Auction removed by eBay despite the fact that the photos are my own

[atlantis-myshop]

Please do not delete or remove this thread/post, because by doing so you will effectively grant me permission to escalate the matter further. The line has already been crossed not by one abuse, but by many — and that is only in my case.

To others: Yes, I know this is a long text, but it is worth reading to the very end and waiting for a reaction.

I would like to share a situation which, in my opinion, demonstrates a systemic problem.

My auction (ID: 306287546369) was removed by eBay UK on the grounds of alleged copyright infringement. The problem is that the photos in this auction are 100% my own work:

• I took them myself,
• I uploaded the original files from my computer,
• I added my own logo to protect them from being copied.

Nevertheless, eBay decided that I was infringing Boots’ rights and rejected my appeal with a template response. In practice, this means that large brands can report independent sellers’ photos as their own, and eBay’s system automatically accepts such claims while ignoring evidence.

My question is: how is an independent seller supposed to protect their original photos if, even with full documentation, eBay treats them as belonging to someone else?

Does this mean that if I upload a better photo than the brand has on its own website, they have the right to “appropriate” it and report it to VeRO? Or perhaps eBay should improve — or even stop using — AI in such serious matters as mine? This already falls under legal provisions… Perhaps it is time to go straight to a solicitor, because this is a case that can be won in court.

---

Additional evidence:

eBay’s catalogue contains at least 2 photos (so far that is all I have found, but there may be more) which are offered to other sellers for free use in their listings. These are my own photos, with my shop’s logo. This means that eBay is distributing my work without my consent — not to mention copying text that appears both on eBay and in my online shop.

Moreover, I officially reported one of these photos as an infringement, but eBay completely ignored me and sent an email stating that it was not my property. I have now received the same response again, so enough is enough — the boundaries have been crossed.

I understand that photos without logos may be added to the catalogue and shared with other sellers. But my photos with a visible shop logo? That is a clear violation of copyright law. Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), §§16 and 17, only the copyright owner has the right to copy, distribute and make available their work. By distributing my photos with a logo in the catalogue, eBay is breaching these provisions and enabling others to use my property without consent.

---

eBay policies:

• Intellectual Property Policy: “Sellers are responsible for ensuring that any item they list on eBay is authentic and that items and listings don’t infringe the intellectual property rights of others. Intellectual property rights include, for example: copyrights.”
  eBay emphasises that sellers are responsible for ensuring their listings do not infringe copyrights (including mine), trademarks (including my business logo), or other property rights (including my own descriptions in listings, which are also copied).
• Images, videos and text policy: “You should take your own images and write your own descriptions. You may also use the images and product details from the eBay product catalogue.”
  In other words: you are obliged to take your own photos (which I did) or use eBay’s catalogue if available.
• Picture Policy: “The following are not allowed: … Watermarks of any type, including those used for ownership attributions.”
  This means that eBay formally prohibits adding watermarks or logos to photos in listings — so a large company can take your photo simply because they like it, and eBay will confirm that the photo is their property. In this way, eBay effectively encourages such practices, which raises legal concerns.

---

eBay bans watermarks and logos, yet at the same time provides sellers with no real protection against photo theft. As a result, independent sellers are left defenceless against large brands and other users who can appropriate their photographs.

Adding a logo to my photos was purely a protective measure. In practice, photos without logos can be easily copied, and even fragments can be cropped using tools provided by eBay, enabling other users or large brands to appropriate someone else’s work. By introducing such tools and failing to control their use, eBay allows — and one could even say encourages — breaches of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), while pretending not to see it. A logo prevents such actions and serves as proof of authorship. Yet eBay, by banning watermarks and logos, deprives sellers of the only effective tool for protecting against copying and manipulation of images, while claiming to comply with the CDPA.

---

The fact that I placed a logo on my photos stems solely from eBay’s policies — it was my way of defending my property. Had I not done so, Boots now and in the future could have used my photos as their own, because under eBay’s rules (ban on logos) they would have had the right to do so. In such a situation (a photo without a logo) I would have had no grounds for claims, because the system would have silenced me.

