posted on December 21, 2000 12:57:02 PM new
People are registering VERO ids different from what they use to sell and then putting things like "THIS TEXT AND ALL PICTURES ARE (C) XXX(thier name). DO NOT COPY OR I WILL HAVE EBAY END YOUR AUCTIONS"...Well the problem is many of these are for Software/Diet Pills/Other things that MANY people are licnesed to sell&distribute from the manufacturer and then use thier HTML. People are having accoutns deleted for no reason because some people are registering stuff they don't own (yes I know it's illegla to file that affidavit if it's not true, but eBay isnt doing anything to double check on it) and then using that to have auctions ended. And its impossible to figure out who is doing it because they use a differnet id for selling. Anyone else has any expereince with this?
posted on December 21, 2000 03:59:33 PM new
Yep...
Its happened to me with photos that I took and a competitor stole and registered with eBay's VERO, sent the sworn affidavit to eBay and the 'Mighty' eBay in their infinite wisdom, closed 12 of my auctions...
I can't prove to eBay they were my photos from the start...How would one do that ? You take pictures and put them up on the auction...Needless to say I am not a happy seller because I must produce a half dozen new photos and protect them somehow from the crooks of the online world...
..Life is like email, sometimes 'some people' just don't get it...
posted on December 21, 2000 04:09:54 PM new
A couple of things people do to deter picture thieves:
1. Use a watermark on your pictures.
2. Put your e-mail address or copyright across a part of the picture that would be impossible to crop out without ruining the image.
posted on December 21, 2000 04:38:05 PM new
Yeah, ten the person edits the copyright out and registers the pictures and claims that you are the one stealing. Look, I think software pirates and people selling stuff they shouldnt be should have thier auctions ended, dont get me wrong. But whats happening is the VERO is being abused for competitive reasons
posted on December 21, 2000 05:25:27 PM new
Awhile back, I was selling a Kodak coupon book that gave the user(buyer) 100 FREE rolls of Kodak film as long as the user would send the film to a specific processor...In return, the user would get the prints back with a new roll of the same film(type and speed)...Yada, yada, yada...
Along comes what appeared to be a newbie seller with the same Kodak book, registered with VERO and claimed I was infringing on his "Exclusive" rights to sell the coupon book on eBay...
Of course the 'Mighty' eBay bought the story and banned me from selling the Kodak book ever...SafeHarbor would not listen to my side of the story, period... Did not want to hear it...At the time, I had over 300+ feedback, the newbie had 10 or 12(needed for dutch auctions) that was gotten by buying from 30 or 40 sellers auctioning things for a $1 or $2...
I used to spend over $1000.00 a month doing dutch auctions but NO more...Now I spend less than $100 a month make less gross but the profit %age is higher and the amount I keep is about the same...
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Perspective...
The 10 Commandments: 179 words.
The Declaration of Independence: 1,300 words.
US Government regs on the sale of cabbage: 26,911 words.
Visit http://mrbucks.com
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
posted on December 21, 2000 05:29:02 PM new
So what do you sell now? What if you vero'd the same stuff. I think it would eb very interesting if ebay has 2 people who have cliamed copyright on the same material!!!
posted on December 21, 2000 05:54:27 PM new
I do not sell the Kodak stuff any longer and what I do sell is 'Personalized' ribbons for weddings, birthday parties, anniversaries, etc...Thats what happened with my pictures of ribbons...I made and photoed them and this jerk comes along and claimed ownership to the 'Mighty' eBay and they killed 12 of my auctions because support at eBay does not even bother to get the other side of the story...Like I said, I can't prove the pictures are mine...Support does not want to hear it. I'll just take some more and protect them with some sort of 'script' in the code or..?? I've seen it done, I just need to find out how.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
..."If you keep doing what you've been doing...
...you'll just keep getting what you've been getting"...
posted on December 21, 2000 05:58:07 PM new
Ask eBay for the proper form (stating you have the right to post the picture), send it to eBay and they will stop bothering you.
And its impossible to figure out who is doing it because they use a differnet id for selling.
