Ed White (pictures removed sorry)

So you're not the seller?

Seller sounds flaky, like he is trying to hide something and keep the piece in the ether. My BS detector would be triggered, just be careful.

In a case like this where it's a public auction and the photos are posted online, is there any kind of "fair use" justification or do they remain the copyright holder of the photos and they can make you take them down no matter what?

I guess that's probably a very complicated question that the lawyers could debate for years.

Seems like it's just a scam, with stolen photos. We've even seen people do that, and then go through elaborate machinations discussing meeting in person, which never seems to happen.

IMO there is nothing to debate...
Photos are the "intellectual property" of the owner and/or photographer with appropriate copyright and hence protected by law. Anybody who uses the photos without prior consent/permission commits a copyright infringement. Otherwise it could become a costly enterprise.
When I gathered some photos for my book from auction houses most of them granted free use with the requirement of giving photo credits.
One exception was Christies - they made me pay for the use of 2 photos. I did not dare to use the photos without their permission and paid. I did not want to risk to be sued by one of the large auction houses...
Photo owners must allow "fair use" before you are entitled to use their photos.
On forums me must be grateful that most photo owners don´t take the matter that serious or don´t care at all, otherwise there were only very few photos on our forum.

There have been some really weird situations where people overstep the boundaries on what they can control too, there have been dealers that have threatened the new owner of a watch for posting pictures of the watch from the sale listing (the watch that they now own) which is a bit odd, but even more strange, sellers claiming ownership of images of a watch taken even after they have sold it. Then lastly, we’ve had people threaten to sue us for defamation over people saying a watch is bogus / redialed / modified etc that they have sold. In other words the watch has been defamed, yet the previous owner of it claims that because they sold it, that it is really them being defamed, and thus the watch must not be questioned unless one wishes to face the lawyers of the previous seller.

There’s a lot of bullshit we get to see.

I don’t think it is the same watch, the crown differs. I’ll be honest. I don’t like this thread at all. I think we may be being taken for fools. Or at least a free valuation service.