What follows from this? The logo in this case prevented the likely appropriation of the photo (had it not been there), regardless of by whom. Therefore, placing it makes sense, because eBay has entangled itself in an oversight under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). They have shot themselves in the foot.

If eBay allows large brands to appropriate independent sellers’ photos by disregarding the rights of the owner and ignoring evidence, then it has long been in breach of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA).

---

I demand that eBay immediately respond to this matter in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), §§16–17, which clearly define the author’s rights to copy, distribute and make available their works. My photos are my property, and their use by Boots and distribution by eBay without my consent constitutes a breach of the law. No internal bans on logos apply here in the face of overriding copyright legislation.

If eBay does not take immediate corrective action, the matter will qualify for legal proceedings, in which I have full legal grounds to win.

All the information presented is based on my own experience and documentation which I possess.

Thank you to the readers for taking the time, and I await eBay’s reaction, on which my next steps will depend.

[*vyolla*]

Please keep us updated with your legal case if you're able, it will be interesting to see how it pans out, and how much it costs you. 

[insidethe93]

atlantis-myshop wrote: "If anyone was frightened by the word "lawyers" and is now afraid to write anything,... You haven’t yet reached the core of the matter, but you were slowly starting to move in the right direction."

Point 1:

Perhaps peope don't want to reply on seeing you ignoring the thread's advice. You've ignored posters explaining what the actual issues are and why.

Thanks to experienced eBayers posting here, it's been worked out that probably Boots had eBay remove your photos as per eBay's policy, due probably to you adding your logo which could suggest you were a Boots-endorsed outlet. You've also been very sensibly advised here to remove your logo from all uploaded photos or planned uploads to avoid this serious issue in future. You've been lucky so far e.g. not had your account(s) suspended or closed, and Boots seem not to have taken monetary action against you - please help yourself and stop digging the hole for yourself that you started with your initial post.

Point 2:

Lawyers don't scare me. I've received a couple of solicitor's threatening letters, been annoyed but not scared, and dealt with them (and won) by myself, because it's scary only if it's the unknown and/or you don't know how to deal with them. IMHO letters designed to scare should legally be deliverable only when the recipient has a friend present. But I have the benefit of getting to know how lawyers think and know the terms to use and know their tactics, as I've worked for solicitors, barristers, accountants, estate agents, banks, insurers (that many kinds over the decades - yeah I'm pretty old, it's not that I can't hold down a job!) - those are all worlds with very idiosyncratic ways and 'try to confuse outsiders'-jargon. How to deal with such firms would be a useful school curriculum mini-subject, as then everyone would know how to keep the bullying sort at bay, as in how many know they they can alter almost any contract or negotiate almost anything? often without hiring a professional to do it?

Example: when I hired a firm to replace my and my neighbours' windows I asked to change the contract clause stating risk passed to me when materials were delivered on site to risk passing to me upon installation. They said "it's a standard printed contract, we can't change it" (a common excuse! - don't stand for it), so I said they can agree my change in a letter, so they did (just as well as they broke a window getting it out of the van). Example 2: a care home required payment on a specific day of the month on pain of financial penalty, and I said I shouldn't be held liable for bank delays e.g. bank holidays or unforeseen circumstances so they let me make changes.

If a company comes after you small time you could probably negotiate by yourself (look up the term "without prejudice" - a specific term when setting out settlement terms, but it's not a 'get out of jail free' card). If it's big time and actually High Court, you'd need to hire a barrister (and hire a solicitor as not you but only solicitors instruct barristers), as only barristers are permitted audience in the High Court - check all this any last-minute up-to-date changes. (There's also a large backlog in cases.) But this should hopefully be unnecessary - OP, I urge you to quit now. I've seen too much litigation take place beyond sense due to client stubborness and their desire not to, as they see it, lose face.

[rainbowtrax]

---

@atlantis-myshop wrote:

You haven’t yet reached the core of the matter, but you were slowly starting to move in the right direction.

