# eBay Art Theft - User "red_sox_14" Warning



## 137th Gebirg (Feb 13, 2006)

Hello, all. This has been something that has stuck in my craw for some time. With me working on the new TOS Battlestar Galactica schematics, I am now more concerned than ever that the hundreds of hours I'm putting into this thing will be stolen for someone else's profit.

There exists subhuman scum who goes by the alias red_sox_14 on eBay, selling t-shirts of other people's artwork, including some schematics I have published on the SSDB. This is artwork freely given to the modeling and BSG communities for the enrichment of all interested in such things - for no profit whatsoever. He has lifted the graphics from various sites (some in not-so-good resolution) and profited quite heavily from other people's talented efforts. He currently has 3,744 positive feedbacks, BTW. Even if he charged a dollar per shirt, that's damn near $4000!! I don't know about you, but I could think of a lot of cool things to get with four grand. Since he's actually selling most of his shirts for $10 a pop, I suspect he's made quite a killing over the years.

Here's a breakdown of what has been grabbed so far (I have archived all the pertinent files in question):

Viper 5-view - by Zoic/Darrell Lawrence "Warrior" - http://www.colonialfleets.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9764
Viper Mk VII - by Zoic - http://www.colonialfleets.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9764
Battlestar Galactica Schematic - by Zoic/Jim Stevenson "137th Gebirg" - http://shipschematics.net/bsg/images/colonial/battlestar_galactica.jpg
Battlestar Pegasus Schematic 1 - by "Coxxon" - http://shipschematics.net/bsg/images/colonial/battlestar_mercury.jpg
Battlestar Pegasus Schematic 2 - John Barnes "AldrikG" - http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/3d-wips/186-battlestar-pegasus-22.html

The short-term solution for dealing with this guy is simple awareness for those who may be interested in purchasing his "products". The long-term is to report him to eBay. This is especially going to happen if I catch him stealing my new schematics to put on his t-shirts. Tell your friends and post on other forums. I know I will.

And if red_sox_14 happens to come across this post, I want him to personally know that *I am watching you*.


----------



## John F (May 31, 2001)

If you haven't done so already, I suggest you report this to ebay and see what they can do for you.


----------



## 137th Gebirg (Feb 13, 2006)

I tried reporting it, but that aspect of the site is extremely limited. There is actually no way to send a description of why something should be shut down. It only allows you to select from an interactive list of pre-determined violations, none of which really quite fit. I'll keep digging unless someone knows a shortcut. When it comes to working outside the buy/sell box, eBay is really quite limited in scope.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Do they have an "outright theft" selection?


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

There's a process for copied artwork, you have to send @bay a fax basically swearing somebody is selling copies of your original artwork without your permission. I had to do it a few years ago, pm me if you want more details.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Yeah, there was some b8#@h on there awhile back who was selling CDs of photos that she had taken from my website and a few others. It pissed me off that she was getting people to pay for something that they could get for free, if they just did a web search. She claimed that they were previously unpublished pictures. That is fraud in my book. The folks at Eharbor did nothing about it.

After awhile, I think she got tired of me contacting her bidders to let them know that the pictures were already available on the net for free...


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Never a Tantalus Field around when you need it....


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> Yeah, there was some b8#@h on there awhile back who was selling CDs of photos that she had taken from my website and a few others. It pissed me off that she was getting people to pay for something that they could get for free, if they just did a web search. She claimed that they were previously unpublished pictures. That is fraud in my book. The folks at Eharbor did nothing about it.
> 
> After awhile, I think she got tired of me contacting her bidders to let them know that the pictures were already available on the net for free...


I had a very similar problem with a guy selling a photo CD of pictures that were supposedly of unpublished photos of the E-E. Well, needless to say when I received the CD every photo on it was readily available on the internet and of which I already owned. Long story short, Not only did I lodge a complaint with ebay (and got a refund and a dang negative for my troubles) I also alerted paramount. All of his auctions were shut down within about an hour. I also then contacted all those who purchased from him to alert them of the deception. 

And your right it is fraud and Ebay will not remove my negative.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Griffworks said:


> Never a Tantalus Field around when you need it....



