LOL Wow... Really?... Reaaaallllyyy?

So I've been hooked on eBay lately - mainly trying to get rid of some useless junk and get an HD-PVR.

Anyways, I've been selling stuff for the past couple of days and early this morning I placed my Skullcandy Headphones on there.

Well - eBay didn't have the image preloaded for the product, so I easily Google'd and uploaded one.

I just received a message from eBay saying my listing was removed.

Apparently, Skullcandy, Inc. reported my listing because I was using an image of their headphones.

Literally, it says and I quote, "Listing(s) uses unlawful copy of copyrighted image."

Wow. I'm seriously shocked. Guess who's putting it back on eBay? Me... but this time... no image MWAHAHA!

Anywho - I suppose I should ask a question. Have any of you eBayers ever had an item removed for an ignorant reason as such?

I take pictures of the actual item I'm selling...

Fine.... should I wear them? And pose, perhaps? lol Okay - I'll do that instead.Thuganomic05

Intriguing, but they may think they are getting the full package. And then your image could be removed for misleading the customer. Or for white slavery*.

* Assumed from your avatar.

[QUOTE="Thuganomic05"]Fine.... should I wear them? And pose, perhaps? lol Okay - I'll do that instead.m0zart

Intriguing, but they may think they are getting the full package. And then your image could be removed for misleading the customer. Or for white slavery*.

* Assumed from your avatar.

[QUOTE="Thuganomic05"]Fine.... should I wear them? And pose, perhaps? lol Okay - I'll do that instead.m0zart

Intriguing, but they may think they are getting the full package. And then your image could be removed for misleading the customer. Or for white slavery*.

* Assumed from your avatar.

*Yes I'm white

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Thuganomic05"] Sure it's their website - but being an American company they have to abide by federal laws just the same. It's not eBay I'm upset with - it's Skullcandy.Thuganomic05

Well first of all, yes they do. They could forbid you from posting images altogether, if they really wanted to, and that includes the power to exclude any subset as well. Any website owner has the power to decide what is acceptable content, for any reason they choose.

Second of all, I am not so sure that your reading of that snippet of copyright law is indeed proper or in context. It could simply be stating that the distributer of a product or the owner of the IP behind the product (copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc.) cannot make a blanket copyright of all future images of a product to prevent sale or resale. In other words, it might be stating that you cannot be prevented from creating and displaying images of the product yourself for the purposes of sale.

[QUOTE="Thuganomic05"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Hmm? They are not breaking the law (they are still abiding by it) - they are being stricter than the law. That is their call.m0zart

Well first of all, yes they do. They could forbid you from posting images altogether, if they really wanted to, and that includes the power to exclude any subset as well. Any website owner has the power to decide what is acceptable content, for any reason they choose.

Second of all, I am not so sure that your reading of that snippet of copyright law is indeed proper or in context. It could simply be stating that the distributer of a product or the owner of the IP behind the product (copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc.) cannot make a blanket copyright of all future images of a product to prevent sale or resale. In other words, it might be stating that you cannot be prevented from creating and displaying images of the product yourself for the purposes of sale.

so I easily Google'd and uploaded one.Thuganomic05

As a buyer, I read that and naturally suspect that you purposefully chose to not take a picture of the actual item you're selling. Instead, you went to Google to find a nice pretty shiny example of what your item used to look like. Since you don't want to show the actual item that you're selling, I can only assume that it is damaged or defective.

They don't own the picture's trademark/copyright.Thuganomic05

Okay. I'm wrong :(Thuganomic05

First part, definitely. Second part, I'm just guessing. I remember once when I served on a jury for a civil case over an eviction, in which the evicted was suing the landlord for evicting them for not paying about six months of rent, we were provided a snippet of the law in Texas regarding eviction.

The snippet we were given was about two lines. And if you were to read that snippet out of context, it sounded as if eviction was never justified for any reason whatsoever, and that a landlord that evicts for any reason could be treated as responsible for any resulting financial loss of the evicted that took place as a result of the eviction.

When I read it, I knew there had to be more to the story, so we requested the full text of the law from the judge. He wrote back and said that he could not provide that for us. No comment on why.

Needless to say, it made our arguments far more contentious, because there were a few of us who knew that this was simply not possible and knew that Texas law was not this harsh on landlords or this easy on those who were lawfully evicted, and some who saw it as the perfect way to give the evicted money he didn't really deserve.

After the decision was delivered, and we were discharged as a jury, we went to the judge's chamber in the back for a final talk with him, and I brought this specific instance up. He admitted to us then that after several deliberations during the proceedings with the attorneys, he had conceded to give us only this tiny portion of the law to go by. Since the case had went back on appeal so many times in favor of the plaintiffs, he felt compelled to give the plaintiffs every concession he could to strengthen the standing against any future appeals.

So the point I am making is that any snippet of law taken out of context can seem to say something it doesn't. This is due to the fact that law is accumulative over time, modified by both new law and court decisions and actions of regulatory councils, and just due to the fact that legal language can be incredibly hard to understand in isolation. That's why legal professions exist. It's not a job that can as easily be done by a layman.