What the heck does that mean? You know the ID of the VeRO member. Why do you require their "other" ID?
If eBay ends your auctions, just fill out the form and sent it back to eBay. Problem solved.
I have a separate VeRO account. Not because I want to hide my identity. eBay requires VeRO members to maintain their own About Me page containing copyright info. I've already got an About Me page that is my personal web page at eBay. I'd like to keep it. I'd rather my customer click on the "ME" icon and go to my personal web page. Why should my customers see my VeRO page? I've only had to use it a few times in three years. It's not really appropriate for general viewing. eBay is aware of the second VeRO identity and approved it.
I believe the stories I read here and VeRO definitely has been abused. From my perspective, it's nice when I see someone stealing MY photos, products and item descriptions, to be able to end their auctions pronto. Competitors see success, but they don't see the work that goes into it. If they can't succeed on their own, they try to copy or steal other people's success.
posted on December 21, 2000 05:59:31 PM new
It's important to remember that your text and photos ARE yours...they are copyrighted from the moment they appear in tangible form. You don't own the copyright to the Kodak symbol, etc., but the pictures you take of the product, and the text you write about it, are yours.
Stealing somebody else's text or photos is (and should be) grounds for discipline by eBay. I don't know anything about claiming exclusive rights to sell certain products on eBay (that does sound phony to me), but in terms of copyright, you have every right to turn somebody in who steals your stuff.
posted on December 21, 2000 06:05:50 PM new
sonsie ... eBay is still struggling with the nuances of copyright law. I suspect the average age of their legal staff is about the same as the average age of their SafeHarbour staff. Until they figure it out, anyone selling copyrighted materials is just going to have to take a chance and compete with the copyright pirates on eBay - the ones who are consistently getting away with it.
posted on December 21, 2000 06:17:45 PM new
sonsie & RB...
sonsie...
I understand how copywrite laws work and I know the photos are legally mine...But as RB stated, eBay does not want to hear about that because the people making the decisions are terribly mis-informed or un-informed about such matters as copywrite laws and infringment laws, etc...
I will get it resolved in time but in the meantime, I will reshoot the photos and post those after the first of '2001'...
"If you don't have the time to do it right ...
When will you have the time to do it over ? ..."
posted on December 21, 2000 06:37:03 PM new
Twinsoft the reason it matters is because the vero memebrs other id is the one seling the products they copied from me or products were the text/pictures are general public domain. They are hiding behind another vero id so the person they are reporting doesnt know which competitor is ratting them out for false infringment.
posted on December 21, 2000 06:47:34 PM new
ed123, if you don't know who initiated the complaint, how do you know they are using your pictures? You haven't seen their ads. And if they were using your pictures, it should be pretty easy to figure out. After all, they're selling the same identical item as you. VeRO members must provide a valid email address and a telephone number.
MrBucks, if you know about copyright law (and the DCMA) then you know that eBay has nothing to do with VeRO. They are not the judge, mediator, middle-man or interested party. If eBay receives a VeRO notice they MUST remove the auction or face liability.
VeRO members sign an affidavit stating they are the copyright holder. You sign an affidavit stating to the best of your knowledge you have a right to post the pictures (or text, or etc.). You are on the exact same footing as the VeRO member. They don't have some magical or legal advantage. Again, eBay has nothing to do with it.
posted on December 21, 2000 06:57:34 PM new
Twinsoft, what happens when 2 people have vero protected the same text/ads and one perosn ends anothers who has that same vero protection?
posted on December 22, 2000 12:34:20 AM new
about a month ago I had another seller copy my exact auction from title to description word for word. it was so obvious he even left a word in it that I mispelled.
His auction was so much like mine I had a bidder email me and ask why I was charging different shipping rates for the same items, even he couldn't believe both auctions weren't mine. I have been running this exact auction for over 2 years word for word with a great deal of success. When I emailed him he said if I complained to ebay he would claim I copied from him and have me suspended. luckly I had hard copies of some of my auctions from 2 years ago still. ebay made him change his auctions. glad I kept those hard copies.
posted on December 22, 2000 02:08:08 AM new
Ed123, "Vero-protected?" VeRO is not like Saran Wrap. VeRO does not protect individual works. It protects copyright owners.
