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.

[jckl1957]

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.

[selective_distribution]

You are wasting your time. eBay does not care, and your threats implicit in your use of legalized jargon will have no effect at all. I trust that in threatening to take eBay to court you have at least several million pounds to spend that you can afford to lose.

[jonatjonatjonat]

You appear to be complaining that your images are being used by other sellers? Or at least allowed to. Well, they are. Putting your shop logo on an image doesn't change that.

This is in the Images, Videos and Text policy..

What should I do if my image, video or text is being used by another seller?

When you create listings you give eBay and its customers permission, through our User Agreement, to use your images, videos and product details. Your content may be added to the eBay product catalog, and may be used by other sellers in their eBay listings.

You may contact the seller and ask them to remove your image or text if it is not part of the eBay product catalog.

You gave your consent to ebay to use your images at the point you uploaded them to ebay.

[dancewithadingo]

Good Morning Atlantis

I gave up reading a third of the way through.  Appeal the decision and if that fails then accept the situation and move on.

[gatefittingsdirect]

"You appear to be complaining that your images are being used by other sellers? Or at least allowed to. Well, they are."

That's not entirely true as I have found out in the past. 

If you read the user agreement you'll see why, I have had many photo's removed by ebay from other sellers using my own photo's. 

[*vyolla*]

You state that you watermark your photos with your shop logo and then go on to quote eBay's policy which states that they do not allow this. A listing may be removed if eBay spot a policy breach or at the request of the brand owner.

However, if you're trying to contact eBay to challenge them you should send this to them (they won't see it here), their bricks and mortar address can be found on the front page of their User Agreement.

[vinylscot]

I tried to get all the way through, but it was obvious, early on, that the poster is completely unfamiliar with the terms and conditions agreed upon when opening the account, and any subsequent changes.

The poster is annoyed that others (including eBay) can make use of his photographs. Yet he/she expressly agreed to this when opening the account.

It is also very clearly stated that this is permitted in eBay's policy pages:

What should I do if my image, video or text is being used by another seller?

When you create listings you give eBay and its customers permission, through our User Agreement, to use your images, videos and product details. Your content may be added to the eBay product catalogue, and may be used by other sellers in their eBay listings.

You may contact the seller and ask them to remove your image or text if it is not part of the eBay product catalogue.

The poster is wasting everyone's time - eBay's, yours, mine, and his own.

I bet this hasn't gone the way he thought it would!

[insidethe93]

The person who takes a photo owns the copyright (photos are "artistic works"), or their employer if taken as part of contracted work, but that's a DEFAULT position. But I don't think that the OP's complaint about taking over copyright is why eBay removed the photos, instead I suggest the following:

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. Photographing a branded product inevitably captures trademarks and other protected design elements. (The answer isn't for a seller to cover up those marks as then a seller could get into a new different bad scenario.) However, using a manufacturer’s product image in an honest listing of that product is usually accepted as descriptive use, and manufacturers don't have the time or resources to check everyone's usage, but they can object if they spot certain photos and they think the use is misleading e.g. incorrectly suggesting an official endorsement, or if they think it misuses their logo as part of the seller’s own branding. Maybe an OP's rival seller complained, or eBay spotted it; either way, maybe eBay doesn't want to take the risk.

Platforms and IP owners can act if they think a seller's photos are confusing or misleading about origin, e.g. implying an official store when the seller is just a 3d‑party reseller. So maybe the problem is simply the OP adding their seller branding to the photos? or that's where the OP's problem started? eBay wouldn't want even the risk of a potential misleading official endorsement by the manufacturer. I can't blame eBay for not wanting to take the risk given the potentially huge £amounts often involved in corporate litigation.

[atlantis-myshop]

eBay removes listings to protect Boots from compensation claims, but who protects me? Where is my compensation for the fact that my own 13 photos were labeled as an infringement of someone else’s property — which in practice means they were taken as Boots’ own? (excerpt from the email: "We reviewed your appeal of an action on your account. Upon further review, we’re unable to grant your appeal because the listings aren’t following our Intellectual property policy. Your listing was reported for using a rights owner's copyrighted images without authorization. When listing this product, please do not copy photos from websites, catalogs or other sources and only use photos you have taken or get explicit written authorization from the rights owner to use their copyrighted images on eBay. While we are not able to approve this appeal, you may still correct your listing by revising it. If you believe your item was reported by mistake, you may contact the rights owner directly at the following email address boots@enforcements.opsecsecurity.com’)....."