---

The core of the matter is that Boots have decided that they don't want you listing their items in the manner that you were listing them so they've had a listing removed - which they're perfectly entitled to do as your photos show their branding and, like it or not, they do have legal rights over how their branding is used. They've just excercised those rights. Ebay have given you their contact details. Surely your time would be better spent attempting to liaise with them to clarify exactly what you did wrong. We're probably right in our assumption but you need confirmation to be 100% sure.

[atlantis-myshop]

72 hours

I remind eBay that I expect a reply or contact regarding the violation of my copyright.

I have no intention of giving up or ignoring such a serious violation, which in the future may also affect other sellers.

I will continue to repeat reminders at short intervals until I receive an official response on the forum or by email (only and exclusively).
I do not consent to telephone contact or any other attempts at communication.

P.S. Please analyse the content of the two emails that were sent to me in this matter, as they contain elements relevant to the case.

Now I formally demand – I refer to post #1 in this thread.

[atlantis-myshop]

On Sunday I wrote to the company representing Boots, which acts on its behalf and is responsible for blocking the listings.

I contacted them through the official email address provided as the contact in this matter, in the email containing the rejection of my appeal.

So far I have not received any reply or confirmation that the message was delivered.

Silence.

[insidethe93]

atlantis-myshop wrote: "On Sunday I wrote to the company representing Boots, which acts on its behalf and is responsible for blocking the listings. ... So far I have not received any reply or confirmation that the message was delivered. Silence."

Blimey, allow them time to deal with it!! "Sunday" was 7th Dec, not a work day. Assume the company doesn't work on Sundays. You posted the above "...Silence." here at 4.07 a.m. on 10th Dec.!

Your communication is either receiving consideration so allow them time to discuss and consult their legal team, and they probably have procedures to follow.

Or it's not a priority to the company, so allow them time to get to it. It's unreasonable to expect others to have the sense of urgency or importance that you ascribe to it.

Have patience!

Allow them at least a couple of months. If you haven't heard send a follow-up, a physical hard-copy by recorded delivery to the registered office (possibly old-fashioned but this is how it's done) and include a copy of your original letter and ask if they received your first letter and ask if they would please reply. By the way, ask, don't say you "demand" - that's rude, pushy, belligerant and sounds self-entitled, and some recipients might respond by putting you at the back of the queue.

[insidethe93]

atlantis-myshop wrote: "I remind eBay that I expect a reply or contact regarding the violation of my copyright. ... I will continue to repeat reminders at short intervals until I receive an official response on the forum or by email... Now I formally demand – I refer to post #1 in this thread."

Message #2, from jckl1957, a community mentor, correctly explains to you:

"You need to send this complaint in a letter to Ebay.

This is a member to member discussion forum and nobody who works for Ebay will read your complaint."

I advise you don't use "I demand" - it comes over as pushy, belligerant, rude. If a buyer messaged you as a seller and said "I demand..." how would you feel?

[insidethe93]

OP, whether you win or lose against eBay, do you expect them to let you remain on eBay either as a buyer or seller? or do you plan to leave eBay?

Check the User Agreement, or perhaps ask them?

[jonatjonatjonat]

This is not an official means of contacting eBay regards legal matters. You've already been told you need to write to eBays legal address and await a response. At best you could post your issue on the weekly forum chat, which does have actual eBay staff respond - but I doubt they'd get involved in any of this on a forum thread, but they may at least pass your enquiry on.

I would note your issue seems to be everything has to be done your way in the world. Why you believe the eBay User Agreement doesn't apply to your images when what eBay can do with images that you upload to eBay is made perfectly clear.

[gjalp]

You won’t get any official response from ebay here. This is a forum for ebay members. Your complaint needs to go through official ebay channels although I can almost guarantee you won’t get a resolution in your favour as you have broken ebay policies with marking your images and that’s before the issue you have with Boots. Your products are Boots products and they own all rights to the products unless you can prove they are not Boots products. And even if you could, you circle right back to the broken policy of putting a watermark on your images. You are more likely to get a permanent ban from selling on ebay and that means all IDs related to your name, address and IP.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@atlantis-myshop wrote:

I remind eBay that I expect a reply or contact regarding the violation of my copyright.

