Engagement ring help ($5,500 budget)

[JohnQuixote]

We don't believe this is a Pricescope issue in any way. It's up to our own company to check these things.

Sometimes we are contacted by a consumer who sees ACA images Brian/Whiteflash produced used on another site and wonders if we're dealing them to those other sellers. We're not.

 

[JulieN]

Any image/content produced by an individual or business is a subject of copyright?

I haven't the foggiest about what can be considered for copyright and what can't; only that when Loveti (?) carried Dahnov's Meno collection, previously only seen at DCD, the torches and pitchforks came out, but when a Tiffany image is ripped by a PS vendor, no one says anything.

 

[pricescope]

Date: 7/6/2006 4:51:58 PM
Author: JulieN

Any image/content produced by an individual or business is a subject of copyright?

I haven''t the foggiest about what can be considered for copyright and what can''t; only that when Loveti (?) carried Dahnov''s Meno collection, previously only seen at DCD, the torches and pitchforks came out, but when a Tiffany image is ripped by a PS vendor, no one says anything.

Correction: Promoter of Laveti (?) has never been accused for violating copyright law. He simply abused the forum with shameless self-promotion and bragging about it.

Please give us a link where a PS vendor is using an image that belong to Tiffany''s Co .

 

[JulieN]

Tiffany

Vendor

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/6/2006 4:33:25 PM
Author: Pricescope

JulieN and John Q, Adiamor is a member of JVC and JBT. Why don''t you address the issue of copyrighted image with these organizations?

Thank you. We have made a practice of approaching the company first. In several past instances we''ve written a letter requesting removal and each time that request has been honored.

Our main concern is to let consumers know ACA are not sold through other companies.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 7/6/2006 4:42:25 PM
Author: JulieN
price comparison, in house. Alj, you are searching by cut. anyway, my question has been answered, thank you.

Nope....I''m not searching by cut.

I''m going from the home page to "Diamond Prices - Price Comparison.

Then I used your search criteria (.5, H, VS2, inhouse).

??????????

 

[JulieN]

I was going from the Pricescope your diamond search at the top of the page.

The listing has since been removed.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 7/6/2006 5:07:46 PM
Author: JulieN
Tiffany

Vendor

I think you're confusing infringement by way of using someone else's image and possibly infringement of their "design".

What John Q. is saying is that the image portrayed on that other website was a WF-produced image. It was taken by WF personnel, and that site has copied it onto their own website.

In oder for Mark to have "ripped the image from Tiffany" as you're suggesting, you'd have to establish that the image was actually produced by Tiffany. I don't see anything in that image that identifies it as a "Tiffany produced" image.....meaning either a Tiffany employee or a photographer paid by Tiffany to execute the photograph.

I think you're more suggesting that the *design* is copied. Even in the case you pointed to....that ring is a fairly standard design. Many designers offer variations of it, so it's not conclusive that the ring pictured is a Tiffany ring (design infringment).

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 7/6/2006 5:26:01 PM
Author: JulieN
I was going from the Pricescope your diamond search at the top of the page.

The listing has since been removed.

I see. got it.

 

[pricescope]

Date: 7/6/2006 4:51:58 PM
Author: JulieN

Any image/content produced by an individual or business is a subject of copyright?

I haven''t the foggiest about what can be considered for copyright and what can''t; only that when Loveti (?) carried Dahnov''s Meno collection, previously only seen at DCD, the torches and pitchforks came out, but when a Tiffany image is ripped by a PS vendor, no one says anything.

Thank you JulieN, and now we will, neither PS nor it''s community are private investigating agencies and if anything is missed there is no need to assume a hidden agenda before reporting an abuse you think should be addressed.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 7/6/2006 5:28:23 PM
Author: Pricescope

Date: 7/6/2006 4:51:58 PM
Author: JulieN

Any image/content produced by an individual or business is a subject of copyright?

I haven't the foggiest about what can be considered for copyright and what can't; only that when Loveti (?) carried Dahnov's Meno collection, previously only seen at DCD, the torches and pitchforks came out, but when a Tiffany image is ripped by a PS vendor, no one says anything.

Thank you JulieN, and now we will, neither PS nor it's community are private investigating agencies and if anything is missed there is no need to assume a hidden agenda before reporting an abuse you think should be addressed.

To add even a bit more context.....there are exemptions in copyright law called "fair use" that do allow some uses to occur without violating that law. Those exemptions are the reason that things like criticism, commentary, parody and other things can occur. So, to the moderator's point, the best thing is to report something because it may be exempt or may not be.

Having said that, fair use is vague enough and murky enough that it's not really something I'd want to rely on.

Those fair use provisions would likely not hold water in instances where a vendor uses another vendor's images on its website (as it seems Adiamor is doing) to possibly sell a competing product and create confusion in the marketplace.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 7/6/2006 5:38:20 PM
Author: aljdewey

To add even a bit more context.....there are exemptions in copyright law called ''fair use'' that do allow some uses to occur without violating that law. Those exemptions are the reason that things like criticism, commentary, parody and other things can occur. So, to the moderator''s point, the best thing is to report something because it may be exempt or may not be.

Having said that, fair use is vague enough and murky enough that it''s not really something I''d want to rely on.

Those fair use provisions would likely not hold water in instances where a vendor uses another vendor''s images on its website (as it seems Adiamor is doing) to possibly sell a competing product and create confusion in the marketplace.

Al, can I xerox this?

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 7/6/2006 5:43:13 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 7/6/2006 5:38:20 PM
Author: aljdewey

To add even a bit more context.....there are exemptions in copyright law called ''fair use'' that do allow some uses to occur without violating that law. Those exemptions are the reason that things like criticism, commentary, parody and other things can occur. So, to the moderator''s point, the best thing is to report something because it may be exempt or may not be.

Having said that, fair use is vague enough and murky enough that it''s not really something I''d want to rely on.

Those fair use provisions would likely not hold water in instances where a vendor uses another vendor''s images on its website (as it seems Adiamor is doing) to possibly sell a competing product and create confusion in the marketplace.

Al, can I xerox this?

Sure you can, RG. My pleasure.

 

[Regular Guy]

Thanks, Al, I''m so ferklempt, I need a kleenex.

 

[pricescope]

Date: 7/6/2006 8:34:38 PM
Author: Regular Guy
Thanks, Al, I'm so ferklempt, I need a kleenex.

RG just so you know, fair use of kleenex is not using it to xerox any of the Alvox.

Not from Wikipedia: Al-vox - voice of Aljdewey.

Boy my Google spell check was mad at me!

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 7/6/2006 10:03:12 PM
Author: Pricescope

Not from Wikipedia: Al-vox - voice of Aljdewey.

HAHAHAHAH - LOVE it!

I am the Alvox! That''s hysterical! Thanks for the smile on a gorgeous Friday morning, Leonid & Irina!