To others:

This happens quietly, and you will only find out about it when it personally hits you. By writing ‘that’s just eBay rules’ you are not thinking about what is really happening. And if you have already experienced this, you probably have not analyzed the wording and form of the justification in the email.

This is the full text of the email:

"Status of your appeal

Hello atlantis-myshop,

We reviewed your appeal of an action on your account. Upon further review, we’re unable to grant your appeal because the listings aren’t following our Intellectual property policy. Your listing was reported for using a rights owner's copyrighted images without authorization. When listing this product, please do not copy photos from websites, catalogs or other sources and only use photos you have taken or get explicit written authorization from the rights owner to use their copyrighted images on eBay. While we are not able to approve this appeal, you may still correct your listing by revising it. If you believe your item was reported by mistake, you may contact the rights owner directly at the following email addres boots@enforcements.opsecsecurity.com

What this means for you:

We need you to take action to avoid listing items like this again.

• Listings that didn’t follow this policy will remain removed or hidden until they can be edited to address the policy issue.
• Any restrictions or suspensions that may have been placed on your account will remain in place. Listings will automatically be restored and show up in search results after the end of any temporary restriction.
• Please ensure that you understand our policy so that you follow it in future listings. Listings that don't follow this policy in the future may result in additional actions, which could include: restriction, suspension, hiding listings from search, ending listings, loss of seller rating, and forfeiture of fees. We encourage you to contact the rights owner at the email address previously provided for more information.

Here's a list of the items that didn't follow policy:
Item: 306287546369 17. Lacquer Gloss - Choose Colour / Shade
Reference ID: 2-100688768309

If you believe a mistake has been made, you may have the right to have this decision reviewed under the applicable laws by a competent court or settlement body. eBay can retain your content for only six months from the date of the original notice. After this, it may be permanently deleted in its entirety and unrecoverable.

Thanks for giving us an opportunity to resolve this issue. If you have any questions or concerns, just get in touch and we’ll be happy to help.

Thanks,

eBay

Please don't reply to this message. It was sent from an address that doesn't accept incoming email."

[insidethe93]

atlantis-myshop wrote: "eBay removes listings to protect Boots from compensation claims, but who protects me? Where is my compensation for the fact that my own 13 photos were labeled as an infringement of someone else’s property — which in practice means they were taken as Boots’ own? (excerpt from the email: "We reviewed your appeal of an action on your account. Upon further review, we’re unable to grant your appeal because the listings aren’t following our Intellectual property policy. Your listing was reported for using a rights owner's copyrighted images without authorization..."

Seeking compensation - you wouldn't get any automatically, I don't know if you'd get any, and if you did would it be more than a penny? If you think you're entitled to it then as your initial approach complain to eBay via customer services or a recorded delivery letter to eBay's registered office. I know it matters a great deal to you, OP, but I'm afraid it won't have the same priority to others.

You were "reported or using a rights owner's copyright images without authorisation". You should be surprised, not that it happened to you, but that it doesn't happen a lot more and to other sellers. I wonder if it's a tactic used by rival sellers against their competition or if companies check more than you think? Or perhaps eBay and other platforms handle loads of such reports but naturally customers aren't kept informed (customers won't care anyway). How underhand you view someone/anyone reporting you is up to you, but what's happened isn't an illegal act against you; you might even turn the tables and report a rival seller if you think their photos do misleadingly indicate manufacturer-endorsement. Some (like the manufacturer) might say reporting doesn't happen often enough.

You agree to eBay's T&Cs by using the site, let alone the fact that you're bound by law. At least no one's actually sued you (yet).

I know life seems unfair at times but, without me judging rights and wrongs, here I think you'd be wise to let it go, it's not 'the hill to die on', and it could get you kicked off eBay so, instead of feeling indignant and stressed you could learn from it _to your own benefit_ e.g. carry on on eBay but no longer add your own seller branding to any photos.  Generally on the internet it's annoying but sensible not to get hung up on your "right" to your photos as the only guaranteed way to protect a photo you've taken is never to put it online.