Shouldn't stock images be identified as such?

[yaddith]

I often grouse about eBays rules and regulations, some of which I consider to be niggling. nannyish, or counterproductive.  But there is one thing eBay does not require that I think it should.  I think that those who use stock images in their listings should have to identify them as such.

I always include my own photos in my listings, because I think they are an essential part of the description.  I often sell items (mostly books) that are in less than pristine condition, and I want the buyer to know exactly what they are getting.  That being said, I have no problem competing against sellers who do use stock images.  I just think they should be required to identify them as such.  Most buyers realize that what they see is not necessarily what they are going to get, but there are always some who didn't get the memo.

[chevymontecarlo88]

That is a good point and valid.

[powell-memorabilia]

I’m not sure how this would be police. How would eBay know what is a stock photo and what isn’t? I sell a lot of records, and I borrow a lot of pictures from discogs.  Those pictures are a good representation of what I’m selling. Regardless, eBay has the money back guarantee. If a seller is using stock images that misrepresent the item that he is selling, that is his risk.

[movieman630]

If you can't tell the difference that's a problem.  If someone lists something that indicates they have a large quantity of, it's a pretty safe bet it's a stock photo.

[chevymontecarlo88]

---

@powell-memorabilia wrote:

I’m not sure how this would be police. How would eBay know what is a stock photo and what isn’t? I sell a lot of records, and I borrow a lot of pictures from discogs.  Those pictures are a good representation of what I’m selling. Regardless, eBay has the money back guarantee. If a seller is using stock images that misrepresent the item that he is selling, that is his risk.

---

I don't think they are saying this should be policed (could be wrong) but just that it be identified as a stock image. Yes Ebay has a good MBG but why have the buyer jump through hoops (deal with a return and disappointment) if they can decide if the stock photo is sufficient or not. If they (buyer) can determine it is a stock photo, they could easily just ask for photos before committing to the sale. Most of users on these boards understands the importance of proper descriptions of what they sell but there are many sellers that may not understand nor care which can be frustrating to buyers. I have done the same when selling CD's(stock photos) but i also make sure that it matches exactly to what i am selling. Discogs is a great resource for a lot music info. Transparency clears up any confusion. IMHO

[gearsofgeek]

---

@chevymontecarlo88 wrote:

---

@powell-memorabilia wrote:

I’m not sure how this would be police. How would eBay know what is a stock photo and what isn’t? I sell a lot of records, and I borrow a lot of pictures from discogs.  Those pictures are a good representation of what I’m selling. Regardless, eBay has the money back guarantee. If a seller is using stock images that misrepresent the item that he is selling, that is his risk.

---

I don't think they are saying this should be policed (could be wrong) but just that it be identified as a stock image. Yes Ebay has a good MBG but why have the buyer jump through hoops (deal with a return and disappointment) if they can decide if the stock photo is sufficient or not. If they (buyer) can determine it is a stock photo, they could easily just ask for photos before committing to the sale. Most of users on these boards understands the importance of proper descriptions of what they sell but there are many sellers that may not understand nor care which can be frustrating to buyers. I have done the same when selling CD's(stock photos) but i also make sure that it matches exactly to what i am selling. Discogs is a great resource for a lot music info. Transparency clears up any confusion. IMHO

---

I just tried asking a seller for actual photos of the item. It went well until I pressed send and got the message "sell has chose to not accept messages" .   So I can't even ask them for photos.   

Too bad for them, I was ready to buy if the item was in good condition, but I won't buy items sight unseen from complete strangers.  If I had a relationship with the seller and trusted them, then a stock photo might be ok. 

[yuzuha]

I really don't see the point or the need for it when stock images are only allowed to be used for items in new condition. In that sense, it's no different from making a purchase out of a catalog or from another website.

[inhawaii]

I only use stock images for brand new, in original box items I sell.