I am not selling anything.. honestly... I am a trader, but I am
curious though. Seems like a year or two ago there were tons of
plants being sold there, and now it looks pretty dead. Did people
finally realize most of the stuff was over priced? I see a couple
of the vendors who sell not much more than seedling sized plants,
but there used to be a couple others like JEM who seemed to
have reasonable plants. I don't even see them there anymore.

Crystal

--
http://home.comcast.net/~xtals/orchid.htm

The only time that I ever bid for an orchid on ebay was a phal belllina --
and luckily I lost that bid, since I had not read carefully enough to
realize how young the plant was (one of those ebay traps where they posted
the photo of the parent plant), and it was sold for more than the price I
wound up paying another grower for a blooming size one. I later went to the
site of the grower who was selling that seedling on ebay, and they were
selling plants of roughly the same price for much less money from their
homesite than at the auction.

So if anyone _is_ bidding for orchids on ebay, if you are not very careful,
you really should be! I know I am never going to bid for a plant on ebay
again.

Joanna

"House of Paisley" wrote in message
news:1emLb.1454$5V2.1831@attbi_s53...
I am not selling anything.. honestly... I am a trader, but I am
curious though. Seems like a year or two ago there were tons of
plants being sold there, and now it looks pretty dead. Did people
finally realize most of the stuff was over priced? I see a couple
of the vendors who sell not much more than seedling sized plants,
but there used to be a couple others like JEM who seemed to
have reasonable plants. I don't even see them there anymore.

Crystal

--
http://home.comcast.net/~xtals/orchid.htm

House of Paisley wrote:

I am not selling anything.. honestly... I am a trader, but I am
curious though. Seems like a year or two ago there were tons of
plants being sold there, and now it looks pretty dead. Did people
finally realize most of the stuff was over priced? I see a couple
of the vendors who sell not much more than seedling sized plants,
but there used to be a couple others like JEM who seemed to
have reasonable plants. I don't even see them there anymore.

Crystal

--
http://home.comcast.net/~xtals/orchid.htm


Got a couple from 'jeffinorchids' last year, two each of two bulbo
crosses... very cheaply, and all four plants were multigrowth, larger
than expected and healthy as a horse.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:04:13 GMT, "House of Paisley"
wrote:

I am not selling anything.. honestly... I am a trader, but I am
curious though. Seems like a year or two ago there were tons of
plants being sold there, and now it looks pretty dead. Did people
finally realize most of the stuff was over priced? I see a couple
of the vendors who sell not much more than seedling sized plants,
but there used to be a couple others like JEM who seemed to
have reasonable plants. I don't even see them there anymore.

Crystal

Some of them were hijacking pictures from copyrighted sites and
in some cases not even copying, rather sending each visitor thru
to the site and tying it up. When they lost the ability to swipe
copyrighted material, they did not post as much.

I think they were part of the bait with a photo and send a small
seedling crowd as well.
SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:32:06 -0700, Susan Erickson
wrote in Message-Id: :

Some of them were hijacking pictures from copyrighted sites [...]
sending each visitor thru to the site [containing the pictures]
and tying it up.

What you describe as 'hijacking' is known as linking. It provides a
means of overcoming duplicate content and copyright infringement on
the world wide web and is one of its fundamental concepts.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:16:49 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:32:06 -0700, Susan Erickson
wrote in Message-Id: :

Some of them were hijacking pictures from copyrighted sites [...]
sending each visitor thru to the site [containing the pictures]
and tying it up.

What you describe as 'hijacking' is known as linking. It provides a
means of overcoming duplicate content and copyright infringement on
the world wide web and is one of its fundamental concepts.

Normally when you present it as YOUR photo of YOUR plant, it is
not a link you did not ask permission to put up.
SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php

Odd to reply to my own post, but someone is actually selling an
orchid for 10,000.00 on ebay. That is kooky talk. Seedlings of
the same plant for 90 bucks.

Crystal

--
http://home.comcast.net/~xtals/orchid.htm

I buy from eBay fairly often. All the plants except one were very healthy.
I always read all the listing and the feedback as well, I never buy from
anyone with less than 98% positive feedback and I only buy whan they post
good pictures of the plant for sale. I also buy stamps and glass and have
bought quilts in the past. I've only had one problem and that was a
purchase from Israel which I never recieved and that was refunded.

Shell


"House of Paisley" wrote in message
news:1emLb.1454$5V2.1831@attbi_s53...
I am not selling anything.. honestly... I am a trader, but I am
curious though. Seems like a year or two ago there were tons of
plants being sold there, and now it looks pretty dead. Did people
finally realize most of the stuff was over priced? I see a couple
of the vendors who sell not much more than seedling sized plants,
but there used to be a couple others like JEM who seemed to
have reasonable plants. I don't even see them there anymore.

Crystal

--
http://home.comcast.net/~xtals/orchid.htm

There are a few well-known and respectable folks that sell on eBay, but
there are an unfortunate number of rip-offs (shouldn't that be "rips-off?)
as well.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Books, Artwork, and Lots of Free Info!

