BEWARE - Herpfauna Plus

[Hues1]

I sold these people a 16 month old leopard tortoise that has been a family "pet" for the last 13 months. I held back 3 babies this past year to see how they would mature and look as older animals.
I sold the animal as a normal leopard tortoise for $235.00 shipped. Which I believed to be a male because of the "V" shaped anal plates.
What do I see on KS today ?
A ad in the tortoise section with MY pictures of the tortoise being advertised as a female "blonde" leopard for $450.00 shipped. Not only did they use my pictures but they also tried to remove and cut out the watermarks I had placed on them.
This animal is in no way form or shape a "blonde", we raised this tortoise since it was 3 months old and it looked like every other leopard tortoise baby out there.
Not only that, but these people called me the same day of delivery to tell me that the animal was smaller than they thought and that they really needed a bigger animal to raise and eventually breed with one of the females they had. I asked them to send it back to me for a full refund...they declined to send it back...so they asked me for a $35.00 refund because of the size discrepancy and I obliged...feeling that I had measured the animal wrong and was off by 1 1/4 inches ( I measured the carapace instead of the plastron ).

Here are the original pics of the tortoise posted on KS and on my site...

The ad I have on my site is still there located in the "Shelled" section.

Below in the following posts are pictures they used in their ads and of the ad itself.

 

[Hues1]

1st. Picture in AD

1st picture used in their ad....

 

[Hues1]

2nd pic.

2nd pic they used in their ad.....

 

[Hues1]

The ad itself

and heres the ad.......

Beautiful Blonde Leopard 4 1/2 in female
Miami Florida
Posted by HERPFAUNA PLUS (Contact Me!) on January 23, 2004 at 11:21:21
Registered PetHobbyist User since 2002-09-01
Click on thumbnails to view fullsize in a new window

I have this beautiful blonde Leopard tortoise, healthy and eating like a pig. Looks to be a female, judge for yourself. Asking $450.oo shipped (lower 48 states) or will trade for a 4 inch Female Indian Star, will pay for shipping- Let's negotiate! Must send Pics. Postal Money orders or Paypal (preferred) accepted. Thanks for Looking, *Herpfauna Plus*

 

[W.Wedeking]

Well, you definately have them for copyright violation.

Sould you explain the difference between a "normal" and a "blonde" leopard tortoise?

 

[W.Wedeking]

OOops! that was supposed to be "Could..."

It looks like they have taken that ad down and put up one with their own pictures now.

 

[Hues1]

Blonde leopard tortoises start out as "blondes" from hatching. They are 90%-100% "blonde" even as hatchlings....they DO NOT mature into the blonde coloration. As you can see by the pics above, that particular animal has just about equal amounts of black versus "blonde". Blonde leopard tortoises are also genetic, when mating true "blonde" animals....you will produce "blonde" offspring. This animal along with its siblings were all dark just like any other leopard tortoise hatchling. If you bred this particular animal...you get nothing but normal babies.

This guy e-mailed me and showed his true ignorance....he tried to explain to me that there are variations of "blondes"...even though I explained to him that this particular animal was NOT from a blonde line and therefor is not genetic. This particular animal is nothing more than a very nice maturing Leopard tortoise as I have 2 more here at home that are also developing similiarly.

What'll happen is this guy will sell it as a "blonde" and then new owner will breed it only to produce nothing but NORMAL babies.

UPDATE
This guys name is Jason Medina out of florida, he now claims to have nothing to do with Herpfauna Plus and that they are just friends who let him post with Herpfauna's KS account.

I wonder if they ever read KS's terms of service ???

 

[Sasheena]

Screen shot of the old ad before they changed it:

 

[Hues1]

Sasheena...
Thanks for posting that screenshot, I couldnt figure that one out.

 

[Sasheena]

You are welcome. I prefer in threads where they discuss an ad to see the actual ad. Lends credence.

How I do it...

I open the advertisement so that most if not all show on my screen.

I click on the "print screen" button

I open "Paint" (start button, programs, accessories, paint) it comes standard with Microsoft Windows I think.

I hit ctrl-v (paste) and voila, it is in the paint program.

I select the pertinent area, with the square selection tool and copy it, create a new document (so as to avoid all the rest of the screen cluttering things up) and paste to that document.

I save as a .jpeg and now I have a screen shot that is not too large to post, that has the necessary "proof" for all the doubting thomases out there.

It's really sad that people will go to such lengths as these people. Bad enough for them to tell the world they have something they don't, but worse that they also complained and got a partial refund, and their third strike is using your ALTERED photos. Three definate signs of "scum" if I've seen them.

 

[dvf1973]

someone should let them know

about this thread, its fun to see people see themselves called out. As for the copyright thing, it does'nt work that way, I often see people saying its copyrighted because they put a c with a circle around it, it takes a whole lot more than that to actually accomplish a copyright, and doesnt hold any water in court, sorry? I think alot of these scammers may be ended if they were informed that they were busted, as its hard for them to know this if they dont know.

 

[Steph Scranton]

Actually, Pictures are copyrighted automatically. The person who holds the negatives, holds the copyright. I am uncertain how this holds up in the new digital world but that is how it works with regular prints.

 

[dvf1973]

err - well - uh

I am a professional illustrator/painter, I do do it for a living, a few years back they changed alot of the copyright laws, I agree having hard film, if you really, really wanted to take it to court, you would have to prove that they were making profit specifically off of the images, meaning they were selling the images, not the item, like hey come buy my super duper great posters of this tortise i have for five bucks, then the actual owner would have to hire a copyright lawyer(which is not cheap) dropping that 1000 dollar retainer, then getting the party your chasing in what ever state they may be in,and to actually get the courts to accept the claim(for five bucks or whatever)is going to be a complete waste of the courts time and money, unless it was a big steal like me selling pics of something I swiped from National Geographic, I dont see it! One would have to apply directly to the state you live in, if out of country you would have to apply for an international copyright(good luck), the mail it to yourself certified thing does not work anymore either, again from my studies one can not retain copyright just cause, its usually obtained legally, it does cost money,and takes time.

