PMT using photoshopped images from other retailers...........

Surfmonkey77

So, I was looking to buy a PRS 594 semi hollow, and had my eye on one at Wildwire Guitars, they even held it back for me. I got called away with work and had to pass, and another forum member on here bought it.Top guy, top guitar and all good.

I started looking again this week and found the same model and finish on the PMT website. It looked really familiar, and I know PRS tops can vary greatly, but this looked the same. I still had the link to the Wildwire guitar, checked it, and it was the exact same guitar. PMT had just photoshopped out the black background (poorly) and are using this image for the £3500 PRS.

So, my issue is that when spending that kind of money, you want to choose your top to ensure the figuring is to your liking, and not get a lucky dip. And, surely that must be mis-selling, if the item you are sending out isn't the one pictured? And finally, does it not breach trading standards or copyright laws, and if nothing else shows a very unscrupulous sales tactic.....?

What do you think, am I the only one that wants to see the guitar I am buying if purchasing online? And should the photos reflect the instrument and not be stolen from another retailer? How would PRS feel about a main dealer behaving this way?

Looking forward to your opinions!

bbill335

i get that distributor/dealer relationships may necessitate the use of stock photos but, in an age when every idiot with a smartphone can take a decent picture (or can google how to), it shouldn't be necessary to gamble on things like finishes, tops and fretboards. 

dazzajl

Most retailers use library shots supplied by the manufacturer. There is no way that PMT, or any other seller, would go to the trouble of stealing a shot and photoshopping it. A one line email to PRS would get them all the images they could want. 

Only a few shops shoot individual instruments and even then, only over about £1k usually. 

But yes, I totally agree with your point about about being good to see the actual guitar you’re buying.  

Surfmonkey77

bbill335 said:

i get that distributor/dealer relationships may necessitate the use of stock photos but, in an age when every idiot with a smartphone can take a decent picture (or can google how to), it shouldn't be necessary to gamble on things like finishes, tops and fretboards. 

The problem with stock photos, is that they are always the best tops, mostly 10 tops in PRS case. But you can get PRS Core models that have pretty poor figuring, and it is also down to taste too. But to misrepresent what is being sold by taking images from another retailer, that they have taken themselves of the actual guitars they are selling, and editing the background enough so that it isn't immediately recognisable, I have a real problem with that. 

Might just be me though..... but like you say, I wouldn't want to gamble with tops if shelling out £3500!

skunkwerx

I dunno about using other retailers images but unless they specify its the model in the picture I presume like most things its either a stock image or like Peach do, have their own image of one of the models (but could be an old pic of a diff serial), unless its specified that its chooseable/the guitar in the pic. 

For £3500 I’d want to see exactly what guitar i’d get though. 

Surfmonkey77

dazzajl said:

Most retailers use library shots supplied by the manufacturer. There is no way that PMT, or any other seller, would go to the trouble of stealing a shot and photoshopping it. A one line email to PRS would get them all the images they could want. 

Only a few shops shoot individual instruments and even then, only over about £1k usually. 

But yes, I totally agree with your point about about being good to see the actual guitar you’re buying.  

PMT have definitely taken the image from Wildwire guitars. I have spoken to Wildwire today who confirm it is their photo, and that they have had it happen before but not with PMT, and even on chat to PMT an hour ago the chat guy admitted it to me!

I can post the links if it is allowed?

more

The use of stock photos is the norm and doesn't break any copyright laws . If your selling new stock , it is not expected you post a photo of the  actual item . I personally  would not spend £3500 on a guitar unless I could  play it first. 

Surfmonkey77

If it is an acoustic or solid colour, stock images are fine, but for figured tops, be it a Gibson R9 or a PRS Core model, I would want to choose the top for sure, and would not expect stock images.

Surfmonkey77

more said:

The use of stock photos is the norm and doesn't break any copyright laws . If your selling new stock , it is not expected you post a photo of the  actual item . I personally  would not spend £3500 on a guitar unless I could play it first. 

With the 14 day return policy and no guitars within hours of me or time to travel due to work and lockdown restrictions, I don't have an issue. But I need to point out again, it isn't stock photos in this case, they are specific shots taken by another retailer. Thats where I am with the copyright thing.

I guess it is just me that has an issue with it! I will get back in my box.

andy1839

I know Chris and Leon at Wildwire and Chris takes all of the photos of the guitars himself onsite.

Send them the link and they'll know straight away if it's been lifted from their site.

