Seller Used My Photos

[tabolton314]

Mods, if there's already a thread for this, please woosh it there.

I found another seller using my photos, and my exact title.  I've reported them to Ebay, and the title changed, but the pictures haven't gone anywhere.  I reported them late Friday night.

How long does it usually take Ebay to react to this?  What are they likely to do?  Should I contact the seller directly and ask them to take their own darn pictures.

We're going to start watermarking pictures from now, on, but I'm still really frustrated by this.

[Pseudoty]

Hey I had a seller use my photo with a picture of my thumb in it.  I asked them to take it down and they did.  Just ask the seller nicely and all should be well.  If they are not watermarked not sure if they have to take them down.

[Elkkthunder]

In the older ebay days where I hosted pictures in the description or linked to them, I changed a photo from the action figure to a rabbit and water marked it saying lazy ebayer stole this photo

 

they messaged me quick but they linked to the URL which I swapped

it burned them and I laugh about it to this day

now all you can do is watermark 

[46andTWO]

lol, i wish i had time to worry about if someone was using my pictures or not. Anyone else wishing they had this problem?

I suggest you use your time more wisely, and create even better pictures, that others can use.

[10230]

I found another seller using my photos, and my exact title.  I've reported them to Ebay, and the title changed, but the pictures haven't gone anywhere.  I reported them late Friday night.

So what? I wouldn't care less, really. It's not as if it would do you any harm. If it really bugs you that much, put a sign with your store name in the picture next time. I've seen others do that, and as long as it's not too distracting I don't see it as a problem for buyers.

[zskid00]

I've had this problem from time to time.  Most times I probably don't catch it but the handful of times I've reported it to eBay I don't think they've removed the listing or made the seller change the photos.  I don't watermark my photos so maybe that's why eBay doesn't take action.

[zskid00]

So what? I wouldn't care less, really. It's not as if it would do you any harm. If it really bugs you that much, put a sign with your store name in the picture next time. I've seen others do that, and as long as it's not too distracting I don't see it as a problem for buyers.

​It's lazy.  If you don't want to post your own picture of the item you actually have to sell then just go grab the stock photos online.

[mscheaf]

I've had this problem from time to time.  Most times I probably don't catch it but the handful of times I've reported it to eBay I don't think they've removed the listing or made the seller change the photos.  I don't watermark my photos so maybe that's why eBay doesn't take action.

​

I have found that reporting does nothing, but if you call them they will often delete it right there while you are on the phone with them. I have had sellers steal my photos (watermark included!) and steal the text and title from my listing 100%.

[Brickson]

I don't really see why it matters. You're on there to sell a product, and that's all the photo is for. If they have the same product, the photo isn't changing what the customer gets. I would say eBay should have *more* photo sharing. There's no point in 500 people spending the time, energy, electricity to duplicate photos of the same thing. Everybody on Amazon uses the same photos.

I feel like this idea of it being lazy is more coming from people trying to find every way to have an edge on the competition. People want to think they put more time or effort into it, so they deserve more money. But spending the time to take photos manually just so you can get a sale instead of the other guy, when the customer would be receiving the same thing, how does that make sense? eBay listings *don't* make coherent sense, and that's what a lot of people like about it. You can pull off a $200 sale when the other guy was offering it for $150. Be glad for it, but I think I have better things to worry about than if the $200 guy saved a few minutes by using my photos.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Brickson

[zskid00]

Yes, everyone uses stock photos on Amazon which is fine.  They don't steal my photos which makes it seem as though they cared enough to take a photo of the actual item they are selling when they didn't.  

I find that taking pictures of the actual item is much more helpful when it's a large dollar item that a collector will want to see to verify the condition of the packaging.  Or if there is some type of damage to the package so the buyer is aware of the condition.

Edited May 19, 2015 by zskid00

[tabolton314]

Thanks for all the input.  I've emailed the seller, and if they don't comply, I'll be contacting ebay.

The reason I think it's a big deal, besides the effort I put into it (2 seconds with a camera), is that it specifically violates Ebay's listing policy.  And it's stealing, and technically trademark violation.  So yeah, it's an issue.

[mscheaf]

I don't really see why it matters. You're on there to sell a product, and that's all the photo is for. If they have the same product, the photo isn't changing what the customer gets. I would say eBay should have *more* photo sharing. There's no point in 500 people spending the time, energy, electricity to duplicate photos of the same thing. Everybody on Amazon uses the same photos.