---

You need to read this part of eBay's User Agreement:

"When providing us with content (including causing content to be posted using our Services), you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual (or for the duration of any copyright or other rights in such content), irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable (through multiple tiers) right to use the content (including, without limitation, creating and using derivative works). We may in particular use your content, including any photographs you upload, for marketing and promotional purposes. This includes (i) offering it to other sellers to use in their listings, and (ii) displaying it to other eBay users as part of the browsing experience on eBay. We will also be allowed to keep a copy of any content (including photographs) you upload in our product catalogue for subsequent use for these purposes. You authorise us to exercise any and all copyright, trademark, publicity, database or other intellectual property rights you have in or to the content in any media known now or developed in the future for these purposes. Further, to the fullest extent permitted under applicable law, you waive your moral rights in the content and promise not to assert such rights or any other intellectual property rights you have in the content against us, our sublicensees or our assignees."

[neovass0]

  The eBay member has every right to escalate things further if they feel aggrieved, but as other members have pointed out, this forum is not an official recognised means of contact with ebay. This is just a discussion hidden away in a tiny minute corner of their vast network, I even doubt they know the thread exists. I mean, the seller still has listings on the platform and is still making sales on the platform. They have not punished them in any further way, other than remove a listing, something that has happened to the majority of sellers at some point, for one reason or another. It is pointless making any demands or having any expectations in this thread. There will be proper channels for this. 

[atlantis-myshop]

You keep attacking me all the time and it makes me think: I never realised there were so many “eBay spokespeople” here 😉 (to eBay – this is not aimed at you). The very same people who, on a daily basis, complain that eBay is “bad and awful” — whether it’s necessary or not, there always has to be some moaning about the platform and its employees, otherwise the day feels wasted. And of course, the post must be made. Then a few kudos from friends repeating the same thing, because the post must be made and the kudos collected, otherwise the day feels wasted. You may not like me, but that is exactly how you behave. You don’t even see it yourselves, and when someone speaks the truth, suddenly it all kicks off… and once again the post must be ticked off and a few kudos gathered. Hypocrisy, I think that’s what it’s called, isn’t it? And yet you judge me?

Even when someone tries to help you — alongside their own problem, not claiming it will definitely happen to you, but looking ahead — you contradict yourselves (after all, you fight and complain about the same things in your posts and threads on the forum) and try to forcefully insist that they are wrong. You write posts about this in bulk, repeating yourselves, with information hardly different from one another, whipping each other up — but the post must be made and the kudos too. Everyone is an expert, a know‑it‑all, and let’s call it hypothetically a false eBay spokesperson — a false all‑in‑one. Do you even read what your predecessors have written? I doubt it, because you write the same thing but in a different form, and that is not discussion as you claim, but duplication — so it is not discussion at all. In my case it becomes a public collective pressure to force me to agree with you… but the post must be made and the kudos too. And it doesn’t matter that someone dislikes eBay for the very same reason I wrote about — it ends up looking as though you think I’m writing nonsense, not the truth, and — as I read it from your all‑in‑one posts — as if I had no right to dare raise such a topic!

I honestly don’t understand where the problem lies. You whisper about it in corners, you say (or rather grumble) that no one listens to you, that something must change, and then when a sensitive topic/thread appears, you… well, I won’t repeat what I said at the beginning about kudos, because you’ll only get more annoyed. I apologise if I offended anyone, but this is only hypothetical, because I would rather say it to your face, not hiding behind a screen like a shield — since no one sees me and doesn’t know who I am, I can write whatever I want. And that is why my ramblings lose their value, because they are only — let’s say — hypothetical and not about everyone, I emphasise, not everyone.