.. . . . . . . . . . .
"Shell" wrote in message
y.com...
I buy from eBay fairly often. All the plants except one were very
healthy.
I always read all the listing and the feedback as well, I never buy from
anyone with less than 98% positive feedback and I only buy whan they post
good pictures of the plant for sale. I also buy stamps and glass and have
bought quilts in the past. I've only had one problem and that was a
purchase from Israel which I never recieved and that was refunded.

Shell


"House of Paisley" wrote in message
news:1emLb.1454$5V2.1831@attbi_s53...
I am not selling anything.. honestly... I am a trader, but I am
curious though. Seems like a year or two ago there were tons of
plants being sold there, and now it looks pretty dead. Did people
finally realize most of the stuff was over priced? I see a couple
of the vendors who sell not much more than seedling sized plants,
but there used to be a couple others like JEM who seemed to
have reasonable plants. I don't even see them there anymore.

Crystal

--
http://home.comcast.net/~xtals/orchid.htm

Very true, for all catagories. I've been fortunate mostly by paying
attention when I get that feeling something was wrong
Shell


"Ray" wrote in message
...
There are a few well-known and respectable folks that sell on eBay, but
there are an unfortunate number of rip-offs (shouldn't that be "rips-off?)
as well.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Books, Artwork, and Lots of Free Info!

. . . . . . . . . . .
"Shell" wrote in message
y.com...
I buy from eBay fairly often. All the plants except one were very
healthy.
I always read all the listing and the feedback as well, I never buy from
anyone with less than 98% positive feedback and I only buy whan they
post
good pictures of the plant for sale. I also buy stamps and glass and
have
bought quilts in the past. I've only had one problem and that was a
purchase from Israel which I never recieved and that was refunded.

Shell


"House of Paisley" wrote in message
news:1emLb.1454$5V2.1831@attbi_s53...
I am not selling anything.. honestly... I am a trader, but I am
curious though. Seems like a year or two ago there were tons of
plants being sold there, and now it looks pretty dead. Did people
finally realize most of the stuff was over priced? I see a couple
of the vendors who sell not much more than seedling sized plants,
but there used to be a couple others like JEM who seemed to
have reasonable plants. I don't even see them there anymore.

Crystal

--
http://home.comcast.net/~xtals/orchid.htm

Larry,

It's still copyright infringement when you have notices all over your site
that reuse of your photographs is permitted only for educational
non-commercial use. The original academic users of the internet would have
respected that. That's no longer the case with the general public.

I almost put up pornography on my site under a bunch of orchid file names
that a guy in the Netherlands was direct-linking from my site in order to
sell his plants, but he stopped linking after I sent him several nastygrams.
If he'd been in the US, all I would have to have done was email his ISP and
had his site shut down.

Us photographers are very particular about how our images are reused. =)

-Eric in SF
http://www.erichunt.com/orchids/SPECIES/ab.html

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:32:06 -0700, Susan Erickson
wrote in Message-Id: :

Some of them were hijacking pictures from copyrighted sites [...]
sending each visitor thru to the site [containing the pictures]
and tying it up.

What you describe as 'hijacking' is known as linking. It provides a
means of overcoming duplicate content and copyright infringement on
the world wide web and is one of its fundamental concepts.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 07:29:37 -0800, "Eric Hunt"
wrote:

I almost put up pornography on my site under a bunch of orchid file names
that a guy in the Netherlands was direct-linking from my site in order to

Us photographers are very particular about how our images are reused. =)

-Eric in SF
http://www.erichunt.com/orchids/SPECIES/ab.html


My son made the links pull up a statement that using copyrighted
material with out permission is stealing. And that stealing
pictures from this site will no longer be tolerated.

Did not bother telling the jerk. His ebay advertisement just
displayed the statement instead of the photo. In 2 days he was no
longer linked or selling that material under false banners on
ebay.
SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php

there are an unfortunate number of rip-offs (shouldn't that be
"rips-off?)

I don't think so. William Safire would say that "rip-off" has become a
phrase/word of its own, so that now many people write "ripoff", though I do
not. Besides, "rips-off" sounds funny, unlike "masters of ceremony" We
generally think of 'rip' as a verb, though clearly it can be a noun, i.e. a
rip in my shirt. Rip off is the ultimate in our slangy use of the language!

I can't believe I just wrote that in rgo, but I'm going to hit the send
button anyway.

Diana

as well.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Books, Artwork, and Lots of Free Info!

. . . . . . . . . . .
"Shell" wrote in message
y.com...
I buy from eBay fairly often. All the plants except one were very
healthy.
I always read all the listing and the feedback as well, I never buy from
anyone with less than 98% positive feedback and I only buy whan they
post
good pictures of the plant for sale. I also buy stamps and glass and
have
bought quilts in the past. I've only had one problem and that was a
purchase from Israel which I never recieved and that was refunded.

