eBay

atlantis-myshop · ‎07-12-2025

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.

Signature:

SOLIDARNOŚĆ

*vyolla* · ‎09-12-2025

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 · ‎09-12-2025

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 · ‎09-12-2025

@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.