[QUOTE="Thuganomic05"]

As a buyer, I read that and naturally suspect that you purposefully chose to not take a picture of the actual item you're selling. Instead, you went to Google to find a nice pretty shiny example of what your item used to look like. Since you don't want to show the actual item that you're selling, I can only assume that it is damaged or defective.

Oleg_Huzwog

[QUOTE="Thuganomic05"]Okay. I'm wrong :(m0zart

First part, definitely. Second part, I'm just guessing. I remember once when I served on a jury for a civil case over an eviction, in which the evicted was suing the landlord for evicting them for not paying about six months of rent, we were provided a snippet of the law in Texas regarding eviction.

The snippet we were given was about two lines. And if you were to read that snippet out of context, it sounded as if eviction was never justified for any reason whatsoever, and that a landlord that evicts for any reason could be treated as responsible for any resulting financial loss of the evicted that took place as a result of the eviction.

When I read it, I knew there had to be more to the story, so we requested the full text of the law from the judge. He wrote back and said that he could not provide that for us. No comment on why.

Needless to say, it made our arguments far more contentious, because there were a few of us who knew that this was simply not possible and knew that Texas law was not this harsh on landlords or this easy on those who were lawfully evicted, and some who saw it as the perfect way to give the evicted money he didn't really deserve.

After the decision was delivered, and we were discharged as a jury, we went to the judge's chamber in the back for a final talk with him, and I brought this specific instance up. He admitted to us then that after several deliberations during the proceedings with the attorneys, he had conceded to give us only this tiny portion of the law to go by. Since the case had went back on appeal so many times in favor of the plaintiffs, he felt compelled to give the plaintiffs every concession he could to strengthen the standing against any future appeals.

So the point I am making is that any snippet of law taken out of context can seem to say something it doesn't. This is due to the fact that law is accumulative over time, modified by both new law and court decisions and actions of regulatory councils, and just due to the fact that legal language can be incredibly hard to understand in isolation. That's why legal professions exist. It's not a job that can as easily be done by a layman.

Take a picture yourself. They were right to take it down. It's supposed to be a picture of the ACTUAL ITEM, as in the item that is up for sale, not just a promo shot that's meant to make the item look good.

Take a picture yourself. They were right to take it down. It's supposed to be a picture of the ACTUAL ITEM, as in the item that is up for sale, not just a promo shot that's meant to make the item look good.

JediXMan7

[QUOTE="JediXMan7"]

Take a picture yourself. They were right to take it down. It's supposed to be a picture of the ACTUAL ITEM, as in the item that is up for sale, not just a promo shot that's meant to make the item look good.

Thuganomic05

It doesn't matter. It has to be a picture of the actual item.

Just lay out a white sheet, put the item on the sheet, and take a picture.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

As a buyer, I read that and naturally suspect that you purposefully chose to not take a picture of the actual item you're selling. Instead, you went to Google to find a nice pretty shiny example of what your item used to look like. Since you don't want to show the actual item that you're selling, I can only assume that it is damaged or defective.

Thuganomic05

Again speaking as a buyer, I would have no way of knowing your reasons behind your picture choice. All I'd see is the picture. You're right - selling a defective item is not cool, but that's what I'd assume you were doing.

[QUOTE="Thuganomic05"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

As a buyer, I read that and naturally suspect that you purposefully chose to not take a picture of the actual item you're selling. Instead, you went to Google to find a nice pretty shiny example of what your item used to look like. Since you don't want to show the actual item that you're selling, I can only assume that it is damaged or defective.

Oleg_Huzwog

Again speaking as a buyer, I would have no way of knowing your reasons behind your picture choice. All I'd see is the picture. You're right - selling a defective item is not cool, but that's what I'd assume you were doing.

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

So the point I am making is that any snippet of law taken out of context can seem to say something it doesn't. This is due to the fact that law is accumulative over time, modified by both new law and court decisions and actions of regulatory councils, and just due to the fact that legal language can be incredibly hard to understand in isolation. That's why legal professions exist. It's not a job that can as easily be done by a layman.

Thuganomic05

Just don't take that last paragraph of my statement as an excuse to violate the law in ignorance. The two-tiered approach of our Government on legal laymen consists of (1) making the law nearly impossible to understand for a layman, and (2) invalidating any arguments that a violator of the law did not know a particular act was illegal. This two-tiered approach requires you to keep a lawyer on retainer at all times to be really sure that you aren't violating the law by walking down the street in a diagonal fashion, or brushing your teeth the wrong way. This, as it turns out, is a powerful financial boon to lawyers.

... that whole last paragraph was a bit of an exaggeration, but only a bit.

EDIT: Anyway what I really wanted to say is: Shame on you for stealing!

Never happened to me, but then again, I dont sell stuff on there, I just buy stuff.Allicrombie

I like seeing the actual picture of it, not the product picture that someone got off of google.

I feel like im being scammed for some reason.