Copyright infringement accusation on my ebay listing... Please help!

Tunstallstoven

Thanks guys.

I did read RHemmings link and to be honest most of it went over my head. Not that it seems it matters, but for a second I must admit I started to think "what if they ARE onto something?"...

usefulmale - you've re-assured me (again) that it is not the case and they are as dumb as they come across!

Cheers

RFW

Seagull27 wrote: »

I guess I could just put them out of their misery and explain where I got them. But their attitude makes me feel like I don't want to do that and should continue ignoring....

I'd probably have started winding them up by now but I have a wicked streak when people start telling me what to do or start threatening me.

usefulmale

Seagull27 wrote: »

Thanks guys.

I did read RHemmings link and to be honest most of it went over my head. Not that it seems it matters, but for a second I must admit I started to think "what if they ARE onto something?"...

usefulmale - you've re-assured me (again) that it is not the case and they are as dumb as they come across!

Cheers

No problems Seagull. Basically, it boils down to first sale doctrine. Have a read. The relevant part for your particular issue is 'Application in trademark law' near the bottom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

shaun_from_Africa

usefulmale wrote: »

And what the hell are 'revenue commissioners'?

They are the Irish equivalent of HMRC, so I'm assuming that the company concerned with the sending of the e-mails are based in Ireland.

forgotmyname

I agree with RFW its time to start winding them up.

If the quantity you have is a large amount of stock tell them they need to get another job because they cannot be selling much.

Sending the revenue commisioners? I would ask if they are employed by the company. State that when they do send them you want a buxom blonde one with long legs or a hunky one that works out. If they send someone that looks like quazimodo you will be turning them away.

Tea and biscuits will only he offered to revenue commisioners that you find appealing.
Any not appealing will just receive a door slammed in their face.

Ask them technical questions about their product. Say a potential buyer wants to know how the product will behave in a vacuum enviroment. Will it set properly?

Will it set underwater or in a fire.

Is the product edible? Could it be used as an alternative to cheese on your toast. Then go on about your allergy to cheese and how it nearly killed you whilst riding a motorbike over a bus.

Have some fun. They are obviously barking mad and had had no proper legal advice.

usefulmale

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

They are the Irish equivalent of HMRC, so I'm assuming that the company concerned with the sending of the e-mails are based in Ireland.

Yes, the company is in Northern Ireland, so under HMRC. The Irish Republics tax authorities would have no interest or juristiction in the UK.

RHemmings

I'm no lawyer, but my reading of the situation is that there can't be copyright unless there is some artistic merit to what is being copied. E.g. that it's a sculpture etc. That's my understanding given the content of the link I posted.

However, I'm very concerned at the comments in this thread about winding the company up. It could be that the company has no leg to stand on. But, we as non-legal people aren't familiar with what can and can't be argued in a court of law. Even if a company doesn't have a leg to stand on, they can still cause extremely significant problems for the OP should they decide to take it further. The legal process is difficult and very expensive. Even small companies, let alone regular individuals, often have to bend over backwards and back down from an invalid legal case because they can't afford the expense and time of defending themselves.

It's very easy for third parties at no personal risk to recommend that the OP should wind the company up. But I think that the OP should be careful about what they do and how they do it.

There's a well known thread that happened over years on another forum: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?167970-Locked-in-car-park This is a very, in my opinion sobering story about what can happen in law, and how people on forums should be extremely careful about being over-confident.

George_Michael

I might be missing something but what does that case have in common with the one on here?

In that particular case, the person concerned was charged with a criminal offence (criminal damage) and they admitted their guilt by accepting a caution for this and the resulting problems from the college trying to claim compensation for the damaged barrier only went on for so long due to the person having admitted the criminal damage.

RHemmings

George_Michael wrote: »

I might be missing something but what does that case have in common with the one on here?

In that particular case, the person concerned was charged with a criminal offence (criminal damage) and they admitted their guilt by accepting a caution for this and the resulting problems from the college trying to claim compensation for the damaged barrier only went on for so long due to the person having admitted the criminal damage.

The actual case has nothing in common.

What is similar, and I think worth noting, is that in the other case there were people on a thread in a forum claiming that the other party didn't have a leg to stand on. That the person that was the subject of the thread should wind them up. And that overall there was a forum thread frenzy with considerable overconfidence that things would go 'our' way. And that the court cases dragged on over years.

In this thread people are being very dismissive of the company's claims. I believe that the company is wrong to claim copyright on photos of a non-artistic item. But, this doesn't mean that the company is guaranteed not to take the case to court. Nor that the OP wouldn't undergo significant hardship should they do.

I.e. my example is not meant to be an example of a legal case. It's meant to be an example of forum behaviour.

RFW

RHemmings wrote: »

It's very easy for third parties at no personal risk to recommend that the OP should wind the company up. But I think that the OP should be careful about what they do and how they do it.

I think at this end of the thread and with all that has gone before saying "I'd probably have started winding them up by now but I have a wicked streak", isn't a recommendationor advice. I also think that most of us have ascertained that the OP seems perfectly sensible and able to make his own decisions.