Again, if eBay ends your auction because of a complaint from a VeRO member, you only need to sign an affidavit that you believe, to the best of your knowledge, you have a right to use the work. Then eBay will reinstate your auction.
Once eBay is out of the picture, the matter is between you and the other party. It is a violation of the VeRO contract to claim false copyright ownership. further, if the matter winds up in court, the loser pays the legal bills. Anyone making a false VeRO claim is leaving themselves wide open to civil action.
Suggestion: Many graphics programs (like Adobe Photoshop) allow you to put an invisible watermark on your images. Or you can simply put a copyright notice at the bottom of the image. If the other party has a cropped image, and you have an identical image with your copyright notice on it, who do you think will be believed? I don't use any mark myself. Usually a polite email to the offending party is enough.
posted on December 22, 2000 05:03:04 AM new
twinsoft ... the copyright issues that I am talking about have nothing to do with VeRO. I support VeRO (for the most part).
What I do have a problem with is how the eBay legal brats can cancel a legit auction using the reason as "listing a potential copyright infringing item" when the item has nothing to do with any VeRO member. As a matter of fact, eBay has no idea of who the real copyright owner is in most of these cases. I have asked them point blank in cases where I know the owner, and eBay has failed to respond 100% of the time.
And, they allow illegal items in the same category ... even the same item (but pirated copies)... to proceed.
This is what they need to address.
A statement like the above when used as a reason to end an auction and suspend a seller is really saying: "We think your item MAY infringe on someone's copyright ('potential'), so we had a trial and convicted you just in case. We didn't think it was necessary to invite you to participate in your own defence ... 'cause we're eBay and we can do whatever the hell we want".
This is not right and one of these days some young copyright lawyer looking to gain a name (a la F. Lee Bailey about 30 years ago!) is going to take this on and kick the snot out of the eBay brats in a real court.
It will be interesting to see how eBay justifies ending the legit auctions while knowingly allowing the infringing auctions to continue ....
posted on December 22, 2000 09:55:48 AM new
Hi, I recently found a site that has free javascript downloads for different things and one of them is called "NO RIGHT CLICK"...along with some others. I have thought of using it as I do a lot of custom work etc...after reading this...I think I will. If anyone is interested..I can post the website here......Pam
posted on December 22, 2000 12:31:55 PM new
And ebay will recognize this? Most of thier workers use false wierd names like "bugger" or "clyclops" instead of thier real name, and are avg age of 18-20. Now I am just barley above that age group so I'm not knocking them, I'm just saying that the people in charge of this stuff arent the most experienced in teh field and probably aren't being paid very well. So I can say, well mine are legit cuz I watermarekd it..the other person can say, "yup the watermark is there, and I watermarked it" then you're right back where you started. Am I missing something here?
posted on December 22, 2000 12:48:14 PM newed123, eBay doesn't really "care" who the copyright owner is. They don't have to care. eBay only has to worry about its own liability. eBay will not involve itself in the dispute. That is between you and the other party.
eBay's position is pretty simple:
1) If eBay receives a sworn affidavit claiming copyright infringement, they will remove the auction.
2) If eBay receives a sworn affidavit from the second party claiming they have a right to the work, they will reinstate and allow the auction.
Again, eBay is only concerned with its own liability. They are not concerned with who "really" owns the copyright. They will NOT investigate. (Except in obvious cases, such as where the item has a "For Promotional Use Only" stamp on it.)
If someone steals your images and then claims copyright ownership:
1) Contact VeRO, get the form, and send it to eBay. They will reinstate your auction.
2) Join VeRO and file a complaint about the offending party. eBay will end their auction.
3) If they continue to use your work, report it to eBay. (It is a suspendable offense.) If they lie to eBay and continue to claim ownership, take them to court.
Note that at no time does eBay judge who the real copyright owner is.
posted on December 22, 2000 01:55:51 PM new
Watermarking or embedding your e-mail address or other identifying mark in the picture is simply a deterrent. If you make it a pain in the butt to steal your picture, a thief is more likely to look for someone else's work to copy.