Surfmonkey77

@andy1839 I spoke with Leon earlier and he confirmed it was his photo, and not the first time they have had their images taken by other retailers.

dazzajl

Surfmonkey77 said:

dazzajl said:

Most retailers use library shots supplied by the manufacturer. There is no way that PMT, or any other seller, would go to the trouble of stealing a shot and photoshopping it. A one line email to PRS would get them all the images they could want. 

Only a few shops shoot individual instruments and even then, only over about £1k usually. 

But yes, I totally agree with your point about about being good to see the actual guitar you’re buying.  

PMT have definitely taken the image from Wildwire guitars. I have spoken to Wildwire today who confirm it is their photo, and that they have had it happen before but not with PMT, and even on chat to PMT an hour ago the chat guy admitted it to me!

I can post the links if it is allowed?

I stand totally corrected on that then. I’m not sure what shocks me more, the outright gall of stealing it or the stupidity to not just ask. 

Surfmonkey77

Actual Photo on Wildwire:



Edited photo on PMT:

andy1839

Surfmonkey77 said:

@andy1839 I spoke with Leon earlier and he confirmed it was his photo, and not the first time they have had their images taken by other retailers.

Sorry bud, I had that written and then went out with the dog and posted when I got back, I didn't see you'd mentioned it earlier. 

Top shop and blokes at Wildwire, I've bought most of my PRS from them.

Seems a shame PMT would go to the trouble of lifting it.

As mentioned earlier if you're dropping that amount of cash on a guitar, especially online, you want to know that's the one you're getting.

S56035

Vaguely related but I found a product on Coda Music once where they'd done a copy and paste from Sweetwater's website complete with "Here at Sweetwater" etc etc. 

Handsome_Chris

S56035 said:

Vaguely related but I found a product on Coda Music once where they'd done a copy and paste from Sweetwater's website complete with "Here at Sweetwater" etc etc. 

Where is the 'ouch' button?

Funkfingers

The only excuse for using a manufacturer's photographs of a typical example is when the item is "available for order" rather than actually in stock, in a bricks and mortar store. The accompanying small print will make it clear that the photograph is just an example and that the item a customer actually receives may not look exactly the same.

This was certainly true when I pre-ordered a PRS S2 Reclaimed series Vela. Considering all of the production delays with that series, the guitar I received probably was not even built when I put my money down.

Bigsby

Surfmonkey77 said:

And, surely that must be mis-selling, if the item you are sending out isn't the one pictured? And finally, does it not breach trading standards or copyright laws, and if nothing else shows a very unscrupulous sales tactic.....?

No, it wouldn't be mis-selling to use a stock image supplied by the manufacturer, in fact it's the norm in most contexts. But with expensive and distinctive items (e.g. figured wood), photos of the specific item on sale would be a sign of a dealer with a high standard of service, as would clearly indicating if it was a stock photo - but the lack of either wouldn't be mis-selling. 

In this example, breaking copyright law? Yes, whilst manufacturer's/distributer's stock images are supplied with either an explicit or implicit licence to be used in this way, photographs taken by a third party are not. Broadly speaking, the copyright either belongs to the photographer or in some situations (such as employees using company equipment) the company that produced the photograph. Commercial use by a third party without permission/licence would not be likely to come under 'fair use' terms, just by the nature of being a commercial usage.

ICBM

Well there's one retailer I'll never buy anything like a guitar from. Or possibly anything.

Use of a manufacturer's stock photo - with a disclaimer that it is - is fair enough on "non distinctive" items, but stealing another dealer's pictures of something with unique markings is blatantly wrong and also a breach of copyright. My guess would be that the excuse is that they didn't have it in stock when the listing went up - which is poor at best on something like this.

Eski

I don’t think I’d buy a £3.5K guitar without seeing it in the shop and playing it in person but if I were to go that way (current circumstances could dictate that route, etc.) I would expect to have a good few shots of the actual guitar I was going to pay for.  That shouldn’t be too much to ask, surely companies like PMT have the resources to do it - they have enough time to send me a live feed every lunchtime.

I should say - I have nothing against PMT, I think they do a good job, carry a good amount of stock, etc.

Fuengi

ICBM said:

Well there's one retailer I'll never buy anything like a guitar from. Or possibly anything.

Use of a manufacturer's stock photo - with a disclaimer that it is - is fair enough on "non distinctive" items, but stealing another dealer's pictures of something with unique markings is blatantly wrong and also a breach of copyright. My guess would be that the excuse is that they didn't have it in stock when the listing went up - which is poor at best on something like this.

I suspect you're right. With Google image search it would be easy to just grab a picture without thinking too hard about where it came from. 

PMT basically do a Google search for all their prices at the till anyway, what's the difference in nicking a photo whilst you're at it?