VERO & Copyright BS What the ??????
Bill Thomas
Ebay recently pulled 2 of my auctions at the request of a VERO
participant. I emailed the VERO participant to find out what their beef
is. This is their reply:
>>The reason we requested that your eBay listings
>>be cancelled is because your site was using
>>copyrighted images of our products likely used
>>from our Web site, catalog or other copyrighted
>>source without our permission.
That's BS!!! I _didn't_ steal the photo off their website. The photo was
simply created by laying the item flat on my scanner, then taking a
photo! Anyone can create the photo that I used! How are they able to
pull my auction without proof it's really their photo just by telling
Ebay the photo was "Likely used from their website" . And how can I
prove that my photo was simply made on my scanner when the end result
looks exactly like one of their photos??.....Seems to me they can't
prove it's their photo anymore than I can prove it's not!! I'm
reluctant to pose this question to Ebay as I've read some of the horror
stories of how Ebay's arrogant attitude could possibly opt to suspend me
*just* for my inquiry!
Would the *only* way to get around this problem be to use a photo that
obviously couldn't be from their website? For instance a shot of their
product sitting on my shirt and maybe having my dog in the background??
I have an example below. The first photo is the problem photo, and the
second would be a possible remedy? Any ideas welcome.
mag...@shinythings.com
Still would be "against their rules" as you'd still be using "their"
package for the picture. Some companies and people have way too much
time on their hands. Try a generic picture of a beet instead and put
the "Burpee" information in your description. Or better yet, go to
your local supermarket and take a picture of the beet bin. Sheesh,
what a person has to go through in order to make a buck.
FJS
Zamfir
Thomas) wrote:
Hey Bill. Wow, that sucks! I can't believe they shut it down just
because to took a picture of the seeds package. Oh well, good luck.
There is absolutely NOTHING you can do when dealing with VERO. The
whole concept of VERO is a good one...but in cases like yours, it
backfires.
Good luck
Kris Baker
Bill Thomas wrote in message
<5023-3D4...@storefull-2131.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
>Ebay recently pulled 2 of my auctions at the request of
>a VERO Participant. I emailed the VERO participant to
>find out what their beef is. This is their reply:
>>The reason we requested that your eBay listings
>>be cancelled is because your site was using
>>copyrighted images of our products likely used
>>from our Web site, catalog or other copyrighted
>>source without our permission.
>That's BS!!! I _didn't_ steal the photo off their website.
>The photo was simply created by laying the item flat
>on my scanner, then taking a photo!
(snip)
http://community.webtv.net/DGranX4/Vero_BS
(snip)
It's obvious to me that your photo is *not* from a
catalog, as I can see slight wrinkles in the packet.
Is the VERO owner trying to claim that you cannot
make an image of their copyrighted seed packet?
Is Burpee the complainant?
I think you should appeal this to eBay, and point
out how easy it is to tell the difference between your
image and that in the catalogs.
Kris
Ms Poopie Pants
I could pose with 2 beets strategically placed on my chest for a fee.
Loev,
Ms Pants
wh...@now.com
"Bill Thomas" <DGr...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5023-3D4...@storefull-2131.public.lawson.webtv.net...
http://community.webtv.net/DGranX4/Vero_BS
Is that what you were selling? seeds? if so, I would say that is some petty
shit to turn you in for that.
The Dave©
Zamfir
wrote:
How much? I'm game
a. linklurker
"Ms Poopie Pants" <reply@noreply> wrote in message
news:3d407859...@news.alt.net...
Call Mr.Guccione.
> Loev,
>
> Ms Pants
I'd eat to the beet, er, eat the beet.
a. linklurker
Don Lancaster
The seed company probably has a policy of agressive enforcement of their
copyrights to prevent lookalike competition.
If so, you most assuredly do NOT have the right to scan the seeds and
place them on a public forum.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
mag...@shinythings.com
wrote:
>
>
>I could pose with 2 beets strategically placed on my chest for a fee.
>
>Loev,
>
>Ms Pants
ROFL!!!!
FJS
Fustanella
Don't forget including the front-page of a newspaper so you have a
date-stamp.
Don Lancaster
Useless and meaningless in the days of instant photo modification.
Dave Martindale
>Would the *only* way to get around this problem be to use a photo that
>obviously couldn't be from their website? For instance a shot of their
>product sitting on my shirt and maybe having my dog in the background??
Even that is a scan of their copyrighted seed package. I think they can
stop you from using that if they want, even though you obviously scanned
it yourself. Scanning a copyrighted document does not give you something
that you own and can use freely.
You could try asking the company what they *would* allow you to use.
Dave
Kris Baker
Dave Martindale wrote in message ...
They might not allow him to use anything. The contents of a seed
package are patented, yet could be easily switched. They also
have a shelf life, and I doubt that a seed company wants to be
blamed when someone gets old/bad seeds.
