Coins/Post images28 messages

Dear collectors,

Recently it often happens that images are posted from the internet and not from our own collection. This means that if there is any copyright on it, this may have legal consequences for you. Therefore, when encountering this type of input, the administrators will irrevocably reject it, stating reasons. This is also not seen as a valuable addition to a catalog.

Greeting, Administrator team.

Therefore, when encountering this type of input, the administrators will irrevocably reject it without stating reasons

Uh, but like "stating reasons" actually. If the intention is to prevent recidivism, the perpetrator must know what he did wrong. Most importers will never see this forum topic.

I read it as 'it cannot be discussed'. (;-)

At the top of the input page is a link to the inputinstructions . Although few people will read it, I think it would be wise to mention the above announcement there as well.

What everyone does see is the explanatory box for Images. Perhaps an explicit warning can also be given there (as is done for example with Stamps).

With every rejection of an item, the importer will receive an email stating the reason.

Gr. Pokie

But not if the administrator accidentally approves ;-)

but no copyright.

I wonder if a company cares that the photos they distribute to get their products sold are used here if those products are listed in the catalog.

That's not the point at all for us; it remains theft. The terms of use state that importers of items grant us the co-use right of the images. This is of course not possible if the importer is not the owner of those images.

In addition, only through our own scans we can be 100% sure that an item exists exactly as it is shown in the catalog.

Whether or not it is copyrighted is irrelevant. ANY photo you get from the internet is by definition copyrighted.

OR it must come from a site that offers photos without copyright - you have permission from the owner of the right to use it - you have the right photo bought from the maker. With the latter you have to pay attention to the conditions.

It does not necessarily have to be theft.

We do not officially allow any image from the internet. Easy rule; no one ever needs to think about it. For the second reason I mentioned. Images with a copyright notice on them are of course best recognizable for administrators.

As I wrote, it doesn't have to be 1 on 1 for theft.

We don't officially allow any image from the internet. Easy rule; no one ever has to think about it.

That may well be, but that does not solve the problem, because it is often not verifiable. You cannot tell from a scan whether it was not picked from E ... or M ......... s. At least I can't. I think that you should still ask the user for an explanation of the origin of the material when posting. This is also done on some sites known to me.

And what does the scan mean as proof that an item exists, I do not entirely agree with you. A scan / photo does not give 100% certainty. Rightly so, I didn't get away with it that easily when I wanted to enter some coins with unknown dates. I really had to provide a second proof of existence. There is also such a thing as photoshopping.

There is also such a thing as photoshopping.

Yes you can.

But the starting point is your own scans of the item.

And that's just simple.

From the forum & gt; 2011

Images:
The images of the coin are perhaps the most important to the catalog, so they also have to meet many requirements. Photos or scans can be made for this.

Photo 1 shows the side of the coin with the year. Photo 2 shows the other side. Photo 3 can possibly show the packaging, an enlargement of a detail or the edge.
The front and back are never on the same photo! They must also be of the same coin.
The photos should be enlarged as far as possible, so that there is as little background as possible, but the entire coin.
Drawings can be entered instead of photos, but photos are preferred.
Do not use photos from other websites without permission!
More beautiful photos (or photos of nicer coins) can always replace less beautiful photos.

Gr. Pokie

The appointment is just your own scans or photo.

and indeed sometimes picking pictures from the net is better and faster?

But besides the fact that rights to those pictures can be rest, your own images are just decisive and if you are not satisfied with those images, there is a solution!

Wait until another collector places the item.

We are currently getting too many complaints about stolen images and they all seem right for now. I would like to emphasize again that pecking pictures from the internet - regardless of the agreements within Catawiki - is generally punishable. A lot of people still seem to think that everything on the internet is free.

Users who put stolen pictures on Catawiki are personally liable for the consequences. I can't make it more beautiful than it is.

It also creates confusion about the item placed in the CataWiki Catalog. Many items require you to compare them with your own copy to see if you are adding the correct copy to your own collection.

A stolen image, however good, is not your own image. own copy and is therefore also another copy which must be described in its own way.

As an example I think it could well appear in the Records category. With the records it is very important that you can see many details on the cover and the label. For example, you may have the same record, but it is spread with a different cover and if you then place a stolen image of the standard cover, then it is not correct!

Too bad people don't bother to photograph something yourself. It does take time, but then you also have clarity. For that reason my Collection is also not that big, because I try to photograph / scan everything myself.

Not only that, but if you have a little collection you will insure it and then the insurance would like to have photos / scans with it.

If it is stolen how can you prove that this item belongs to you. is up to the Police. (by a photo / scan)

Niet alle gebruikers willen begrijpen dat je eigen afbeeldingen moet maken, zelfs niet als je ze erop wijst dat je niet zomaar afbeeldingen van andere sites mag kopiëren.

Als voorbeeld de volgende catawikinummers die vandaag zijn aangemaakt hebben afbeeldingen geript van Banknoteindex.com
6399773 origineel staat hier
6399735 origineel staat hier
6399025 origineel staat hier
6399087 origineel staat hier
6399089 origineel staat hier
6399135 origineel staat hier

Deze afbeeldingen zijn geript vanaf Ebay.com
6399043 origineel staat hier
6399057 origineel staat hier

Ongetwijfeld dat de overige toevoegingen van deze gebruiker vandaag ook met geripte scans zijn.

Not all users want to understand that you have to create your own images, even if you point out that you shouldn't just copy images from other sites.

As an example the following catalog numbers created today have images ripped from Banknoteindex.com
6399773 original is here
6399735 original is here
6399025 original is here
6399087 original is here
6399089 original is here
6399135 original is here

These images are ripped from Ebay.com
6399043 original is here
6399057 original is here

No doubt the rest of this user's additions today are also with ripped scans.

Deze afbeeldingen zijn geript vanaf Ebay.com
6399043 origineel staat hier
6399057 origineel staat hier

Hoe zit dan dan met de serienummers? Die staan niet op de op CW geplaatste biljetten maar wel op die van E-bay.

De oplossing voor dit probleem met `geleende` afbeeldingen is niet zo moeilijk. Bij het invoeren van de foto`s kan een `verklaring` van de plaatser opgenomen worden. Bij niet invullen/aanvinken hiervan wordt het object niet geplaatst. Precies zoals dat nu gebeurd wanneer je een foto vergeet te uploaden. 

These images are ripped from Ebay.com
6399043 original is here
6399057 original is here

What about the serial numbers then? They are not on the notes placed on CW, but on those of E-bay.

The solution to this "borrowed" image problem is not that difficult. When entering the photos, a 'statement' from the placer can be included. If this is not filled in/checked, the object will not be placed. Exactly like what happens now when you forget to upload a photo.

@Yaci
The user has meanwhile removed the serial numbers with photoshop, a new dimension .......
Just look at the history of the CW articles.

They are still the same images he edited from Ebay; take a good look at the signs of wear on the notes (they are identical)

@VlietSchiedam

Yes, I think you are right and they are i.d.d. photoshopped. But it seems to me that they would be picked up anyway, due to the lack of a serial number. There is also no such thing as specimen printed.

Maybe include a `statement` in the placement after all ???