What would you do?

[ratspike]

As an advertiser I probably shouldn't weigh in, but I think it's okay for the professional photographer part of me to throw out his $0.02 USD.

No business should ever be using photos that they don't own or have permission to use to advertise or promote their product or services. The photos should also accurately represent that product or service. Fred's Kilt Barn makes kilts but they're really not very good, so Fred "borrows" photos from Rob Roy's House of Awesome Kilts. Fred's excuse is that since the photos are of kilts, and he makes kilts, it's okay because they're the same thing. This happens in the photography world a lot and it's totally sleazy. Advertising on a web forum is a privilege, and if you're sleazy and misrepresent your products then you should lose that privilege.

I wouldn't buy from a business I knew used stolen photos to represent their products because I know I can't trust them. If those aren't their photos, how do I know what I'll actually be receiving? How do I know I'll receive anything at all? They've shown that they don't have a problem with stealing so how can I trust them to deal honestly with me as a customer?

[piperdbh]

My answers to your last 4 questions: yes, no, no, yes.

[Downunder Kilt]

On the issue of patents, could the Utilikilt one be explained? Is it just the way the pleats run, towards the back from each side to meet in the middle of the back without the external kingussie style pleat. (If this sidetracks the thread please remove)

[ASinclair]

Would the membership here hold those who advertise here to a higher ethical standard? YES

Would you want a company who makes or resells in one country, products that are under copyright or patent in another country, to be able to advertise on X Marks? NO

Would you buy those products if the price were lower than from the copyright holder? NO

To you, the members of X Marks, is price the overriding factor or do you hold yourselves, and by default this forum, to an ethical, over legal, standard? Ethics overrides price

And Steve, thank you, sir, for providing this wonderful Home for the Kilted Rabble.

[Steve Ashton]

Anyone can do a search of the US Patent office database. Steven Villegas was given patent no. 6,282,723 on 9 Nov 2000.

Or click here.

[Downunder Kilt]

Anyone can do a search of the US Patent office database. Steven Villegas was giving patent no. 6,282,723 on 9 Nov 2000.

Or click here.

Much obliged Steve, did not realise it was so easy to get over there. Cheers

[cable scot]

I purchase from the advertisers here exclusively because of their well earned reputations and the personal contact I regularly encounter from them here. I feel that if it is a question of funding the forum I would gladly pay to be here, If it is just a question of ethics then I would expect an advertiser here to be just that. I would like to believe that if a company had a picture of Matt Newsome's, Rocky's or Scott's work as an example of their own products, that not a member here would purchase from them. Nor would they be allowed to advertise here.

[Liam]

Much obliged Steve, did not realise it was so easy to get over there. Cheers

If I understand Steven Villegas' patent correctly, he as patented what might be referred to as the "reverse Kingussie" in the US. Has he patented it in other countries? A patent is a monopoly only in the jurisdiction where it exists. If Steven Villegas' wishes to have the same monopoly rights in other jurisdiction then he needs to obtain a patent there. I don't view this as a matter that in any way involves ethics or morals if someone makes or sells a patented item outside the jurisdiction of the patent. Here is a link to an article about patents.
http://patent-advice.ca/information/...Fa10Qgod50UAEg

Now, Steve, back to your original post. I do put a higher level of trust in the advertisers here, just as I do the membership here, but look to you as the forum "owner" to establish the rules for both advertisers and members as you see fit.

[RockyR]

As an advertiser I probably shouldn't weigh in, but I think it's okay for the professional photographer part of me to throw out his $0.02 USD.

Ratspike... I don't see any "conflict of interest" here with you weighing in. As an advertiser, this directly affects you and your voice should be heard as well.

[Canuck]

I find myself having a bit of conflict of interest here as not only am I a member but a former advertiser (Robert Pel of RKilts). I will answer the questions and then provide comment.

If an advertiser here were using photos from someone else, and it could be proven that no permission was granted, would you feel confidant dealing with that company?
No I would not. On a side note what I find is that it may put into question where the original company got their product from as one may perceive that both companies share the same supplier yet one is offering it for considerably less or the other is marking it up considerably more. (see other posts above that have clarified this better)

Would you want a company who uses photos without permission to be able to advertise here?.
No This has been a constant battle for my company, and a big thank you has to go out to members here for helping me track the offenders down.
Would you feel confidant buying a Utilikilt knock-off from a company operating in a country not covered by that patent?
No. But given the reference here. In 2003 I was contacted by the patent holder to discuss this issue regarding one of my products. As a result of that conversation no further action was taken by either party

Would you buy products from such a company and would you want such companies to be able to advertise here?
Answered above

Would the membership here hold those who advertise here to a higher ethical standard?
Yes

Would you want a company who makes or resells in one country, products that are under copyright or patent in another country, to be able to advertise on X Marks?
No

Would you buy those products if the price were lower than from the copyright holder?
No

To you, the members of X Marks, is price the overriding factor or do you hold yourselves, and by default this forum, to an ethical, over legal, standard?
This is where my moral compass kicks in. If you will notice my join date (upper right hand corner), I joined the second day this site went public. At that time there were no advertisers. The site was geared to providing information, getting folk into quality wear. The members , and owners worked hard to accomplish that. (Rocky has explained it well, on the evolution of xmarks)
Knowing what goes into making a product, I have a hard time supporting industries that exploit their workers to getting that product to market. I see it in our kilt related industry.
So I have made a conscientious effort, to not support companies that do support these practices.
In Canada a majority of the Highland games allow resellers of questionable product to vend, I have chosen not to support these games.
As always the consumer can dictate on who they wish to support or not, and that is what it should be.
Cheers