Kris
a. linklurker
"Kris Baker" <kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote in message
news:X3j09.486$Dy5.26...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
What Cave have you been hibernatin' in - the Bad Seeds were damn good! =)
=)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=895169864
Still are - and there old BadSeeds now!!!
a. linklurker
mag...@rahul.net
<kris....@prodigyy.net> said:
>Dave Martindale wrote in message ...
>>DGr...@webtv.net (Bill Thomas) writes:
>>
>>>Would the *only* way to get around this problem be to use a photo that
>>>obviously couldn't be from their website? For instance a shot of their
>>>product sitting on my shirt and maybe having my dog in the background??
>>
>>Even that is a scan of their copyrighted seed package. I think they can
>>stop you from using that if they want, even though you obviously scanned
>>it yourself. Scanning a copyrighted document does not give you something
>>that you own and can use freely.
>>
>>You could try asking the company what they *would* allow you to use.
>
>They might not allow him to use anything.
NOTICE: I AM NOT A LAWYER. This is just what I have gleaned
from my personal research on this issue.
The company that holds copyright on the seed packet cover doesn't
own the *actual* seed packet that the seller owns. The seller is
entitled to advertise the packet, and in doing so to depict it
via photo or scan.
What the seller is NOT entitled to do is sell "the image" from
the cover of the seed package. The image (separate from the
package, or a photo *of* the package) belongs to the entity that
holds the copyright.
Compare with the digital rights of famous paintings. There are
many famous paintings to which Bill Gates (thru Corbis, which he
owns) now owns the digital rights. He owns the copyright to
*sell digital images of these paintings*. But if you own a
physical copy of one of these paintings (like a poster) and you
have a picture of your house, depicting this poster, on your
website, Corbis can't (legitimately) claim you are infringing on
their "digital copyright". Take the example of the painting
Sunflowers by Vincent Van Gogh:
I have a framed poster print of this painting on my wall, and a
photo of that wall (showing the painting and the room it is in)
on my website. (Sorry, I can't make the image available to this
newsgroup as I don't post links to my personal website in
business forums.) Corbis has no legal right to demand that I
take this picture off my website. I'm not infringing on their
copyrights to the digital image of this painting because what I'm
depicting is my room (which happens to contain a legal print of
this painting). My depiction of my legal property is fair use of
this otherwise copyright protected image.
Similarly, I can sell this poster on ebay, and can take a picture
or scan of the item and use it to depict the item I am selling.
Thus, a VERO claim that you can't use a photo or scan taken of
something *you own* that you are selling - is legally invalid.
That doesn't stop the VERO owner from making the claim, or eBay
from backing them up. But don't let that confuse you into
thinking that these claims are automatically backed by copyright
law, because they aren't! They are invalid claims that are
allowed by eBay because they don't want to have to judge which
claims are valid and which are not valid. If you want to defend
against these invalid claims, you will have to take the VERO
owner to court and sue them to make them stop.
I suspect a lawsuit claiming illegal restraint of trade
(illegally preventing you from legal fair-use and thus affecting
your ability to sell things you legally own) would probably get
their attention, and ultimately prevail. The problem is that
someone has to want this badly enough to be first, and to foot
the bill for the lawsuit.
NOTICE: I AM NOT A LAWYER. This is just what I have gleaned
from my personal research on this issue.
>The contents of a seed
>package are patented, yet could be easily switched. They also
>have a shelf life, and I doubt that a seed company wants to be
>blamed when someone gets old/bad seeds.
Old seed packets often have value that has nothing to do with the
seeds inside.
jc
Bill Thomas
kris....@prodigyy.net (Kris Baker)
>>It's obvious to me that your photo is *not* from
>>a catalog, as I can see slight wrinkles in the
>>packet.
>>Is the VERO owner trying to claim that you
>>cannot make an image of their copyrighted
>>seed packet? Is Burpee the complainant?
>>I think you should appeal this to eBay, and
>>point out how easy it is to tell the difference
>>between your image and that in the catalogs.
>>Kris
Actually, the product in question is not the Burpee seed pack. I am
reluctant to post the actual photo as I plan to relist the item in the
near future and with my luck the VERO owner (or other Ebay narc) might
read this group. And secondly, I'm trying to keep the ex wife from
knowing my Ebay nic and staying out of my behind. :) The real product
is something you buy at an office supply store. My local K-Mart had a
going-out-of-business sale where I picked up a couple dozen of these
items. Anyway, the Burpee seed pack is an identical representation of my
problem with Ebay in that it's a good clear close up, but if you look
close you can see the imperfections and realize it's not professional. I
don't think the VERO owner is trying to claim that I cannot make an
image of their copyrighted image. What they said to Ebay in a sworn
statement is that "I most likely lifted the photo off their web site."
So that leads me to believe I could use a photo of their product as long
as it obviously doesn't look like their professional ad photo, right?
And one other comment the VERO owner said for me to consider is that I'm
not "authorized" to sell their product. Isn't that crazy?
