used photo from a website so ebay removed my listing...

ShaunJUK

Did you take the photo or hotlink to it? (paste an img link to it)

If you did the latter you would have alerted them to the theft as it would show in there weblog that your page was usin their image.

nightswimmer

Sparky67 wrote:

I've listed stuff like DVDs or books where you input the ID number thingy into e-bay and it pulls up the proper picture for you, rather than using my amateur photo taken on the kitchen table! So what's the difference between using this, and copying a proper picture from a public website (not being awkward - new to e-bay and asking a genuine question, as I don't want to get my wrist slapped!)?

You have permission to use the one photo, you don't have permission to use the other.

(As a side note, I'd much rather see a amateur photo of the item I am buying, than a stock photo - gives me much more confidence in the item I am thinking about buying.)

bs7

ShaunJUK wrote:

Did you take the photo or hotlink to it? (paste an img link to it)

If you did the latter you would have alerted them to the theft as it would show in there weblog that your page was usin their image.

Exactly, if you were linking straight to it - it'd show up in their logs and they just check the refering page - and find your auction.

If on the other hand you copied it and uploaded it via ebay - they must actively monitor ebay auctions.


Although, with regards to the "copyright" argument - there is, at least, a possible argument that it was 'fair use' of the picture given that it was being supplied by the original manufacturer of the bag. Indeed, one could argue that the very use of any images supplied by them is implied - since you are legitimately reselling it. Just as using the name 'Monsoon' to advertise the bag is not a breach of their trademark.

It seems a little bit over-the-top to complain to ebay - unless it was more from the point of you "stealing" their bandwith (although even then - it couldn't have been more than a couple of kilobytes). It really makes them look more stupid and fascist than anything else. You would have thought the risk of losing 'goodwill' would outweigh their need to "protect" the copyright to their pictures. They could easily have contacted you directly rather than go running to ebay.

nightswimmer

bs7 wrote:

Although, with regards to the "copyright" argument - there is, at least, a possible argument that it was 'fair use' of the picture given that it was being supplied by the original manufacturer of the bag. Indeed, one could argue that the very use of any images supplied by them is implied - since you are legitimately reselling it. Just as using the name 'Monsoon' to advertise the bag is not a breach of their trademark.

I don't think this would fall under 'fair use'.

It seems a little bit over-the-top to complain to ebay - unless it was more from the point of you "stealing" their bandwith (although even then - it couldn't have been more than a couple of kilobytes). It really makes them look more stupid and fascist than anything else. You would have thought the risk of losing 'goodwill' would outweigh their need to "protect" the copyright to their pictures. They could easily have contacted you directly rather than go running to ebay.

Apart from protecting their intellectual property, they will have no idea whether the seller is selling a legitimate Monsoon product or a rip off. If a buyer sees their image and buys a substandard product, it reflects badly on the company. Plus, their costly advertising may be being used to sell counterfeit products, which in turn costs them money.

SammyD_2

While I appreciate the intellectual property issue, it does seem a little bit petty...I have sold two designer maternity items and used the photos from their web site - it is impossible to photo these items properly (especially when you are no longer pregnant to show how they look!), and I refer the buyers to the website for further details of the product.

The particular items I sold get very good prices on ebay (usually almost 50-60% of new cost) and I do think that the company selling originally will get more sales of new products because of that. I paid top price for these items new, and would like to think that the manufacturer would rather have a happy customer than get petty over me making a few pounds selling their items second hand.

And re the point on not knowing whether the seller is selling a legitimate Monsoon product or a rip-off - this applies regardless of which photo you use - it is using the name that is the problem, not how it is advertised!

bs7

nightswimmer wrote:

Apart from protecting their intellectual property, they will have no idea whether the seller is selling a legitimate Monsoon product or a rip off. If a buyer sees their image and buys a substandard product, it reflects badly on the company. Plus, their costly advertising may be being used to sell counterfeit products, which in turn costs them money.

IF! I think anyone could come up with several unlikely scenarios to justify their petty behaviour (indeed i'm tempted to embed a link to an image in this post just so the person working for them with far too much time on their hands sees my post).

If they believe that then they should be taking more steps and shouldn't merely rely on ebay removing an item. And if that's all they do for people counterfeiting their products then there's not much of a disincentive not to do it. (i'm not exactly sure who would bother to counterfeit Monsoon's products though!)


There's still a reasonable argument that there is an implied licence for the use of the image. And in any case - if it was a <img> tag straight to the original photo - i'm not sure if that's even a breach of copyright.


Next time download the photo, rename it, resize it, consider changing the background colour and then convert the format (ie. from gif to jpg or vice versa) and that'll make it a little bit trickier for them to argue that it's their photo.

nightswimmer

bs7 wrote:

And in any case - if it was a <img> tag straight to the original photo - i'm not sure if that's even a breach of copyright.

Apart from stealing bandwidth, you are distributing property belonging to either the original artist or the license owner, without their permission, so you would still be in breach of copyright.

Next time download the photo, rename it, resize it, consider changing the background colour and then convert the format (ie. from gif to jpg or vice versa) and that'll make it a little bit trickier for them to argue that it's their photo.

But no less a breach of copyright.

bs7

nightswimmer wrote:

Apart from stealing bandwidth, you are distributing property belonging to either the original artist or the license owner, without their permission, so you would still be in breach of copyright.

Again - implied licence.

But i take it you're attempting to be pedantic and difficult rather than having any factual basis for your point of view. Since "distributing property" doesn't seem to be a restricted act. The restricted acts are set out in section 16(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 - namely: "to copy the work"; "to issue copies of the work to the public"; "to perform, show or play the work in public"; "to broadcast the work or include it in a cable programme service"; or "to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation".

Also, as far as i'm aware there hasn't been a judgment in the UK as to whether use a url is sufficient to claim breach of copyright.

pin

"Anyone placing copyright material on the internet, or distributing or downloading material that others have placed on the internet, must therefore ensure that they have the permission of the copyright owner unless the use of the material falls within an exception."

Woby_Tide

grex9101 wrote:

Devil's advocate here (i thank you, I thank you....)

This happened the other way round with me, was selling my phone a while ago, my auction had a couple of days left, when this guy starts selling a similar phone, WITH MY PHOTOS!

Once my auction had ended, i changed all the photos (via photobucket) to !!!!!!, and then got his listing removed. HA!

My point is, is it really worth the SHAME and the hassle?

Don't be so bloody lazy next time!

lol seen something similar too, someones auction ended up with pictures declaring "Photo thief" "nigerian scammers welcome" " Western Union payments only"