Frankly, I know and I see that you are trying to help me, because you don’t look at it the way I do — and I understand, there are too few important details from my side in the topic directly concerning my case, which forced me to write this thread (a precedent). But you should understand that I cannot write it outright on the forum, because I must also be fair towards eBay — to demand, and then constantly violate their rules, would not be right. Please do not repeat what has already been written once, because everyone has already read it, including me.         Thank you.

[gjalp]

Just to clarify, I read your post, I viewed your photos (and your listings) and I gave you my opinion based on over 20 years of selling on ebay. Ebay has changed over the years but many of their policies, including those regarding images, have not. I’m not here all day, reading and responding to posts, neither do I read all posts on any particular thread. I work. Full time. Selling on ebay. I have no idea who these friends are supposed to be or about giving/receiving kudos or anything else. If I agree with a post, I indicate but It’s not a competition or something I do as a way of life or aspire to.

I respond hoping my knowledge from years of experience may help someone. Occasionally I learn something new as learning is life long and every day is a school day. Take that as you will as Im bowing out since you appear to be closed to help and information.

[atlantis-myshop]

Thank you for sharing your experience and for taking the time to look at my photos and listings – I truly appreciate and respect that. But instead of stepping back, you could actually show your experience by responding to my first post in a different way: by suggesting what changes to the catalogue and the rules regarding photos might make everyone satisfied. It’s not about agreeing with me, but about what, in your opinion, could be changed.

Let’s assume you see your own photo used in another listing. You, as a seller whose photo has been “appropriated” by someone else – do you know, or can you suggest, a way out of such a situation? One that doesn’t involve “throwing yourself” at the appropriator, but at the same time remains in line with eBay’s rules?

[atlantis-myshop]

As for the eBay catalogue, here is my proposal for change:

• Mandatory extra photo – each seller, when listing an item, adds one photo “for the catalogue” which is not needed in their auction.

• Credit “by…” instead of logo – the photo carries a simple “by [author]” credit, protecting the seller’s rights without breaching the logo ban.

• No complaints – eBay gets catalogue photos, and sellers have no grounds for grievance since their authorship is visible.

• Quality selection – weaker photos can be filtered out, and over time the catalogue will be enriched with the best ones.

• Competitive impulse – sellers, seeing their name/nick attached to a catalogue photo, subconsciously strive to improve quality so their “by…” looks better than others.

• As a result – the catalogue gradually accumulates better and better photos, because everyone wants their work to be noticed and appreciated.

• Natural motivation – no formal contests are needed, as the “by…” credit itself acts as a subtle prestige game.

• Final outcome – a beautiful and unique catalogue emerges, with satisfied sellers whose rights are protected and acknowledged.

or (an even better solution adding to the above advantages)

• Seller compensation – eBay could introduce a small reward (e.g. points, mini‑competitions) to compensate for “donating” a photo to the catalogue.

• Final outcome – an even more beautiful and unique catalogue is created, with sellers even more satisfied because their rights are protected and additionally distinguished.

Now it’s your turn. You may write your own or not. At worst, mine will remain the only one.

[moonlight-rhapsody]

So to summarise.  The very first reply in this thread, posted by an experienced mentor - who is a forum member, not a member of ebay staff - said the following:

"You need to send this complaint in a letter to Ebay.  This is a member to member discussion forum and nobody who works for Ebay will read your complaint."

Several other people have subsequently tried to alert you to the fact that ebay’s T&Cs mean that you are on a hiding to nothing in trying to complain to ebay.  You've refused to take this on board, and instead you have criticised people for trying to dissuade you from wasting your time and money in pursuing a lost cause.  However, it’s your time and money to waste so go ahead, but I can only repeat what you were told 50-odd posts ago, several times since, and re-posted above - nobody from ebay will read this thread and if you think it is worthwhile trying to get ebay to change their T&Cs, you need to write to ebay direct.  Good luck with that one, you’ll need it.

[vinylscot]

I think it's probably time to give up on trying to assist this member. Some people just refuse to be helped.