​Because my photos are the actual items I am selling showing all the box damage and creases and everything it is NOT whatever the other d-bag is selling. This isn't a stock photo. This is a photo I took with my camera of my item with my watermark. It is MINE. Period. It confuses buyers when they see some jerk off with the exact same listing as me who has bad feedback and the associate it with me. It's annoying when I spend a good amount of time working on a listing and some toolbag comes and just ctrl-c the whole thing. It's against eBay rules for a reason. If people want to use the stock photos, ebay provides them! Why do you have to STEAL my photo?

[Mindbender]

I'd let it go unless they were undercutting me. 

[10230]

​It's lazy.

​It is. But in this case lazy is good. If everyone could and would share their pictures, everyone would win. Less time to take nice pictures, more actual nice pictures, and less overhead for eBay. There are of course exceptions. Used sets should show the actual set. So should sets with flaws. It seems to work nicely for Amazon, where you cannot even post your own pictures.

It might violate listing policy, but it not stealing (you still have the picture, don't you?), and I doubt anyone owns a trademark on a picture on eBay (did you register it?). I can understand that there is some emotional binding to your work. Maybe you could see it that way: the other seller actually thought that your work was great - so good that he decided he couldn't do better. See it as compliment.

[zskid00]

It is a violation of the listing policy, so no I am not ok with it.  Again I will say that if you don't want to take your own photos then just grab the stock photos online.  That way you aren't piggybacking off someone else and misleading buyers about the actual item you are selling.

[tabolton314]

​It is. But in this case lazy is good. If everyone could and would share their pictures, everyone would win. Less time to take nice pictures, more actual nice pictures, and less overhead for eBay. There are of course exceptions. Used sets should show the actual set. So should sets with flaws. It seems to work nicely for Amazon, where you cannot even post your own pictures.

It might violate listing policy, but it not stealing (you still have the picture, don't you?), and I doubt anyone owns a trademark on a picture on eBay (did you register it?). I can understand that there is some emotional binding to your work. Maybe you could see it that way: the other seller actually thought that your work was great - so good that he decided he couldn't do better. See it as compliment.

I misspoke, it's a copyright violation. Any picture you take that you put out on the internet is copyrighted and belongs to you.  Anyone who uses it has to get permission from you before they can use it, unless they're linking the picture to you.  Copyrights are a BIG deal.  Facebook had to deal with this and got spanked for it.

With digital theft, it doesn't matter if I still have the original, a copy is being stolen and is being used in a manner I don't approve.  Ask the music industry how they feel about that.  Same issue.

[Migration]

I've run across this issue from time to time, keep in mind I sell mostly USED sets, my pictures are of the sets that I rebuilt and show any issues such as missing pieces or mini figures. Any one grabbing one my pictures is not showing what they are selling, they're showing the one used set that I have. Call eBay and deal with it on the phone. They will remove the listing. I don't care about a seller too lazy to do the work or a scammer trying to defraud someone using one of my pictures. I never contact the seller.

[I am Niko]

I can't believe the number of people who think it's no big deal.  It's not just being lazy...it's copyright infringement, plain and simple.  And as for it not affecting the seller...how so?  If someone takes the time to set up a nice photo, it's to differentiate his/her listing from all the other stock photos or cellphone shots taken in a dark room.  If everyone steals that photo (or worse, both the photo and description), then their listing is no longer unique.  Auctions with good descriptions and photos tend to do better than others because they look more professional and give the impression that the sale will be handled professionally.

[Darth_Raichu]

​It is. But in this case lazy is good. If everyone could and would share their pictures, everyone would win. Less time to take nice pictures, more actual nice pictures, and less overhead for eBay. There are of course exceptions. Used sets should show the actual set. So should sets with flaws. It seems to work nicely for Amazon, where you cannot even post your own pictures.

It might violate listing policy, but it not stealing (you still have the picture, don't you?), and I doubt anyone owns a trademark on a picture on eBay (did you register it?). I can understand that there is some emotional binding to your work. Maybe you could see it that way: the other seller actually thought that your work was great - so good that he decided he couldn't do better. See it as compliment.

