For sale ad quoting from a popular website

[Marko]

If someone puts a for-sale ad or opens an auction on eBay and decide that a popular website describes the item much better then they could, should they ask for permission to quote from it?

Specifically:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Schneider-Super-Symmar-HM-120mm-f5-6-Lens_W0QQitemZ7600353609QQcategoryZ30076QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

While it might be argued that the quote represents only a small part of the entire page, it still doesn't feel right to me. Kerry has obviously assembled the information and put it up on the web as a free service to the LF community, not as a marketing tool for used equipment.

Regards,

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Marko,

This is the second time this seller has listed this lens (his opening bid is still WAY TOO HIGH) using the text he copied directly from my web site. He never asked for, nor was he granted, permission to use my words in his auction listing. I don't mind people placing a link to the applicable pages on my web site, but I don't like it when the "borrow" my words and place them in their ads to sell their products. It makes it sound like I am recommending this specific lens and this specific seller. For the record, I am not. I know absolutely nothing about this particular lens or this seller (other than that his opening bid is WAY TOO HIGH).

This is another example of people assuming that because it's on the 'net, it must be public domain. It is not. The text on my web site is copyrighted - as are the images. To copy and use that text in a commercial manner (you can't get much more commercial than a sales ad), is an infringement of my copyright. It does not fall under the fair use exemption.

I did wade through several levels of eBay help screens to find the right screen for reporting an infringing listing. That was a big waste of time. Even though I explained the violation very clearly in simple English (twice), the customer "support" drone that responded sent me a canned response stating they would contact the person claiming copyright ownership (in this case, me) and if that person could prove ownership they would pull the listing. Of course they never contacted me seeking proof of copyright and by dragging their feet on the whole matter, they insured the auction would close before they'd have to take any action. Their total lack of attention and canned responses gave the impression of a deliberate stall tactic. The whole process was a joke.

And now the seller has re-listed the lens, with a lower (but still TOO HIGH) opening bid. In the grand scheme of things, the auction will probably close again before I can get eBay to do anything about it (that seems to be their goal). I had a similar problem a couple years ago and when I complained, eBay immediately yanked the listing. As they have grown, the levels of bureaucracy have multiplied and the competance of their "support" staff has dwindled. Based on my recent experience, they no longer seem to care about copyright violations in their listings.

Oh, and if anyone is considering bidding on this lens, the opening bid price is WAY TOO HIGH.

Kerry

[Dean Tomasula]

Kerry -

I'd write to eBay and complain to them about the description being lifted verbatim from your web site. They'll probably stop the auction.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Dean,

Thanks for the encouragement. That's exactly what I did - twice (three times if you count the "customer satisfaction" survey they sent me after they "resolved" my complaint). All they did was send me canned responses saying they would look into it and remove the listing if they found it to be infringing. Of course, they never followed up on the intitial canned response. Their new infringement reporting mechanism seems trageted at people selling pirated music, video and software (things likely to get them sued by recording companies, movie studios and SW publishers - people with deep pockets and highly paid attornies). In my case, I was both the reporter and the victim of the infringement. So, I know for a fact they never followed up on their "promise" to contact the infringed party for proof of copyright.

It's just one seller hijacking info I provide free on my web site, but it still ticks me off that they never even bothered to ask permission. Like I said, I don't mind sellers providing links to my web site for people seeking aditional info on the item for sale, but when they make MY words THEIR ad, it rubs me the wrong way and goes way beyond "fair use".

Kerry

[Marko]

That's what I thought. The tactic you describe seems to be a general trend, not just eBay. More and more companies seem to be deliberately employing under-qualified (to put it very charitably) staff at the front line in an attempt to deflect complaints and reduce interaction to an absolute minimum. Paraleling this, there is another trend, currently on the rise - misterious "service fees", unannounced increases, "accounting errors", "service upgrades" (always with increased price and diminished options) pop up on at least one bill/statement a month lately.

And it does not look like an accident either - great many people simply lack the time or even the skills to scrutinize their bills carefully enough to notice these little critters. And again, amounts are usually not quite serious enough to motivate people to wade through the front-line customer service nightmare, so of those who do call, majority will eventually give up. That's where the abysmal first-line service really "shines". And the few of us determined enough to climb up the ladder and angry enough to persist will get lukewarm apology and a refund. We make, what, maybe 10% of the total number of customers swindled this way. The 90% they keep is pure gravy. And that's only the really smart companies. The dumb ones get greedy enough to persist until someone sues them and then they simply settle for pennies on the dollar and still keep the rest.

The only way around this is to "escalate to the next level", to use the customer service industry lingo, as soon as you've been given a run-around. Typically, things get resolved at the third level, although in some cases it's possible to climb higher before getting to talk to a human with a brain.

It's the times we live in, I guess. Fast money and even faster scruples.

[Marko]

I looked again and I notice that they put the entire url to your page there, although they did not link to it.

If I were you, I'd rename my original page and replace it with a new page that takes both eBay and that seller to task for it.

Or maybe even something really funny, depending on your imagination and sense of humour...

Regards,

[Frank Petronio]

Anytime you want to screw up the other guy's auction, just bid $1,000,001. They'll kill the auction for you.

It's fun to do! I've done this to a couple of the scam auctions (stolen pix of a 6x17 Technorama from sellers in China with multiple minus feedback...).

[matthew blais]

Uh...
contact the seller directly?

[Marko]

Why? They knew what they were doing. It's not like the wording fell off a truck or something...

[Joseph O'Neil]

This goes far beyond any kind of fair use. Usually most companies do not mind a direct link to thier web site for an accurate description of what an item is (but not the condition), but this is a deliberate cut and paste of somebody else's work.

Too bad he's hosting the web images from his own site, and not lifting them off Kerry's - otherwise Kerry could sub the images for something else.

Dunno what can be done, other than a posting on Kerry's own web page about Ebay auctions, and warning people off.

joe