Boy you said it! :thumbsup:


----------



## fiercegaming (Jul 21, 2004)

Thats ebay for you, really really nice to getting things you can't get anywhere else...but when there is fraud they do little about it. And what this guys is doing, I mean what can you say to ebay to make them believe the guy is a fraud (which he is) also more than likely they wont listen. I will pass this one for sure and maybe just maybe if we get enough people complaining about this guy we can knock him off ebay.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

you need to contact ebay's "trust and safety" department. (theyre very coy about their phone numbers, but they are available with a little digging.) if you can prove your copyright/ownership of your work, they will pull his listings very quickly.


----------



## 137th Gebirg (Feb 13, 2006)

I downloaded the VeRO form and have most of the information filled out. I'm still waiting on the Pegasus ortho artists. I'll let everyone know when it's done and when I hear something back. If this doesn't work I'm definitely going to go digging for those phone numbers.


----------



## Rattrap (Feb 23, 1999)

Considering he's using a number of current trademarks (Autobot and Decipticon from Tranformers, tease poster for Trek, etc) you might want to point him out to a studio's legal department.


----------



## WarpeD (May 28, 2007)

While the effort and quality is no doubt considerable, you are essentially trying to protect artistic depictions of someone else's intellectual property. I sympathize 100%, but I have my doubts that eBay's lawyers will get involved because of your complaint. It would be different if it were Universal coming to them with the same beef. T'is one of the risks we run when we put our heart and soul into fan grown products. I wish you good fortune in your efforts, though. I'd probably feel the same way.


----------



## 137th Gebirg (Feb 13, 2006)

Well, folks, I have bad news. As many have predicted would happen, eBay has hit me with another brick wall. I guess they really don't care about this kind of thing. Message follows:



> Subject: VE62821 Response to your fax to eBay's VERO Department. (KMM267287118V33852L0KM)
> Received: Sep-26-07
> From: eBay Customer Support
> Expires: Oct-26-07
> ...


They want all the other artists and me to go through all new hoops with some "NOCI" form (the links for which to accomplish such a task were conveniently omitted in their message) and prove (which we really can't) that we hold the respective copyrights to the work we did (which we really don't).

The only thing I can say is, boycott this guy. Send him hate mail. Ping him with DoS apps. Just flat out ruin his day. He deserves nothing more and nothing less.

Sorry, all. I tried, and I honestly thought I could get somewhere.


----------



## nx-o1troubles (Jul 20, 2006)

The gates of Gre'thor will be paved with their ashes!!!


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

137th Gebirg said:


> They want all the other artists and me to go through all new hoops with some "NOCI" form (the links for which to accomplish such a task were conveniently omitted in their message) and prove (which we really can't) that we hold the respective copyrights to the work we did (which we really don't).


If you want to still give it a shot -- which I think you should do, because you _do_ own the copyright to your work -- here is the link to their form:

http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/NOCI1.pdf


----------



## 137th Gebirg (Feb 13, 2006)

That was the "VERO" form that I already filled out and faxed to them, thinking that was all that was needed to pursue this. They said I needed an additional form filled out, despite the fact that I was authorized by all the other parties to represent them in this case. The other "NOCI" form they mentioned is unknown to me, and there's really no way I can prove that I hold the copyright, as ultimately, Universal owns the copyright to all BSG-related properties. I hate to give up on this, but I honestly don't know if I have the energy to continue it. There are some other pretty messed-up things going on in my life right now, and I don't think I have the cycles.

I appreciate all the well-wishing from everyone, and I hate backing down from a good fight, but I think I'm just going to have to move on from this one and hope that red_sox_14 one day gets the karmic backlash he so richly deserves.


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

Did you ever apply for an actual copyright? If not, I'd do it post-haste because if this unscrupulous pri_k beats you to it, you're screwed.

Bear in mind that a copyright in and of itself affords no protection. All it proves is that you registered the intellectual property on a certain date. Any attempt by someone else to register the same property after that date is invalid. I'd also suggest mailing yourself a copy of the artwork on the same day you apply for the copyright - *LEAVE IT UNOPENED* in a safety deposit box or somewhere it will be secure. The postmark corroborates your claim to the copyright (trust me, I do it it with music I've written all the time).

