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.

[neovass0]

  If that was the great master plan, I doubt he / she would have announced it on the forum, lol. Sometimes, interactions with other sellers are just rude and you push back. Plus, if the items were indeed as pictured, why would this other seller worry about the pictures not accurately representing the item sold. It's happened to me, you put the effort in to take the pictures and write an accurate and in depth description, only to have someone come along and just copy your entire listing, word for word, including the title. It happens and is apparently allowed.

[atlantis-myshop]

I can show the photos that are in dispute, but only 3 out of 13, because posting all of them would be an abuse of the forum.

This is my own main photo of my listing – Boots does not have anything like it at all...

This is my own photo of a single lip gloss called "17. Lacquer Gloss - Violet", whose image I cannot reproduce here for obvious reasons, but it is currently available in Boots’ official offer on their website...

This is my own substitute graphic for the colors of lip glosses I no longer have, created when updating this listing..

All of my photos, in my opinion, reflect the color shades with about 95% accuracy.

[atlantis-myshop]

These are my own photos, yet eBay added them to the catalogue and now other sellers can use them without my consent.

[insidethe93]

atlantis-myshop wrote: "These are my own photos, yet eBay added them to the catalogue and now other sellers can use them without my consent."

According to search engines info in the following comes from these discussion boards as it's been discussed here before.

eBay UK removed the opt-out choice in 2017's Spring Seller Release so, OP, you saying "without my consent" is inaccurate or at least pointless as it can't apply and doesn't apply. Consent is different from complaint. You can COMPLAIN but you can't DISAGREE, at least not in any practical or effective way, because you agree to eBay's T&Cs when you use the site. You agreed to the T&Cs when you first started using the site.

No one can pick&choose which T&Cs apply to them. But I support people's right to complain, as indeed does eBay! which lets people post on these discussion boards despite the criticism it often receives here. No reason why not to air the subject of the catalogue photos again, and I'm sure someone else will air it again in future.

In this instance the OP is basically complaining at working for free by taking photos for other sellers' benefit, or potentially, as there's no guarantee said photos will be used elsewhere. Sellers have a level playing field so the OP can 'turn the tables', as it were, and use catalogue photos, which in turn might annoy the seller who took those photos. But eBay, if it does decide to add your photos to its catalogue, makes the photos available to any seller because apparently, with photos of particular items in common across more than one seller, they can be used if a seller wants to sell an item new unused/unopened. **That way potential buyers benefit from being able to see details they perhaps couldn't see otherwise. It's not as if there's no rationale behind eBay's policy.**

eBay doesn't say that every single uploaded photo is automatically in the catalogue; instead, it says content “may be added” to the product catalogue. Once an image is in the catalogue, any seller listing that matching product can generally use that catalogue image without needing the original seller’s separate permission - this is to benefit buyers. (It also benefits eBay if it increases sales.)

eBay's image policy has this important exception: if another seller is using your photo and it isn't part of the eBay catalogue, you can ask them to remove it, and you may pursue copyright complaints if they don't, because copyright in the original photo still remains with you despite the licence you grant to eBay.

[jonatjonatjonat]

I don't understand. You've been shown the user agreement now. Not sure why anyone would use them given they show your store logo (which shouldn't be there anyway) but they've been added and allowed to be used freely on ebay as per their policy.

[gjalp]

Simply put, Ebay can help themselves to any image and add it to their catalogue. It’s in their T&Cs which we all agree to in order to use the site. You’re actually quite lucky as you have added your logo to your images (which isn’t allowed) and ebay has added them to their catalogue which in turn is free advertising for you as I know that I for one would be curious about the ‘mark on the pictures’ if I came across it and would search it out. Whilst I appreciate you are disgruntled about the use of your images in this way, its how ebay works and I would recommend removing your logo from your images as it’s not technically allowed and could get you restrictions (as already happened in the removal of listings). The way its been added suggests you are putting your name to another company’s products which is probably the issue Boots has.

[pillarboxred]

What I don't understand is whether only Boots has the right to sell the products in question and somehow they are available on the "grey market" when Boots hasn't sold them to third parties. If that were the case, the cosmetics would be contraband and the listings would be taken down for that reason.  Did the OP "create" their own photos by applying AI software to existing photos? That's a kind of "creation" that is disputable.

We use this platform having agreed to all the terms but that doesn't rule out class action challenges to terms which are felt to be unfair. I think the OP could find they are on a very expensive legal journey but best of luck to them if they get good legal advice: it is creepy that a business entity can steal your work if that has indeed happened.

[pillarboxred]

Does Boots wholesale their branded products for sale outside of their own outlets? I've never noticed this. If not, where has the OP's stock come from? If they do, then I would have thought that a reseller would have the right to make their own photos of the Boots products.

[jonatjonatjonat]

Right - this is where it gets tricky.

If you were buying directly from a Boots retail store (the OP hasn't stated whether this is the case) then technically - that product is no longer 'New'. Even if you don't open it, its second hand - again, if you have purchased it retail. 

On Amazon, as a business, its clear cut - you can't sell Boots goods (well, not until you get caught) as Amazon won't see Boots retail receipts as a valid supply chain if that is what you supply.

Another issue is Boots/ebay are applying their usual odd pick and choose approach to who they kick off. Boots picked on this particular seller but if I do a search for 'Soap and Glory' on ebay the top seller for me is -lo!- a Private Seller selling hundreds of new cosmetic goods!

[atlantis-myshop]

My photos are taken by me with a camera — specifically the unassuming Galaxy Note 4, which I have been using since my very first day on eBay. I do not falsify photos using AI.

AI only generated substitute images, one of which is in this suspended listing (the third picture inserted), to make it clear that it is a graphic and not a photo.

