Arbitration

[buydavesstuff]

I am having issues finding the form(s) for filing an arbitration complaint against eBay. They keep removing listings as counterfeit that are not counterfeit and when I provide documentation, they fail to overturn the decision of their AI. I have contacted support dozens of times and they can’t do anything. There seems to be no way to have a human being evaluate a dispute.

[jonathanbrightlight]

---

@krazzykats wrote:

I think the OP gets it, folks!  He’s done the right thing and taken enough criticism, so let’s just let him be now....

I do like this copyright discussion though...so very interesting.

ᓚᘏᗢ

---

I'm a little curious, did I miss where the OP acknowledged or addressed the problem?  I didn't see it looking through the thread right now.  While their one current listing is handled a little better, I suspect it's also likely to be taken down, in fact.

[grann-4629]

Conversations about copyrights and trademarks are always interesting mainly because the rules are so nebulous. Someone mentioned that all fan art violates somebody's mark, and technically this is true, but I wouldn't want to be the person who has to decide if the law was broken in this type of case.

When a US film maker was making a movie in the hospital where I worked, they could not find the artist who painted some of the pictures hanging in a nursing unit to request permission to show his art in their movie. They couldn't find the artist, so they had to cover the pictures when the cameras were rolling. They spent several bucks doing the search just to prevent a possible lawsuit. They also had to cover the Coke machine with a generic cola frontpiece.

wrt the OP, it seems that most people who start a conversation never come back to acknowledge the help they have received from you folks - maybe because they don't like the advice they have been given. Or they are satisfied and have nothing more to discuss.

C'est la vie!

[krazzykats]

I think people that start a topic are a little intimidated to come back.  There are so many unknown people here telling/yelling at the OP with the same thing over and over again.  I sure wouldn't come back, that's rather rude and unfriendly.  And once said, was enough.  You don't just keep piling on and bullying someone.  What the ?

Anyway, fan art is not new thing, and you can do it, but you need to know how to legally:

How to Sell Fan Art Legally (& Avoid Copyright Infringement)

ᓚᘏᗢ

[grann-4629]

Great read - thanks! 

In the case I described, the artwork was done by a northern Indigenous artist and were signed with very artistic flair. Beautiful art where the artist could not be found.

[onefootflipper]

---

@grann-4629 wrote:

Conversations about copyrights and trademarks are always interesting mainly because the rules are so nebulous. Someone mentioned that all fan art violates somebody's mark, and technically this is true, but I wouldn't want to be the person who has to decide if the law was broken in this type of case.

When a US film maker was making a movie in the hospital where I worked, they could not find the artist who painted some of the pictures hanging in a nursing unit to request permission to show his art in their movie. They couldn't find the artist, so they had to cover the pictures when the cameras were rolling. They spent several bucks doing the search just to prevent a possible lawsuit. They also had to cover the Coke machine with a generic cola frontpiece.

wrt the OP, it seems that most people who start a conversation never come back to acknowledge the help they have received from you folks - maybe because they don't like the advice they have been given. Or they are satisfied and have nothing more to discuss.

C'est la vie!

---

Logo blurring and brand coverups actually stem from a combination of not wanting to give free endorsements and not wanting to conflict with existing endorsements.  In fact companies (Like guitar maker Gibson) have taken the opposite route and gotten angry about their logos being taped over in videos.  Somehow this over time has extended to idiotic things like what you are describing above, being unwilling to show a painting in the background of a scene. 

If this were indeed true then basically no movies or television that wasn't a period piece could ever be made.  You couldn't show a crowd on the news because someone might be wearing a branded shirt. I couldn't sell anything on ebay because showing a photo of the item would be infringement.

This however leads to very odd things, one episode of Top Gear was all about the Ford Mustang and how terrible it was, they showed the real cars and logos the entire episode, however in one scene they visited a restoration shop and blurred out the logos on a car that was sitting on a lift. Still said exactly what car it was, down to the year and options though.

[1786davycrockett]

@krazzykats 

"I do like this copyright discussion though...so very interesting."

Hope you might find this anecdote amusing, then.

About 35 years ago, I was briefly the staff editor for an small independent comic book publisher; and one of the comic books which we were about to publish was a reprint of a previous British comic book.

Before sending off the paste-up sheets, the whole body of the book needed to be proofread and edited, which was my job.  About half-way through the sheets, I realized that one of the stories (retold in comic book form) was actually based upon "The Rocking-Horse Winner," by D. H. Lawrence -- but there was no attribution nor permissions listed.

I brought the problem to the publisher's attention, and he contacted the original British comic book publisher, who informed us that, under British copyright law, the D. H. Lawrence short story was in public domain.

My publisher pointed out, however, that American copyright law was quite different and more restrictive, and that the D. H. Lawrence story was still covered as protected property in the United States.

Unfortunately, we were on a deadline, with no back-up stories to use.  So my publisher contacted the D. H. Lawrence estate, and "kind of fibbed" -- passing off our comic book as a non-profit educational booklet, for use in high school settings.

And the D. H. Lawrence estate bought that out-and-out lie, permitting us to go to press and publish.

Which is more than I can say for the comic book itself -- it tanked, without showing any profit.

[gone.c-33]

You missed the now deleted reply where OP called a responder an idiot early on.

This wasn’t a case of an OP being intimidated into not coming back but most likely an OP getting a discussion board vacation .

[stainlessenginecovers]

---

@grann-4629 wrote:

'Someone from VERO is 'reporting' and ebay does nothing but 'do it'. '

Before that happens, someone has to report the item to VeRO, usually an eBay competitor who is selling the exact same thing, but sells more and thus makes more bucks for eBay. This happened to a family member back in the early days of eBay when she was trying to sell 'screener' VHS tapes that were not supposed to be sold to anyone. Some of them actually had pictures that showed the 'not for resale' label on the tape!

---

@grann-4629 That is not correct- it does NOT require someone to 'report' a listings.

A CR owner 'joins' VERO, then either does it themselves or hires a 'company/attorney' to do nothing but peruse 3rd Party selling entities for people selling their stuff.

Said VERO member (or their rep)  'reports' to ebay and ebay takes it down. 

Does NOT require 'someone to report the listing'. 

[grann-4629]

Ok, thanks for clarification.

I was basing my comment on the 'rumour' (English spelling!) that was going around back in the early 2000's. It didn't seem logical that a VeRO member would hire somebody to watch eBay et.al. 24 hours a day so the rumour made sense.

Hiring a company to do it makes more sense, especially these days when companies that do just that kind of work exist and the cost of hiring and paying an employee is high.

[grann-4629]

I should add that back in the early days of eBay, I used to lurk on their forums, especially when they had forums where you could 'look' for things. Complaints  were being constantly made about items being taken down. eBay would always claim they did it on orders from the copyright holder (VeRO member). Sellers (usually small time sellers) who had their item removed would question eBay why other identical items listed by the big time sellers were allowed to remain. If the VeRO member was constantly checking listings why wouldn't they take them all down?

I don't know how eBay responded to this, but it was interesting to watch.