Does this seem weird to anyone else?

Posts: 286 · Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:39 pm

Two auctions for the Gamescience version of Tegel Manor, each using exactly the same picture of the item:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5187493974&rd=1&ssp agename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5189225907&rd=1&ssp agename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

Posts: 675 · Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:58 am

Evidently "dgbirchfield" borrowed the picture from the first listing. Not very nice, and not allowed.

Posts: 190 · Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:05 pm

I still don't understand why people get pissy about that.

We share all kinds of information about lists and printings and dates and authenticity, but stock photos turn some people rabidly territorial.

Confused

Posts: 286 · Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:18 am

mordrin wrote:

I still don't understand why people get pissy about that.

We share all kinds of information about lists and printings and dates and authenticity, but stock photos turn some people rabidly territorial.

When you're just talking about stuff, it's fine to use a stock photo or shared lists or whatever.

But when you're selling something, it's only honest to display an accurate picture of the goods you're selling.

But I'm not pissy about it. I just won't bid on either item, cuz now I'm suspect of the goods. Pretty simple really.

Posts: 178 · Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:18 am

Mordrin, I think it has everything to do with value.

For a serious collector to shell out dollars (big money or not), they want to know exactly what they're getting, and not some 10, 20, or 30-year-old picture as a reference.

Posts: 286 · Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 10:27 pm

mordrin wrote:

Well, that's a whole different topic - whether you as a buyer want to risk paying for something that's got a 'representative' photo with description, rather than a real photo.

But I know some people go apeshit if someone 'steals' their photo, uses it in an auction, and very clearly states that the photo is representative and not the actual item.
That I don't get.

I just reread the descriptions from those two auctions to make sure if there were any disclaimers of that sort, and there were none. Therefore, one would assume that the picture was the actual product and not a "stock photo." At least, that's what I assume.

*shrug* Not a big deal.

Posts: 190 · Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 2:44 am

Well, that's a whole different topic - whether you as a buyer want to risk paying for something that's got a 'representative' photo with description, rather than a real photo.

But I know some people go apeshit if someone 'steals' their photo, uses it in an auction, and very clearly states that the photo is representative and not the actual item.
That I don't get.