First Piece of the Wand for sale on Ebay

WDWFigment

WDWFigment

Well-Known Member
Surplus Kingdom is the seller, so you know it's legit, but really, what's the point in buying this? I could buy the same thing at the store for a lot less and there really is no difference. It's not a cool or uniquely Disney item. Good find, nonetheless, SewIn2Disney!
 
jmvd20

jmvd20

Well-Known Member
I think it is sad that people would actually pay that much for something like that. Next time I am at WDW I think I am going to take some leaves off a tree and sell it on Ebay...
 
jmvd20

jmvd20

Well-Known Member
Vernonpush said:
I think that it is sad that Mouse surplus steals mousermerf's photo to help sell their junk.
See photo #2:
http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?t=209111
Click to expand...

I just looked at those side by side and it is the same picture. Good eye on finding that, I think it is funny they eliminated the lower portion of the picture to remove the people from it.

Merf needs to add Mouse Surplus to the "this mean you" list of people in his signature.
 
kucarachi

kucarachi

Active Member
the reflector stones

I dont know about you guys but im cetain that voldomorts last horcruz is in the epcot wand! whoever buys it must use baslik blood to destroy it. I will take on this task unless the bidding goes over 30 U.S. dollars.
 
CrashNet

CrashNet

Well-Known Member
Vernonpush said:
I think that it is sad that Mouse surplus steals mousermerf's photo to help sell their junk.
See photo #2:
http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?t=209111
Click to expand...
If you notice they removed the people because, you cannot use a person's face without their permission. If you want to be that technical about someone using your photos, every person in that picture could sue if they really wanted to.

You post a picture on the internet on an open website without copyright restrictions, its fair game. I don't agree with it, but thats just the way it is.
 
FigmentJedi

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
kucarachi said:
I dont know about you guys but im cetain that voldomorts last horcruz is in the epcot wand! whoever buys it must use baslik blood to destroy it. I will take on this task unless the bidding goes over 30 U.S. dollars.
Click to expand...

Wow, look at all the typos. If you really pay attention to the Potter books, Voldemort died almost 10 years ago. The Harry Potter series actually starts in 1991, so add seven years to that and Voldemort died in 1998, just as another "Boy Who Lived" type story was beginning in Epcot what with Figment loosing Dreamfinder and eventually becoming the only original character the park has.
 
jmvd20

jmvd20

Well-Known Member
kucarachi said:
I dont know about you guys but im cetain that voldomorts last horcruz is in the epcot wand! whoever buys it must use baslik blood to destroy it. I will take on this task unless the bidding goes over 30 U.S. dollars.
Click to expand...


4_12_3.gif
 
kcnole

kcnole

Well-Known Member
If you notice they removed the people because, you cannot use a person's face without their permission. If you want to be that technical about someone using your photos, every person in that picture could sue if they really wanted to.

You post a picture on the internet on an open website without copyright restrictions, its fair game. I don't agree with it, but thats just the way it is.
Click to expand...

That is completely false.

There is no law against taking a picture of someone in a public place. How do you think the paparazzi gets away with harassing celebs like they do. Secondly, using someone elses work, regardless of where they posted the image without their permission is copyright infringement either way.
 
SewIn2Disney

SewIn2Disney

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
CrashNet

CrashNet

Well-Known Member
kcnole said:
That is completely false.

There is no law against taking a picture of someone in a public place. How do you think the paparazzi gets away with harassing celebs like they do. Secondly, using someone elses work, regardless of where they posted the image without their permission is copyright infringement either way.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the DMCA is full of loopholes. They really need to work on tightening it up. Its also a matter of if its simply worth it or not. Suing over a personal photo posted on a forum just isn't worth the time, no matter who is in the wrong. Someone sees their face on a photo used by a major corporation for financial gain and they weren't asked and you could potentially end up with a problem.

I'm curious if they will sell all of the reflectors. Thats a lot of reflectors to sell individually or in small groups. With those going for what they are now, they could make a bundle.
 
WDWFigment

WDWFigment

Well-Known Member
CrashNet said:
If you use a photo with other likenesses in relation to financial gain it can be a problem, especially with a major corporation and people these days being trigger happy to sue people over petty issues.

Secondly, if you post a photo on a public site like this one and you do not mark it as your own, it is assumed to be posted in the public domain and you have no rights to it whatsoever. I wish it was different, believe me, but the DMCA has so many loop holes in it its practically worthless.

Back to the topic...I'm curious if they will cell all of the reflectors. Thats a lot of reflectors to sell individual or in small groups. With those going for what they are now, they could make a bundle.
Click to expand...

Back off topic a second... Are the laws for using someone's image similar to those for libel (stay with me)? For defamation purposes, people are categorized in three categories: public, semi-public, and private. Private individuals have the most protection, and public individuals the least.

If there are similar laws for using someone's image, that would explain why Paris Hilton can't sue over her image being used, whereas you or I could. :shrug:
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom