Vero simply asks that the seller removes the offending items(s). As long as they comply and do not relist the item then their ebay account stays intact. I wonder how many actually respond to an invoice sent by the rights holder though?
Vero simply asks that the seller removes the offending items(s). As long as they comply and do not relist the item then their ebay account stays intact. I wonder how many actually respond to an invoice sent by the rights holder though?
Sorry gary what does veroed mean thanks
So you send them an invoice
VERO: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=eb...HuW3gAaBopCQAQ
Talking of copyright though, particularly where images are concerned, it never ceases to amaze me how stupid some rights owners are by not watermarking their images, or uploading high quality images just itching to be copied.
Ok, it's wrong, there's no doubt about that, but for every large company or small company with a conscience, there are thousands living on the breadline who are prepared to take the risk.
Oh dear, is that the time already? My Turkish Roland needs adjusting!
It's not stupid, it's against Amazon and eBay policy to watermark your images.
Vero isn't a request to take down a product, it's a forced removal by eBay.
They get invoiced for use of the image or trademark, invoiced for the 5000 products they list for sale using the copyrighted image. Ignore it and they get threatened with court action and a request for an uplift in damages.
ALL of mine are watermarked! They have been for years, and I've had no issues with ebay. I don't sell on Amazon though. Why shouldn't you protect your own images with a watermark to stop illegal copying? There are millions of watermarked images on ebay.It's not stupid, it's against Amazon and eBay policy to watermark your images.
With regard to court action, it depends whether the rights owner wishes to pursue that course of action. If they can't supply definite proof that the images belonged exclusively to them then they may be lumbered with the costs themselves.
I'm not trying to be pedantic about this though Gary. You're right in what you are saying: copying is illegal. It's just that the actual policing of it leaves a lot to be desired, leaving thousands reaping the benefits of other people's hard work on a daily basis. The real crux of the problem is that the public, the customers, mostly don't give a toss whether anything is copied or not, as long as it looks the part and is cheap enough.
I had to edit over 500 images on Amazon when I attempted to brand my own product images with my trademark. They called it a watermark and I had to change the lot. This only came about because I made an infringement report; the jobsworth on Amazon looked for policy violations to penalise me instead. I no longer 'work' for Amazon and stopped selling there.
webtrekker (27-01-2017)
The real crux of the problem is that the public, the customers, mostly don't give a toss whether anything is copied or not, as long as it looks the part and is cheap enough.
To a certain extent I would agree that the public don't care about whether it is genuine or not. I don't agree with it necessary being cheap enough. There is a market for better quality 'knock off' goods. If you look at the quality of some of the licensed merchandise it is cheap and tatty and has a very limited lifespan.
Some people want the branding but also want it attached to quality products and are willing to pay extra.