So why not just use stock pictures ? 9 out of 10 they look better and easier to search for anyway

[DenJ91]

why not just take your OWN photos!? Couldn't agree more that this is NOT ok.  I for one would never buy an item that does not have an actual picture of the item. I'm not buying anything that uses stock photos because doesn't prove to me they actually have the product in hand.  As many scammers that are out there, why not be as careful as can be when choosing which buyers you trust more.  I'd rather see a poorly lit photo of a set on someone's table than a stock photo of the item's box from a website.  It takes 10 seconds to take a picture on your phone and email it to yourself to upload.  On top of that, using the same photo and same title, well that's super confusing to a buyer and misrepresents people.  

Don't think you guys who are saying it's ok would like it too much if a bad seller with poor feedback did it to you and then all the sudden you wonder why your item isn't selling.  

[Thumper]

Apparently one more thing to be concerned with is that with recent (d)SLR & many smartphone cameras the images contain allot of information you may not want revealed (EXIF data) which may include GPS signatures to your location.  Unscrupulous users of your images might be implicating your location data along with their use. At least ebay filters this out but it's something you may want to watch out for on other sites.

[jay4e]

For the title ebay actually encourages this.  if you hit the sell similar item button it will copy the title, and many will not bother changing it.

as for the photo, I suspect you give up all trademark rights when you upload it to ebay anway.  so not much you can do personally.  if it becomes a repeated problem then just report the seller and let ebay deal with it.

and for the exif data, I also suspect ebay strips all that when a photo is uploaded, those bits added up when your are dealing with millions of photos downloaded dozens or hundreds of times.  It really would make no sense for them to keep it intact if you are using their hosting.  though its easy to test, if one of us gets around to it.

[10230]

I can't believe the number of people who think it's no big deal.  It's not just being lazy...it's copyright infringement, plain and simple.

​It is. I get that. I am not saying you should do that. I only use my own pictures. It just isn't worth making a big deal out of it if someone does in this case. It's not worth your time.

[I am Niko]

as for the photo, I suspect you give up all trademark rights when you upload it to ebay anway.  so not much you can do personally.  if it becomes a repeated problem then just report the seller and let ebay deal with it.

​That's not correct at all, and photos are copyrighted, not trademarked.  If that were true, then eBay wouldn't have to do anything if you submitted a complaint.

​It is. I get that. I am not saying you should do that. I only use my own pictures. It just isn't worth making a big deal out of it if someone does in this case. It's not worth your time.

​It was worth my time when someone stole my photo and exact description to sell multiples of the same item I was selling last Christmas.  They were making sales off my work/time, and I was losing sales to them.

[jay4e]

​That's not correct at all, and photos are copyrighted, not trademarked.  If that were true, then eBay wouldn't have to do anything if you submitted a complaint.

​It was worth my time when someone stole my photo and exact description to sell multiples of the same item I was selling last Christmas.  They were making sales off my work/time, and I was losing sales to them.

​slip of my non legal tongue i meant copyright not tradmark.  but anway from Ebay's terms of service.

 

Content

When providing us with content or causing content to be posted using our Services, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable (through multiple tiers) right to exercise any and all copyright, publicity, trademark and database rights and other intellectual property rights you have in the content, in any media known now or developed in the future. Further, to the fullest extent permitted under applicable law, you waive your moral rights and promise not to assert such rights or any other intellectual property or publicity rights against us, our sublicensees, or our assignees.

You represent and warrant that none of the following infringe any rights mentioned in the preceding paragraph: your provision of content to us, your causing content to be posted using the Services, and use of any such content (including of works derived from it) by us, our users, or others in contract with us that is done in connection with the Services and in compliance with this User Agreement.

We may offer catalogs including stock images, descriptions and product specifications that are provided by third-parties (including users). You may use catalog content solely in connection with your eBay listings. That permission is subject to modification or revocation at any time at eBay's sole discretion.

While we try to offer reliable data, we cannot promise that the catalogs will always be accurate and up-to-date, and you agree that you will not hold our catalog providers or us responsible for inaccuracies in the catalogs. The catalog may include copyrighted, trademarked or other proprietary materials. You agree not to remove any copyright, proprietary or identification markings included within the catalogs or create any derivative works based on catalog content (other than by including them in your listings).

 

text and photo reuse would certainly be an interesting case study.  heck you could argue the same protections that allow you to take the photo of the box for sale, also allow others to use copies of your photos for the same purpose.