someone selling a stolen autographed photo that i hold copyright to

[kcflashman861_0]

I found an autographed photo that was taken from my home when I was in the process of moving.Contacted seller and charity it is supposed to benefit and even contacted e bay as to problem and even sent e bay the VEVO form they asked me to send in. that was 4 days ago! No response from any of them! Do I SUE seller  for selling my photo without my express written permission?  I have so far recovered over 200 other photos from another seller and 1 other buyer! These photos were NEVER  intended to be sold due to some agreements I have with artists!

[lovefindingtreasures2]

4 days is a long time if the seller sells his photo and it goes into another persons hands or even out of the Country.

A letter from a lawyer is worth its weight in gold. For @ $300 a lawyer can draft a letter to the person holding the stolen photograph with threats of further action, etc., if proper action is not taken to return the stolen property.

Hope you get your property back 🙂

[maxine*j]

---

@lacemaker3 wrote:

I think that OP is the photographer...

---

That's possible.  "an autographed photo that I hold copyright to" seems an odd way to say so, but it could be.

[maxine*j]

---

@lovefindingtreasures2 wrote:
4 days is a long time if the seller sells his photo and it goes into another persons hands or even out of the Country.

---

I'd just grit my teeth and buy it, myself.  I once bought something that had been stolen off my vehicle, from the person I knew good and well was the thief.  Figured it was the cheapest way to go, considering the cost otherwise in terms of money, time, hassle, dealing with authorities, et cetera.   But that's just me. 

[argon38]

---

@maxine*j wrote:

I'd just grit my teeth and buy it, myself.  I once bought something that had been stolen off my vehicle, from the person I knew good and well was the thief.  Figured it was the cheapest way to go, considering the cost otherwise in terms of money, time, hassle, dealing with authorities, et cetera.   But that's just me. 

---

Did you give them positive feedback?

[maxine*j]

---

@argon38 wrote:

---

---

Did you give them positive feedback?

---

Oh, heavens! It was 55 years ago, long before eBay.  

[argon38]

---

@lacemaker3 wrote:

Presumably, the OP is able to distinguish the original photo (which was stolen from him) from the copies that were sold by the charity, which can legally be resold under the First Sale doctrine.

---

I don't think the First Sale doctrine would apply in this case, though, since any copies would have been made unlawfully.

[lacemaker3]

---

@argon38 wrote:

---

@lacemaker3 wrote:

Presumably, the OP is able to distinguish the original photo (which was stolen from him) from the copies that were sold by the charity, which can legally be resold under the First Sale doctrine.

---

I don't think the First Sale doctrine would apply in this case, though, since any copies would have been made unlawfully.

---

If they were copies that he licensed the charity to sell, then they were not unlawfully made.

OP said:

---

@kcflashman861_0 wrote:

...Contacted seller and charity it is supposed to benefit ...

---

OK, I had originally interpreted that to mean that OP had licensed the charity to sell official copies of the photo to raise money. Looking at it again, that may not be correct (I did say that other interpretations were possible).

That may mean that the original, signed, stolen photo is being sold on eBay, and some or part of the proceeds are going to benefit a charity. If that is the case, then there may not be any reproductions at all, and nothing for the First Sale doctrine to apply to. 

If there are reproductions that were not licensed, then the First Sale doctrine does not applly.

[argon38]

---

@lacemaker3 wrote:

---

@argon38 wrote:

---

@lacemaker3 wrote:

Presumably, the OP is able to distinguish the original photo (which was stolen from him) from the copies that were sold by the charity, which can legally be resold under the First Sale doctrine.

---

I don't think the First Sale doctrine would apply in this case, though, since any copies would have been made unlawfully.

---

If they were copies that he licensed the charity to sell, then they were not unlawfully made.

---

Sorry, yes, you believe the OP licensed them - my eyes skipped that line in your other post. I was thinking back to the idea that the eBay seller was making multiple unauthorised copies, and maybe donating a portion of the proceeds to charity.

[lacemaker3]

---

@argon38 wrote:

---

@lacemaker3 wrote:

---

...

---

Sorry, yes, you believe the OP licensed them - my eyes skipped that line in your other post. I was thinking back to the idea that the eBay seller was making multiple unauthorised copies, and maybe donating a portion of the proceeds to charity.

---

Yup, that's another possible interpretation.