Dishonest ebayer gets away with defamatory feedback

[baudrillard2013]

I sold a dress from Bariano, new with tags, $365 for $40. 

Buyer leaves negative feedback, "poor condition". They file paypal dispute describing dress in appalling condition in about six ways. They wouldn't return dress Now re-selling dress in "very good condition". This is Impossible comparing the two sets of comments. They are dishonest. Using my pictures to re-sell too. Ebay won't remove defamatory feedback or report the listing. 

[2106greencat]

---

@bitsnopieces wrote:

It is against ebay policy to use someone's else picture, comes under copyright, complain to ebay.

---

Once you place an image on a public site, unless you have a registed C or watermark CR does not apply, sorry.

On all public forums when you agree to join you are handing over all text and images that you post as belonging to that site for the duration, unless you actually delete that clause from the Terms of Agreement by sending through a CR/R declaration.

[baudrillard2013]

Good idea bitsandpieces. It never occurred to me to ask for a supervisor as the ebay CSO didn't acknowledge the copyright violation even though she looked at the two listings!! Same goes for the surveys. I usually fill them out. 

Aww! Thanks Ms Aussie. 🙂 You are sweet. 

See this is why ebay is such a special place. There are lovely ebayers, buyers and sellers. Worth remembering when you come across someone who causes you to lose faith.  As I said giving to that next ebayer (who was lovely) and so needed and appreciated the extra things I gave her made my day and it healed me temporarily of this nasty encounter with this lauzz person. 

Amazing how the gift of giving can give you more pleasure than selling sometimes!!!

[digital*ghost]

---

baudrillard2013 wrote:

They lost the paypal dispute.

---

This is actually grounds for automatic defect removal. Neg FB is a defect, ergo it should be removed according to eBay's own policies.

I suggest calling eBay, as many times as it takes, ask to speak to a supervisor, don't take no for an answer (as politely as you can 😄 ), and point out their own policies state that feedback is eligible for removal when the seller has a PP claim decided in their favour.

eBay CS is difficult to deal with, but you just need to get to speak to one person who is aware of (or understands) eBay policies.

"

We automatically remove the defects caused by the reasons listed here. You may request the removal of these types of defects if they aren't automatically removed.

• The buyer didn't pay for a purchase and an unpaid item case is recorded against the buyer.

• An eBay Money Back Guarantee or PayPal Buyer Protection case is ruled in the seller's favour.

  http://ocsnext.ebay.com.au/ocs/sc

[digital*ghost]

---

@2106greencat wrote:

---

@bitsnopieces wrote:

It is against ebay policy to use someone's else picture, comes under copyright, complain to ebay.

---

Once you place an image on a public site, unless you have a registed C or watermark CR does not apply, sorry.

On all public forums when you agree to join you are handing over all text and images that you post as belonging to that site for the duration, unless you actually delete that clause from the Terms of Agreement by sending through a CR/R declaration.

---

Sorry, but that's not quite right.

Copyright is granted automatically to the content owner, and putting said content on the net doesn't negate that, registered or not. There are some site conditions regarding content for places like eBay, but that grants eBay certain usage of the content, not anyone else. 

[bitsnopieces]

I was listing coke glasses with another ID, saw my picture being used by another seller, called ebay and bought their attention to it, it wasn't that the coke glass was going to change shape from one photo to another and that wasn't the issue, the issue was the background that the glass was resting on.

I did not want a situation developing where I would have a listing concurrent with the other seller using my image. The CS operator agreed that it was a copyright violation, I left it at that and did not pursue it further.

[thecatspjs]

---

@2106greencat wrote:

Once you place an image on a public site, unless you have a registed C or watermark CR does not apply, sorry.

On all public forums when you agree to join you are handing over all text and images that you post as belonging to that site for the duration, unless you actually delete that clause from the Terms of Agreement by sending through a CR/R declaration.

---

Greencat as DG said.

[lizzy6107]

she is on my list... and it appears that her relisted item has been pulled..

[baudrillard2013]

Yes it has lizzy.

Thanks for the info on paypal policy disputes ...lots of useful help here. I have contacted ebay and awaiting response. I should really read policies more carefully.

DG...that's probably why...re: TOS, that's probably why I don't like the policies. There have been epic court battles over TOS versus law with sites like ebay. Can and should TOS trump common law esp. vis copyright. A whole other subject......

I realise what you're saying but in this case poor man's copyright would suffice as at the point a work is created copyright is created in the person who created the work.  Proof is another issue and that is one of the well documented problems with poor man's copyright and the lack of a registration system in general, even outside ebay.

It is going to be big in the online world with digital art...I recall there was a company out there that was trying to develop a database of images that could technologically resolve when the first image appeared online at least but I don't know how that panned out. It was a couple of years ago. In this case however the CSO was willing to go through the comparison exercise and look at the two listings, as a court would do and it made sense to her that the images that were used by myself with the white partition were created before the second user's image and that she had used them to create her listing.

Thanks all for the input. Great community here helping others.

[duck---dodgers]

Correct me if I am wrong, as a listing goes live it is given an item number, if these are in sequential order there should not be an issue trying to work it out as to who copied who.

[baudrillard2013]

Yes Duck Dodgers,

That is what the ebay CSO did. 

She looked at them logically in sequential order. 

Mine came first. The buyer of the item re-selling it's item came later. 

She compared them but she just wouldn't acknowledge a copyright violation, at least openly. 

Perhaps the fact that the listing has been removed means eventually she did decide that? Who knows?