casiostars (previously kmc_000) ?

quote:
Isn't there a secure way to"WATERMARK" your photos and post a warning to other sellers to avoid this?


Well yes, I could have watermarked the image but there is little point because there are dozens of other pictures they could have used that don't have a watermark.

I was considering writing the seller a message but there seems little point now - I don't see that it would achieve much.
Watermarking is one way of preventing pictures from being "stolen" and used in auctions.

But I agree with Fibular. It is not really effective a method for common watches. Pictures of three of the watches where I bothered to watermark are the CFX-40 (detail version), TM-100 and the CSCW.

The latter 2 are rare enough that substitute pictures other than my water-marked one are hard to find.

I once bought a Sinclair radio watch that was faulty and I committed to the deal all because it was misrepresented with inaccurate pictures. It was a painful deal for me to get ebay to reverse the payment. A 2.5 month long of exchange of evidence and appeal.

I thought as an owner of some rare highly-sought after watches, I could prevent these incidents from happening to others by "responsibly" water-marking the pictures of my watches I display in this forum. This is so that other people cannot use my pictures to sell similar watches they claim to have in the same condition but actually do not own.

My two cents worth.
For "fibular noggin's" information, positive feedback left! "Nice item, as described. Fast international shipping. Recommended seller" There are many reasons people use pictures taken off the net not all are for devious purposes you would do well to remember this and as for changing a username people do it all the time. There seems to be some members on this forum who are all too interested in other people,s business.
In the past there have been big problems where people have used stolen images. Yes, I am interested in others' public business where I might be protecting others and myself from difficulties.

There is no good reason to use an image off the web without permission if you are selling something expensive particularly if it is likely to have a unique condition.

Note my wording "Of course, it could be legit ... but obviously this is a red flag". I did not outright state that the seller was nefarious.

I take it you are casiostars?
quote:
Originally posted by blue_thunder55:
For "fibular noggin's" information, positive feedback left! "Nice item, as described. Fast international shipping. Recommended seller" There are many reasons people use pictures taken off the net not all are for devious purposes you would do well to remember this and as for changing a username people do it all the time. There seems to be some members on this forum who are all too interested in other people,s business.


I don't think it's a question of "other people's business" - I think there are two things in play here...

1. A picture that I take and post on my own website is my own property. It takes NO TIME to ask the owner of a picture (or text, or whatever) for permission to use it. Or at least mention the source of the picture, acknowledging that it belongs to someone else. People who use this forum are very protective of their own photos and how they build their sites, and in this case,blue_thunder55, you are wrong to step in and use your first post to castigate another member about their (or their friends') ownership of property.

2. A picture taken from the internet is NOT a picture of the actual item. Why would ANYONE buy a product without seeing it first, especially on e-Bay? Mr. Noggin is correct to say that it's a red flag, and when you combine that fact with the second fact that there was a stolen picture attached to the auction.

Personally, I wouldn't purchase anything on e-Bay from a picture that isn't what I'm actually getting. The fact that you say you got positive feedback (here I'm assuming that you are casiostars, which seems pretty safe, though I wonder why you wouldn't create the ID "casiostars" to post a message...) doesn't mean Mr. Noggin or Mr. Engineer are wrong here. I believe it's safer to say that if the transaction is on the level, the buyer should consider themselves lucky that it worked out, since this deal is rife with red flags.
Cool your jets, Gwendolyn....I didn't assume anything, other than to suggest that you were 'casiostars', and your denial that you are 'casiostairs' doesn't help you. What, exactly, did I assume?

And when it comes to spending my $$$, you can be darn sure that I'll assume whatever I want, before I fork over any money. And the two points above would have told me that your auction wasn't on the level, and I'd pass on it. If you got positive feedback on your deal, then "attaboy!" but even YOU should admit that in the environment you describe (stolen picture, no picture of the actual item), the buyer is just asking to be fleeced.

Also, it should be noted that you acknowledge you ripped off a picture from one of the members (who accurately predicted you were watching this forum, I might add) and you chose to justify your actions rather than apologize.

I think you might presume that while you're setting up more auctions by stealing pictures from others, you're going to be watched by the people in this forum for a while, and it'll be recorded here.

I suggest that while you're racking up the apparent positive feedbacks with these fantastic sales of items you refuse to show in your auctions, you use the $$$ to buy a camera.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×