Good luck...


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

I'd go with the earlier suggestion of notifying the studio.
If this guy is selling items with their themes on it, did
he apply for a license to do so?
Is he cutting them in for a share?


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

You can't copyright something that someone already owns......Universal owns all BSG related property.

If he notify's the studio he might be in trouble as well.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

He can't trademark the designs, which are owned by someone else. But he can and already does -- just by virtue of their existence as new works of art of his own creation -- have a copyright over his work. I can draw something that someone else created over and over again and if it is a new rendering of the design, it is copyrightable. It might violate the trademark, but that is a different matter. Because, copyright and trademark are _very_ different things.


----------



## nx-o1troubles (Jul 20, 2006)

The only reason this is wrong is because he is trying to make a profit off of something without the makers permission, right? But if he were to just print off a bunch of cool pics to hang on his or his friends walls, it would be okay, as long as he didnt sell it?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

What red_sox is doing is wrong, 

(please re-read that: "What red_sox is doing is wrong")

... but Universal owns the original source material. Universal could slap both parties with a C&D.

Reproducing Universal's designs is enough to constitute copyright violation -- you don't have to copy renderings of their designs. A *new* rendering that can be *recognized* as another party's property is still infringement. Otherwise _Galaxy Quest_ could have machined a new miniature that looked just like the Enterprise and made a movie with it. But they didn't, because it would have violated the Trek copyright.

Gebirg's only recourse, in my opinion, is to let it slide or negotiate some kind of agreement with Universal (all above board) to continue to provide the drawings to the community free of charge in return for blowing the whistle on red_sox.

It's up to Universal to pursue the matter with red_sox, since they own the BSG property. If I were Gebirg, I'd keep my head down, or make friends with Universal.

Let the flames begin.


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

Gotta agree with Steve


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

SteveR said:


> What red_sox is doing is wrong,
> 
> (please re-read that: "What red_sox is doing is wrong")
> 
> ...



I am assuming that he is exempt from any claim of copyright violation for reasons of a counterclaim to Fair Use protection under section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. What would be more problematic from his perspective is any claim the makers of those designs may have secured via trademark and/ or patent filings -- those protections are not as forgiving to violators. 

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatis.htm


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Sorry aridas, no malice here, but could you just clarify who "he" is, in your post? red_sox or Gebirg? 

Thanks, 
Steve


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I'm pretty sure that aridas means 137th Gebirg by "him" and "his". That's just going by having seen this argument several times before and having read what aridas links to above.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Thanks, Griff. :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

SteveR said:


> What red_sox is doing is wrong,
> 
> (please re-read that: "What red_sox is doing is wrong")
> 
> ...



From everything I've read on the matter at the .gov sites posting and explaining those very laws, you are exactly correct, sir! Good work and thanks! :thumbsup:


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

SteveR said:


> Sorry aridas, no malice here, but could you just clarify who "he" is, in your post? red_sox or Gebirg?
> 
> Thanks,
> Steve


Yes, *Griff* is right. I was referring to *Gebirg*. Sorry about the confusion.

I'm not saying you're wrong, *Steve*. Just that there is more wiggle room with the copyright law's "fair use" provision than there is with the trademark or patent.


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

Even if there is wiggle room.....no garage kit maker or free lance artist can stand up to Universal, Paramount, or Lucas and win.....


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

There is no "wiggle room" if you're using someone else's property. 

Fair use does not include making models of copyrighted properties nor even of models too closely resembling them. It most definitely does not include making blueprints of copyrighted products.

Study this site, it's very informative:

http://www.copyright.gov/


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

Yes... that is the website I posted a link to above.

Look, I don't want to argue, but I think it isn't as open and shut as it is being made out to be. I think it is possible that a site such as *Gebirg's* -- providing low-resolution copies of existing art in a venue designed for comparison of the various posted works, not for profit -- would be judged "fair use" under the terms of the law. I may or may not agree with it, but from my experience (which includes dealing with this issue several times with Paramount Pictures, my work as a legal historian, and consulting with lawyers in the field), it is possible.

