Copyright Infringement

[DGTG Wholesale]

After reading a very hot topic on another forum, I think it might be helpful to try to explain a few of the reasons why brands do some of the things they do and how they protect their brand identity.

What is copyright?
There is a long and techicinal term for it and a legal term too, but I will put it into laymans terms or just plain english. The images that brands use, the descriptions, their logo's and so forth are belonging to the brand and these usually are copyrighted, to prevent fraud, and to protect the brand image. Brands are very protective of their image, and in most cases sue offenders who use their images for selling fake products. One of the most famous brands in the world Louis Vuitton has sued Ebay on at least one occassion to my knowledge for allowing fake products to be sold on that site.

When you use a genuine wholesaler or distributor and gain images from them to use, by having an account with them you are agreeing not to use copyright images for the sale of fake goods. If you do what tends to happen is the supplier deactivates your account until you clean up your act or may deny you access to those goods altogether. You may also find that the supplier has been given Vero rights which allows him to trawl the auction sites and net to identify potential fake goods, make test purchases, and build a case against the culprit. What then happens is they can demand you remove those images, and legally you have to do so if they have Vero rights. They can also have listings removed from ebay for copyright infringement. They can also sue you for breach of copyright.

While we sell genuine products we also recognise that some people and some of our customers like to sell what is called unbranded products, which is fine as long as you don't get into trouble with copyright infringement. The best bet if selling unbranded products is check first to make sure they are your suppliers own pictures and not stolen from a brand. If you have any doubt at all then don't use them make your own photo's and keep within the law.

I have tried to make this simple and easy to be understood, there are probally bits and pieces I have missed out, but if you have any questions then ask. I will say though that suppliers have a duty of care to their customers to ensure they stay within the law, most suppliers that sell unbranded products try to obtain proper images for you to use, but it is always better be safe than sorry.

[Rainee Bows]

 I know exactly the thread you are talking about, and i feel for the site owner who is racing as fast as she can to replace the images left by the previous owner.

But I'm also highly suspicious of the motives of the other poster in that thread, maybe I'm just a suspicious person but it all seems a llittle 'staged' to me, and it wouldnt be the first time thats been done now would it

Rain
xxxx

[DGTG Wholesale]

I have no idea who that person is, whoever they are it makes me wonder what BS are they on about. They talk about Roma Bikini as if they own the brand themselves, they obviously do Leg Avenue and are feeling the pressure as LA prices are gone up, Who they are I have no Idea, I thought it might be from someone in essex or indeed a friend of someone in essex but I have no idea who that fancydress1010 is. I will say though it all seemed a bit too bitter an attack, like she put someone out of business sort of attack.

[Rainee Bows]

I know there is a particular ebay member that has been doing the rounds same attitude the 'I'll report you approach' got themselves reported for harassment in the end .....


Karma is a wonderful thing


I try not to 'visit' i find it all a little depressing




Rain
xxxx

[pure-wicked]

Whilst i totally understand and also feel sorry for the new owner of the site in question, there was a question raised that was a perfect solution and was not acted upon (i know i would have done if it was my website).

If the images that are being used are breaching copyright then why not disable all products then as and when pictures are replaced re-enable the products.

Therefore only the images that are being shown are the ones taken by the new owners.

Any thoughts ?

Regards Dave

[DGTG Wholesale]

Personally what I thought was wrong was the way someone was attacked on a forum over issues that happened before they took over, that said your are right with hindsight what should have happened was that any copyright images were disabled until new ones were sourced. Brands don't care how long you are running a site they care only for their brand. Business is a learning experience and there is always things that come up that we are not prepared for and we have to learn what to do. I think it is always easiest for an outsider looking at something to see what is wrong rather than the person operating it as after all we are only human and we get caught up in things and sometimes we don't see the glaring mistakes right in front of us. I think this may have been the case here, I believe the site is changing their images now which is good, it would be a different story if in two months time they hadn't changed that would then be taking liberties.

Ideally if I was in the person in question shoes I would have checked each photo and product before I started to advertise again, and have it right from the start. I am not having a go just stating what i would have done.

[Rainee Bows]

having worked closely with Sam over the last few months i can assure you that as of yesterday there should be no 'questionable' images appearing on the site.

Rain
xxxx