Sorry for the change of subject,

 

[Hues1]

" Copyright occurs automatically when both of two conditions are satisfied:
the creation of an original work and
"fixation of that work in any tangible medium of expression."
17 USC §§ 101, 102(a), 302(a). "

"Amendments to the U.S. Copyright statutes in 1998 included a new section making it wrongful to "intentionally remove or alter" any one or more of the following items:
the notice of copyright,
the title of the work ,the author's name and other identifying information about the author , or
"terms and conditions for the use of the work."

A fourth way to make a copy with a browser is to use the Save As command from the File menu. This command saves the HTML, JPEG, or other file on the user's hard disk with a filename chosen by the user. Such copying may be infringement of a copyright.

All of the above statements can be found here http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm the above was revised as of 2001.

 

[Pennebaker]

I have to agree. As a professional schooled and trained artist (B.A./B.F.A., M.F.A.), and practicing painter/printmaker/etc, I know that I do not need to do anything to copyright my work--it is automatic. I also have photography training (digital and studio) and again, no need to copyright the work. Maybe you are confusing it with trademarking?

And I have had the same thing happen with photos on our website--it stinks and I would call them out too. Those are also very nice quality photos--it is just not fair to have someone else profit off of your time and effort without permission or credit.

Dana

 

[dvf1973]

ok did some research

and, here is what I have found, I am wrong in the assertion that the "artist" automatically owns the image under the copyroght acts, although i will contest you would greatly be wasting your time,as he is not selling the image or representing it as his, or as his for sale

I also have credited degrees in illustration and painting from the largest art school in this country, so as per my experience , and by direction my very well know teachers were very specific on getting you work copyrighted, as per court room remedy needs that, i did find a great link on the subject here it is

http://www.artistresource.org/copyrite.htm

I actually have been in the legal side of this matter when I was much younger, I was commisioned by a manager at IBM headquarters to do some illustrations, the day of the exchange, he had an offer from someone for the art. This person so happened to own a print shop/tshirt shop and fully planned on reproducing these in many different forms, The origional buyer contacted me, asking me what he should do. I thought that was crass at best, told him to go ahead with the sale so I could sue the guy and make much more from the infringment than ever from the images. My fathers good friend at the time was a very prominant D.C. lawyer whom had just left the graces of the pentagon to go work at Ball Aerospace,"clout" he called the third party to begin the process of copyright allowance with the man, including initial deposites on the to be intended products. Eventually the guy sissyed out of the deal as per the cost expected in our exchange, this included the registration of the art to be copyrighted.

so in conclusion yes, legally speaking I am wrong, although as per my training in school it was very pressed to get it copyrighted even under the allowance of signature, and style, and image.

As per pursueing this persons use of an image I dont think it can hold water, prick or not , I dont think a lawyer "a smart lawyer" would take it. just my opinion though, as far as ks they shoulfd be notified, the bbb should be notified, and the guy posting should be notified,

 

[Hues1]

Damien,
I dont believe that anywhere in this thread have I said anything about trying to go after them for damages or trying to get restitution for using my pictures...etc etc etc. So I dont understand why is it such a big issue for you to insist that pursuing the matter will yield no rewards when its of no relevance.

Stealing the pics, altering the watermarks and using them was more of a moral no no then it was a legal no no.

This thread plain and simple is about them mislabeling, misrepresenting, and falsely advertising a animal as something it is not.

Sorry if I seem blunt, but this thread is going in the wrong direction...this thread was not meant to be an argument about copyright laws and the legalities of pursuing compensation.

For the people reading this for the first time...

They used my pictures, they altered them, they tried to sell and represent a animal as something it was not...knowingly. MORALLY and ETHICALLY a no no.

I am not looking for compensation of any sort for the misuse and alteration of my pics...I want people to beware that these are their business practices. NO more NO less.

Let me say this again....Beware of Jason Medina out of florida who is also associated and has been known to post with Herpfauna Plus' KS classifieds account.

Thanks

 

[dvf1973]

do not put this on me

i did not bring up the subject, i only gave a short opinion, thanks. I do believe

"Well, you definately have them for copyright violation."

was the underlying statement, that i commented on, and as for the two/three other parties whom continued the debate, I had no other reason to comment on the subject until the others followed suit, I even appologized for the change of subject, I honestly care less, but I wont accept belittlement, and no where in any of these post did I ever say anything letting them off of the hook for anything they have done, and also did i ever say ever that YOU did say that compensation was your recoarse? No, dont believe I did? And yes its gone off coarse, so iI will let it go if thats whats understood by everyone,

 

[jayshady]

Well, I agree they shouldn't have use your pictures but the tortoise looks like a blonde to me. At that size it's hard to sex the tortoise but it looks like it can be a female. I have bought a few snakes from them last year and didn't have any problems with their service. It looks like you are pretty upset at them but going through all that trouble, is it really worth it? Is it a business rival? Just handle your business and your performance will speak for itself. Just my two cents worth.

 

[dwedeking]

Well, I agree they shouldn't have use your pictures but the tortoise looks like a blonde to me.

Except that Alex had physical possession of this animal and knows it's history so "looks like" does not play a role in what it really is.

Is it a business rival?

Actually Alex sold the animal to them. If it was entirely a money oriented situation he wouldn't care what they did to sell it so they could buy another.

Alex wasn't looking for a settlement just giving a heads up to the ethical background of this group of people. The copyright issue in this case got blown out of proportion by the discussion on copyright laws in general.