I agree with you about appealing to Ebay, but with my luck they'll side
with the VERO owners or suspend me, or both! :)
Bill Thomas
reply@noreply (Ms Poopie Pants)
>>I could pose with 2 beets strategically placed on
>>my chest for a fee.
>>Loev,
>>Ms Pants
Do you take Paypal? :)
a. linklurker
reply@noreply (Ms Poopie Pants)
Prozac? ;)
a. linklurker
Bill Thomas
da...@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale)
>>Even that is a scan of their copyrighted seed
>>package. I think they can stop you from using
>>that if they want, even though you obviously
>>scanned it yourself. Scanning a copyrighted
>>document does not give you something that
>>you own and can use freely.
>>You could try asking the company what they
>>*would* allow you to use.
>> Dave
For this company to bother messing with a small potatoes seller like me
selling only a few of their products tells me they have way too much
time on their hands. If they weren't such assholes, they would have told
me what type of photo they *would* allow me to use, but they didn't.
They also asked me to remember that I'm not "authorized" to sell their
product. Hell, I'm just the "middle man" trying to make a buck!
Bill Thomas
mag...@rahul.net (<mag...@rahul.net>)
NOTICE: I AM NOT A LAWYER. This is just
>>what I have gleaned
>>from my personal research on this issue.
>>The company that holds copyright on the seed
>>packet cover doesn't own the *actual* seed
>>packet that the seller owns. The seller is
>>entitled to advertise the packet, and in doing so
>>to depict it via photo or scan.
You sound lawyer enough for me. How much will you charge me to plead my
case! :) I agree with what you said. When I sold my Ford, I put a
photo of it in the Auto Trader and sold it. Ford Motor Company didn't
come to me complaining about their copyrighted image!
>>What the seller is NOT entitled to do is sell "the
>>image" from the cover of the seed package.
>>The image (separate from the package, or a
>>photo *of* the package) belongs to the entity
>>that holds the copyright.
Right. And I'm not selling the "image" from the cover of the scan, only
the product in the package.
>>Similarly, I can sell this poster on ebay, and can
>>take a picture or scan of the item and use it to
>>depict the item I am selling.
I certainly agree.
>>Thus, a VERO claim that you can't use a photo
>>or scan taken of something *you own* that you
>>are selling - is legally invalid. That doesn't stop
>>the VERO owner from making the claim, or
>>eBay from backing them up.
>>But don't let that confuse you into thinking that
>>these claims are automatically backed by
>>copyright law, because they aren't! They are
>>invalid claims that are allowed by eBay
>>because they don't want to have to judge which
>>claims are valid and which are not valid.
Yes, and Ebay obviously would rather just pull the auction versus
stepping in and reviewing the situation.
This VERO & Copyright BS sure puts a crimp in one's sails (or should I
say sales) :) :)
Don Lancaster
A buck they obviously are NOT going to let you make.
Flush the item and go on with your life.
Don Lancaster
> When I sold my Ford, I put a
> photo of it in the Auto Trader and sold it. Ford Motor Company didn't
> come to me complaining about their copyrighted image!
>
No but they have every right to do so, should they in any manner
consider your image to be something they do not care for.
Don Lancaster
>
>
>
> Actually, the product in question is not the Burpee seed pack. I am
> reluctant to post the actual photo as I plan to relist the item in the
> near future
A slow learner, eh?
mag...@rahul.net
<d...@tinaja.com> said:
>Bill Thomas wrote:
>
>> When I sold my Ford, I put a
>> photo of it in the Auto Trader and sold it. Ford Motor Company didn't
>> come to me complaining about their copyrighted image!
>>
>No but they have every right to do so, should they in any manner
>consider your image to be something they do not care for.
Don, you look very stupid when you say inaccurate stuff like
this.
Ford does NOT have "every right to do so should they in any
manner consider your image to be something they do not care for".
They do not own the car! The do not own the logo on the car!
They own *their* copies of the logo, and only THEY can sell or
use "the logo" (alone), but when they put the logo on an item and
sell the item, they lose all control over how the logo is further
depicted on the item that has been sold.
This is a basic part of commercial law, that once something is
sold buyers may do with it what they please.
Just because eBay lets VERO claimants subvert the law with their
legally invalid complaints doesn't make this process legally
enforceable or give the VERO claimants any "rights" that they
don't have under the law. In fact, some of these VERO claims
look a whole lot like illegal restraint of trade, and I wouldn't
be surprised to see a big lawsuit over it someday soon.
jc
Mindelec
>From: DGr...@webtv.net (Bill Thomas)
>Date: 7/29/2002 2:14 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <18152-3D...@storefull-2132.public.lawson.webtv.net>
>
>
>kris....@prodigyy.net (Kris=A0Baker)
ok, your credibility just went right down. i think what you are selling is a
k-mart (if that was the truth) brand item, hence their "you're not authorized
to sell this" stance. whether that's legally enforcible, i don't know. but
you've already found out once.
robert