential buyers. Or has anyone of you ever seen a "fake copy"? What is the difference between an "original copy" and a "fake copy"??

To show photos for historical purposes is something completely different than selling copies for profit. While I admit that the LWCollectibles website showed scans taken from ebay auctions two years ago the purpose was to share historical knowledge and not to sell these photos or to make profit from it. LWCollectibles also never published photos coming directly from families without asking for permission.

The rightful owner of the Fw 190 photo (Zack) does not have anything against sharing the photos with historians who can help to find out more about its history therefore he shared the photos online. But he has something against other people trying to make profit with his own photos which I can perfectly understand. No matter what is legal according to the copyright law and what is not, I find this a sad and regretable thing to take other people's family photos and offer them for profit.

Regards
Roger

[Zack Magnusson]

Thank you all for your support.

eBay was notified of the situation regarding both eBay listings yesterday as soon as I became aware of it.

Mike,
I'm still waiting on the identity of the person from whom you purchased the photo so that I may dispense to him his share of my frustrations.

[bavgan]

Good point Roger. Your LW website was made for good just like Ed West's posts here and I highly respect your efforts.

The thing happening here now is what I am always scared at. Since 2003, I have been doing personal research on the Korean War actions of 452nd BW (USAF). During my research, hundreds of original negatives and color slides were given to me by the veterans. Some of those photos were extremely unique (such as a color slide of Kum Sok No's Mig-15 taken a few minutes after its landing). I always wanted to show and share them with interested people but unfotunately I never did it, just because I did not want this famous "third person" to make profit from those photos.

On the below given quote, Mike states that he bought the photo 2 weeks ago from eBay. Than there should be no problem, because eBay auction pages are stored for 2 months in memory. Mike can give the item number of the auction he bought the photo and the identity of the third person would be clear.

Originally Posted by harrison987

I am the seller of the Fw190 photo, and I bought a copy of it off eBay around 2 weeks ago.

Regards,

Batur

[harrison987]

Hi Zack,

Auction was removed as I said I would. I have not been at my CPU for the past day, and the "second" photo was a store listeing which was posted at the SAME TIME as the other one...I simply have not had time to remove it.

No one has broken any laws, and I am not going to go on and on in this argument over who got what photo from who, and who owns what and what eBay member I bought it from.

I understood your concern, and have no beef with you, which is why the photo was removed without question.

The matter is closed, and if you want to contact me off board, then by all means. I will not reply anymore to this thread, as you are taking your frustrations (which have nothing to do with me) out on me publicly when I asked you quite professionally to contact me off board to resolve. I had no idea who you were, whose photo this was, or who was even in the photo.

The whole thread has become a childish drama, due to the postings of Roger Gaemperle. Roger has a beef with me because I got my attorney after him for the money and items he owes me. He and I have a long history, and this is his way of creating a ridiculous issue out of something that never needed to be.

Roger knows FULL WELL I have a HUGE amount of contacts worldwide. The other photos he is referring to, are either OWNED BY ME (current or previously), or were LOANED TO ME from various contacts over the world as post-war slides, post war negatives, original negatives, original photos, or war-time copies.

I do not have to tell to anyone who my sources are, who the photos came from, if I have them (or own them) now, or anything else...nor is it anyone business.

Everything I sell is Public Domain, and obtained from NUMEROUS sources and no laws are being broken.

I come to this board as I like the Luftwaffe aircraft and am restoring an Me109...I do not come here to get involved with childish drama created by someone who has nothing better to do (I am not referring to you Zack)...

Mike

[Roger Gaemperle]

Mike,

You are mixing two things that don't have anything to do with each other. I pointed out just to the 1 auction because I was surprised to find the photo at ebay just after a relative published the photos at a forum in order to get help, nothing more. I would have done it even if the seller would not have called Michael Fuller, that's not the issue.

And I would not have posted a second message. However, I was surprised to find a second offering of the same photo in your shop that was still online even after you read the posts at TOCH. Furthermore, I wanted to set things right regarding LWCollectibles. I never claimed anything about your actions but always said it is my opinion (go back and read my posts).

If you closed the auctions that's nothing more than fair.

Regards
Roger Gaemperle

[harrison987]

Roger...

The auctions were listed legally. No laws were broken, and Zack has no claims on the photo, regardless if he owns it.

Zack asked me to remove it, as it bothered him seeing it up. I would feel EXACTLY the same way...so I did...no questions asked.

I do not have to justify anything, Roger...but...as you seem to want answers...I only had time to end the auction yesterday before I headed out. I did not even THINK about the store listing (which you so "NICELY" reminded me of in your reply above).

If you have a beef with me or something you want to talk about, then talk to me directly, instead of taking your personal issues with me in a public rant. I would never do that to you...no matter how angry I was at you from our "previous" issues.

Zack...i am now getting emails from people I do not know, telling me they are hearing on the G503 that I am a LIAR and a CHEAT...and asking me what the deal is.

How do you want me to respond?

Please let me know, as this is getting WAY overboard, dude...and you are accusing me of something I am not...

This matter is closed.

[Roger Gaemperle]

Mike,

Please calm down. As I said in my earlier post: even if the copyright laws would allow you to take a personal photo from someone and sell it on ebay I still think it is a regrettable thing to do. That's my opinion.

Again, this is nothing personal, I read Zack's request some weeks ago, replied to it as I recognized a D-9 on it and with the help of Japo's excellent book about the Doras could find some more information about where it was taken. Then I saw it on ebay and posted a short message (which I would have done independent from the ebay seller's name).

Thank you for your understanding and for removing the offerings at ebay.

Regards
Roger Gaemperle