I use Corel and Photoshop, but never on anyone else’s photos — only on my own.

[difficult2find]

Hmmn yeah, I wouldn't advocate it now and probably wouldnt have gone through with it.

The guy was horrible though and was making items from designs other people had made, downloading them against the terms of the license then using my photos to sell them cheaper than mine. That means he was (is) depriving the original designers of income and was trying to damage my business by deception. I was pretty riled! Threat of a Vero did the job.

[*vyolla*]

---

@pillarboxred wrote:

Does Boots wholesale their branded products for sale outside of their own outlets? I've never noticed this. If not, where has the OP's stock come from? If they do, then I would have thought that a reseller would have the right to make their own photos of the Boots products.

---

I don't know where the resellers get their stock, I'd be surprised if Boots sold off old stock lots direct but this isn't my arena. There always seem to be wholesale cosmetics available in large job lots on Google. I wear Mac makeup and they discontinue colours regularly which then end up in a bricks and mortar store like the Cosmetics Company Store, which stocks discontinued product from the big brands.  As cosmetics are widely faked I would never buy from anywhere other than a Mac store/online store or a reputable outlet. Anything that goes on your face needs to be safe.

I would hazard a guess that stock comes from liquidated stores, but that wouldn't make sense in the case of Boots, who only sell their product in their own stores.  They have their own website too so I can't imagine they'd license to eBay/Amazon sellers (though there is a load of their product on both). 

Puzzled how current Boots product can be sold half price by other sellers. 

So, not a clue! 😀

[4_bathrooms]

---

@insidethe93 wrote:

A manufacturer can raise trademark or passing-off concerns when photos (intentionally or otherwise) incorporate the manufacturer’s own copyrighted images, artwork or design drawings.

---

I think you were very close to the money there. Many of Boots' own-branded products are released under their No 7 brand; as you might expect they have a trade mark for that brand covering (all) cosmetic products.

Take a look at these two pictures that were provided by the OP. The first is a non-Boots product that was removed by eBay the second is an actual No 7 brand Boots product:

The "7" in the "17." is written in a similar font to that used in Boots' own-branded product. Whilst it's trade mark rather than copyright infringement I suspect this is the actual issue with the removed listings.

[jonatjonatjonat]

17. is a Boots own brand as well.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@jonatjonatjonat wrote:

17. is a Boots own brand as well.

---

Hmmm, so it is.

I was thrown because the OP stated "Boots does not have anything like it at all" - I now realise they meant the photo rather than the product.

That being the case Boots is in all likelihood engaging in a bit of Christmas season price protection. The complaint is technically accurate - the images show logos that Boots have trade marks for. However, if Boots believed the items are/were counterfeit they should have taken down most of the OP's listings via VeRO.

I have no idea how the OP is sourcing their Boots-branded products - a bit of Googling shows it is pretty much only Boots that retails them. The OP may need to check any terms their supplier has attached to the supply of these products - whilst their supplier would not legally be able to dictate resale prices they would be able to restrict the channels the goods could be sold through. There could also be terms covering the use of Boots' stock images or other information that needed to be included in any advertising. 

@atlantis-myshop - your legal argument is with Boots, not eBay. That said, your chances of winning any sort of legal action against eBay or Boots are close to zero. Virtually everything you sell on eBay is Boots-branded merchandise and either party could completely pull the rug out from under you. 

[rainbowtrax]

---

@atlantis-myshop wrote:

2. The link provided in post no. 13 leads to an active listing (ID 306274974605), which was not removed and should not have been shared at all, as it creates confusion and misleads. The listing that was removed by eBay is ID 306287546369 (17. Lacquer Gloss). The photos in that listing were taken by me, yet they were still considered an infringement of someone else’s rights.

---

@atlantis-myshop as I made clear in my post #13, yes, that's an active listing but one that displays the same issue as the listing that got pulled. As I stated, you would probably be wise to review that listing and any others with similar logos of yours on Boots products as that is most likely the issue. Linking to the listing to illustrate the problem was an attempt to help you understand and give you the chance to act before Boots have any more of your listings pulled as is quite likely now you've come to their attention.

The listing wasn't reported by a rival - as your posts show it was a VeRO takedown so the action came from Boots themselves. At the end of the day, whether you like it or not, they can do this and for pretty much any reason. We can only guess at the exact cause but, as plenty of other Boots items are on sale on ebay, it's a fair guess that your logo may be the issue. If it were me, I'd be spending my time removing it from the listings that haven't yet been pulled.

[gjalp]

Many of these kind of products (end of line/liquidated stock etc) end up for sale in bulk at auction houses/websites. I buy some of these goods but not for resale, I use them and give them as gifts when Im stuck for ideas. 

[atlantis-myshop]

I apologise to everyone, but I cannot respond to your comments, because anything I write from the moment this thread was started may, in practice, be used against me by lawyers.

[atlantis-myshop]

If anyone was frightened by the word "lawyers" and is now afraid to write anything, let me say from my side that all your previous words are simply your own opinions. If someone still feels uneasy but wants to contribute, you can start your comment with the word "theoretically" or "let’s assume" — or simply "theoretically let’s assume."- this is only an option, not a requirement and if anyone wants to write something, they can do so without fear.

To be honest, I can only read or possibly answer questions, but not all of them.

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

[insidethe93]

atlantis-myshop wrote: "I apologise to everyone, but I cannot respond to your comments, because anything I write from the moment this thread was started may, in practice, be used against me by lawyers."

Maybe it's Boots you should be apologising to (letter, recorded delivery, to their registered office).

Though, as eBay has pulled your photos, Boots MIGHT leave it at that.