If the owner of a copyright (or trademark or patent) want's to protect the right, and has disproportionate resources to do so, the ambiguities will quickly crystalize in their favor. And yet, I'm aware of instances very close to home where even that hasn't proven true. Years ago I attempted to do original designs with only the barest of connections to Star Trek, and had the same kinds of problems with dealers selling unauthorized copies of my work. I couldn't protect my rights, and the effect was that I effectively lost them. OTOH, Paramount used designs from MastercoM that could be argued to be derivative, and later objected to their publication. They'd used the works without MastercoM's authorization, and to avoid damaging litigation, they withdrew objections to the works they used. Despite having the disproportionate resources to make the case that they were the injured party.

My point -- that the "fair use" section creates ambiguity. That much is acknowledged on the very website you linked to above. "One major limitation is the doctrine of “fair use,” which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act."



> "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --
> (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
> (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
> (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
> (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."


*Gebirg* seems to be posting views of these designs that are limited in scope to one or two views, at a low resolution. I'd argue that meets the criterion of (3). The deleterious effect of what he does is arguably negligible, given that the Internet is already saturated with more-egregious examples of violation that are not being addressed. The style of presentation is suitable for comparing the designs, which enhances the argument that his site has an educational component. 

Would it be judged "fair use"? Maybe. Not necessarily so, but as you can see, it is possible.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^

Okay, I see your point.

I'd forgotten that he was just posting the artwork and not selling it. I'm sorry I was not more clear in my statements (a clarity that would have demonstrated my lack of understanding. :freak: )

As you've affirmed, I still don't think he has a claim regarding copyrights (unless he could get some sort of contract with the copyright holder) but his website would be, if common sense vs. dollars for lawyers prevailed, certainly within the terms of fair use.


----------



## DL Matthys (May 8, 2004)

This thread is sooooooooooooooo.... not model discusion.
I do know of silksreen process on textiles... I am ready to discuss...but not here.
Lot's of new found _barracks lawyers_ so full of wind and smoke.

DLM


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

DL Matthys said:


> This thread is sooooooooooooooo.... not model discusion.
> I do know of silksreen process on textiles... I am ready to discuss...but not here.
> Lot's of new found _barracks lawyers_ so full of wind and smoke.
> 
> DLM


Nooooooooooooooo need to insult those of us who do a little research.  

If there are people here who want to produce "garage kits," I'd say this is very relevant. They should at least have an idea about what they're getting into.

Official government references concerning copyright laws have been posted and a mostly  intelligent discussion has taken place. :thumbsup:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> If there are people here who want to produce "garage kits," I'd say this is very relevant. They should at least have an idea about what they're getting into.


Maybe that was the subject to which Griff was referring when he wrote that he's seen this argument several times before? 

Anyway, thanks for the clarification, Aridas.

"Barracks lawyers"? Yes, our advice is worth what 137th Gebirg paid for it. Nobody expects it to be more, Don.


----------



## DL Matthys (May 8, 2004)

It's a simple life I live out here on the praries. It is a life of quality. :thumbsup:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

DL Matthys said:


> This thread is sooooooooooooooo.... not model discusion.
> I do know of silksreen process on textiles... I am ready to discuss...but not here.


This thread is related, far as I'm concerned. Thus, it stays.


> Lot's of new found _barracks lawyers_ so full of wind and smoke.


And at least one person who thinks he's a _moderator_ when he's not.... 

In other words, watch the Trolling, Don.


----------



## DL Matthys (May 8, 2004)

Griffworks said:


> In other words, watch the Trolling, Don.


Nope... I am here like the good Prophet once said..."..to teach a man to fish and feed the multitudes" or somthing like that. I've always found that building models is far more fun than griping and typing. So next time I post, (but not this topic)..if you have not kicked me off...I'll bring forth more pictures with light and magic tricks...Some real red meat!

DLM


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

That works for me. I'm currently forced to live vicariously thru everyone elses works for the non.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

DL Matthys said:


> . . . I'll bring forth more pictures with light and magic tricks...Some real red meat!
> 
> DLM


Oooooooooooh! I can't wait for more eye candy (of the modeling sort)! :thumbsup:


----------