Shell


"House of Paisley" wrote in message
news:1emLb.1454$5V2.1831@attbi_s53...
I am not selling anything.. honestly... I am a trader, but I am
curious though. Seems like a year or two ago there were tons of
plants being sold there, and now it looks pretty dead. Did people
finally realize most of the stuff was over priced? I see a couple
of the vendors who sell not much more than seedling sized plants,
but there used to be a couple others like JEM who seemed to
have reasonable plants. I don't even see them there anymore.

Crystal

--
http://home.comcast.net/~xtals/orchid.htm

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:20:21 -0700, Susan Erickson
wrote in Message-Id: :

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 07:29:37 -0800, "Eric Hunt"
wrote:

I almost put up pornography on my site under a bunch of orchid file names
that a guy in the Netherlands was direct-linking from my site in order to

Us photographers are very particular about how our images are reused. =)

-Eric in SF
http://www.erichunt.com/orchids/SPECIES/ab.html


My son made the links pull up a statement that using copyrighted
material with out permission is stealing. And that stealing
pictures from this site will no longer be tolerated.

That would seem appropriately childish. Had your son actually accused
the eBay orchid seller of theft, he may have opened the door to a
libel suit.

1i•bel \"li-bel\ noun [ME, written declaration, fr. MF, fr. L
libellus, dim. of liber book] (14c)
1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts
sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought
b archaic : a handbill esp. attacking or defaming someone
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation
that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression
b (1) : a statement or representation published without just
cause and tending to expose another to public contempt
(2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means
(3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or
obscene writings or pictures
(4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

Merriam-Webster

Did not bother telling the jerk. His ebay advertisement just
displayed the statement instead of the photo. In 2 days he was no
longer linked or selling that material under false banners on
ebay.
SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php

If the eBay orchid seller doesn't take nor copy your photographs nor
host them from his site, how can you characterize him as a thief?

Perhaps it would have been less emotionally satisfying, but wouldn't
it have been significantly more professional to provide him with a
contract proposal to compensate you for the use of your material?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:32:06 -0700, Susan Erickson
wrote in Message-Id: :

Some of them were hijacking pictures from copyrighted sites [...]
sending each visitor thru to the site [containing the pictures]
and tying it up.

What you describe as 'hijacking' is known as linking. It provides a
means of overcoming duplicate content and copyright infringement on
the world wide web and is one of its fundamental concepts.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 07:29:37 -0800, "Eric Hunt"
wrote in Message-Id: :

Larry,

It's still copyright infringement when you have notices all over your site
that reuse of your photographs is permitted only for educational
non-commercial use. The original academic users of the internet would have
respected that. That's no longer the case with the general public.

I have never seen a marketeer with respect for the public. :-)

I almost put up pornography on my site under a bunch of orchid file names
that a guy in the Netherlands was direct-linking from my site in order to
sell his plants, but he stopped linking after I sent him several nastygrams.
If he'd been in the US, all I would have to have done was email his ISP and
had his site shut down.

On what grounds? Have you been successful with tactic in the past?
Doubtful.

Us photographers are very particular about how our images are reused. =)

-Eric in SF
http://www.erichunt.com/orchids/SPECIES/ab.html


Eric,

Because we seem to disagree, perhaps I fail to understand the issue
completely. Let me recap my understanding, and perhaps you can spot
my misapprehension.

1. A photographer freely publishes copies of his photographs on
the World Wide Web for public viewing.

2. A commercial orchid-sales web site provides links to some of
the photographer's images for the purpose of providing his customers
with an idea of the appearance of the orchid species s/he is selling.
The photographer's images are not copied nor hosted from the
commercial orchid-sales web site.

3. The photographer feels that his copyright is being infringed,
because s/he has not been credited nor compensated for the commercial
use of his work that s/he freely published on the WWW for public
access.

Is this correct?

If so, I fail to see how the photographer's creative work (placed in
the public domain for public access over the WWW) is being used in
violation of the photographer's copyright. The commercial orchid
marketer has not taken nor copied the photographer's creative work.
S/he has merely provided his customers the address URL to the
copyrighted work the photographer has himself freely provided to the
public.

So if there has been _no copying_, how can the copyright have been
infringed? And the photographer's act of providing the public free
access to his work verges on placing it into the public domain and
thus forfeiting his copyright to exclusive use.

I would suggest that photographers place copyright notices directly on
the publicly accessible versions of their images, so that they receive
due credit whenever their images are viewed.

Further, I would characterize the posting of notices attempting to
limit the use of the photographer's images, accessed through a URL to
the photographer's web site, to 'non commercial use only' as absurdly
unenforceable. The photographer has placed his work on the WWW for
public viewing; in doing so s/he has obviously given up the right to
control who views his images, unless a password is required.

In any event, I see no fundamental difference between a commercial
orchid-sales web site and Google or Yahoo providing public links to
the photographs you have provided for public viewing; they all do so
in conjunction with a commercial venture.

If I've got it all wrong, I'm sure someone will attempt to correct me.
:-)

--

The true Axis Of Evil in America is our genious at marketing
coupled with the stupidity of our people. -- Bill Maher