You have to put your identifying mark where it's difficult or impossible to crop out without ruining the image. Picture thieves are lazy. They're looking for an easy way out.
Do what you can to make it more difficult for them to steal from you. Make stealing you pictures more work than it's worth.
posted on December 22, 2000 08:57:57 PM new
Ok Twinsoft here is where ebay is at fault. I can sortof buy your argument that they dont judge who is right so they have to end the auction. But if you have 3 auctionmove/end of anytype you get suspended fo 30 days or for life. They are interfering with peoples right to earn a living (the fake vero ppl vicariously thru ebay) selling even other items!
posted on December 23, 2000 12:21:47 PM new
Having been involved in copyright law since the 60s, I can tell you there is much liberal and questionable interpretation today on the meaning of it all, especially with the introduction of the internet.
First of all, to be fully covered by the Copyright Act, you need to pay a fee for registration.
Most photos etc. on the net are allegedly being covered by "common law" copyright, which means you have not paid the registration fee, and thus the burden of proof lies on you whether or not you originated the work.
There is, as a result, so much abuse on the net it has rendered "common law" copyright questionable as to its true integrity.
I recently saw a graphics company on the net claiming copyright to national photos right out of the Library of Congress that anyone can access! In other words, they are already PUBLIC property. And this is a MAJOR graphics supplier on the net!
The courts need to take a real good look at the intent of copyright laws before being too generous.
We protect our own pictures under the "common law" copyright. We also make sure there is plenty of documentation to establish that the image originated with us and is the result of our work.
What the courts need to resolve, which will be most difficult, is whether or not the internet is a public domain. If it is, then it may turn out that anything not federally registered may NOT be in fact lawfully copyrighted under any "common law."
Bear also in mind that some countries DO NOT recognize our copyright laws and also have access to the same images by virtue of the internet.
Therefore, why should images be protected from use by only a percentage of the world population, but not all?
Interesting paradoxes the courts of the future will be confronted with.
posted on December 23, 2000 01:08:42 PM new
I think I have a solution for this. In order for an auctino to be ended by copyright claim, one should have to provide the registration # to ebay. Also if one says in ones adds "DO NOT COPY I am very yada yada yada, put teh (c) $ in there also. This will discourage (but not eliminate) people from just stealing other ppls stuff saying its thier own and regging with ebay. The user will be able to verify if the person REALLY owns the copyright also!
posted on December 23, 2000 05:29:15 PM new
----------
minx47
Hi, I recently found a site that has free javascript downloads for different things and one of them is called "NO RIGHT CLICK"...along with some others. I have thought of using it as I do a lot of custom work etc...after reading this...I think I will. If anyone is interested..I can post the website here......Pam
---------
Pam,
Could you post the site that offers "free javascript" - emphasis on the word "free" - I wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's copyright.
posted on December 23, 2000 05:44:27 PM new
RebelGuns,
If the internet is "public domain," will that resolve anything? The internet (or WWW) is, for the most part, used to view webpages that are created by people. So the contents of these webpages and the webpages themselves fall under "common law copyright" at the least.
Although one uses the "public domain" to view webpages, the webpages themselves are copyrighted. It's like walking down a street and seeing a newspaper in those newspaper dispenser things that are around (here in NY anyway) and reading the contents of the frontpage of that paper. I'm in a public domain (the street) reading a copyrighted item (whether it be registered or not) through the window of the dispenser.
"What the courts need to resolve, which will be most difficult, is whether or not the internet is a public domain. If it is, then it may turn out that anything not federally registered may NOT be in fact lawfully copyrighted under any 'common law.'"
Wouldn't this just add to the confusion?
Mike
-------------------------------------
...move to strike...(I like the way that sounds)
-------------------------------------
posted on December 24, 2000 04:01:44 AM new
Any original material you create, with few exceptions, is copyrighted to you as soon as it is in tangible form. Being posted on the internet has no effect on the copyright.
