Copyright Infringement on amazon

[PakkyT]

Not about pictures as stated. It has been a while since I listed as well, and have never uploaded a picture. I am thinking they do not want people posting USED items connected to there NEW products page. I guess their stance is you are using their name and advertising material to sell your item. However I would think this would put Amazon at fault since they tie the used listings to the new product.

OK so let's clarify. What did the notice specifically state? Because in the first post you asked...

Has anybody gotten a copyright infringement warning from amazon

Did the notice you received specifically use the words copyright infringement?

 

[agentlossing]

You're getting hung up in the weeds. It's about IP, which, in this case, means products.

 

[PakkyT]

Understood, but there is a big difference between claiming a copyright infringement for selling a used product and with claiming some sort of IP concern when selling a used product. In both cases, I don't see how Oly has a say if you are not using their photos or other promotional materials in the first case (copyright) or if you are not claiming some sort of affiliation with them, selling a counterfeit, or some such in the second case (IP).

Likely Amazon has no legit claim but puts in a claim anyway with Amazon, Amazon takes the cautious side, and suspends your used sale even though really Oly is just blowing smoke.

So back to my original question, ESPECIALLY if this is really about IP, are they trying to scare sellers of used equipment with bogus copyright infringement claims? Or was the original poster incorrectly stating what the notice they received said in their first post?

 

[rkboid]

Here you go

Hello,

We are contacting you because we received a report of copyright infringement from the rights owner listed below. Sellers on Amazon.com are not allowed to create listings or detail pages that infringe copyright.

We removed one or more of the content listed at the end of this email. We may let you list this content again if we receive a retraction of the complaint from the rights owner. Their contact information can be found below.

-- Linda Silberg
-- ipr.olympus@ybrandprotection.com

If the rights owner agrees to retract their complaint, they must send the retraction to us at notice-dispute@amazon.com.

If you believe that the reported content does not infringe the rights owner’s copyright, you may email notice-dispute@amazon.com with supporting information, if appropriate.

If the rights owner does not retract their complaint, or you do not provide supporting information, we may provide your contact information to the rights owner upon their request.

We consider allegations of intellectual property infringement a serious matter and your account is under review. If we receive more complaints about your listings, we may not allow you to sell on Amazon.com.

To learn more about this policy, search for "Intellectual Property Violations" in Seller Central Help.

ASIN: B0000ET9DG, B0001M47FG, B000BKVJDQ, B000BTFZMS, B000BTFZZA, B000INDZ60, B000NVTZXY, B000NVXF12, B0015ASYJ8, B001Q3M4IQ, B001TX9P6W, B001TXKQBK, B0035LBRJO, B0036MDERA, B003CFB0MM, B003YLWI84, B0041OL9YM, B0041OLA7S, B0041OLABO, B00492GLFS, B004CJ844Y, B004CJ84AI, B004CJ84BW, B004IK8F32, B0055PH83C, B0058PL9R0, B0058PL9RK, B005F2SVFY, B0073AIXNG, B0073AIXOA, B0074WDEY6, B0074WDFHM, B0074WDFOK, B00763ESES, B0096WDMGC, B0096WDN6Q, B0096WDNZC, B009C72XZ2, B00CPLP7UA, B00CPLPB4M, B00CPLPO4Y, B00CPLPPO8, B00CPLPR8C, B00CPLPSR2, B00CPLQ10A, B00EQ07PG2, B00EY3YGBS, B00FZEJ3XG, B00HPQ09H6, B00HPQ09NA, B00HPQ0A16, B00I3D8LEI, B00KA1H9LM, B00KA1H9M6, B00MVOU38C, B00MVOU3DC, B00MVOU4IQ, B00MVOURC4, B00MVOURPQ, B00N0E1SHW, B00N0E1SKE, B00NED5RTO, B00NED5VHC, B00NGSLTBC, B00OZ8HP2E, B00S6DBMOQ, B00T79VLHQ, B0124GYNI2, B016LKFEWG, B016LM4EE8, B016LMA5RI, B016LMB770, B01AURIEIM, B01BL2AY06, B01BL2B6W6, B01BL2PXCK, B01CF4Q9Z8, B01CIXJIHW, B01CIXJK16, B01CIXJSOK, B01KY2993C, B01LX73Z1W, B01LXUH7QS, B01LXYDD3B, B01LYHW9HA, B01M4MB3DK, B0725HSJ1W
Infringement type: Copyright
Complaint ID: 1584041211

 

[0000]

So, you're actually dealing with these guys: Brand Protection for brands online - Yellow Brand Protection

 

[PakkyT]

Yep, sounds like BS bullying of people trying to sell their used Oly gear on Amazon. And Online Brand Protection is probably one of the bottom feeders who get hired to send out lots of threatening toothless notices which most people get scared about and back down.

 

[RichardC]

Yep, sounds like BS bullying of people trying to sell their used Oly gear on Amazon. And Online Brand Protection is probably one of the bottom feeders who get hired to send out lots of threatening toothless notices which most people get scared about and back down.

Exactly. An agent hired by Olympus in order to look out for alleged IP infringements. These firms earn fees similar to a monthly wage. They aren't usually after money from the sellers, they get paid by making people jump through hoops.

 

[davidzvi]

If the brand (Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji, etc) doesn't want you to resell used gear on Amazon, they block you. There have been several times over the last few years I've gone to list something on Amazon and been block from listing it. Most cases I've been sent through a "request to resell" process. But since most of the time they ask for invoices, manufacturer authorization, etc; I haven't bothered. There have been a few times when things have been listed as collectables (incorrectly) that I've been given approval.

This sounds more like fishing than anything else. But on not taking your own pics on resale? Lazy IMHO, and it really bugs me when I see people reselling something they bought from me using my pictures.

 

[Clint]

You're getting hung up in the weeds. It's about IP, which, in this case, means products.

IP includes copyrights.

The statement said they removed one or more of the content listed at the end of this email - so did you have an item removed? What was it? What did you include in your post? Did you use your own photos? Did you use your own description?

If they did not remove any item you had for sale - then all of this is a mute issue!

And the same questions for @rkboid !

 

[agentlossing]

IP includes copyrights.

The statement said they removed one or more of the content listed at the end of this email - so did you have an item removed? What was it? What did you include in your post? Did you use your own photos? Did you use your own description?

If they did not remove any item you had for sale - then all of this is a mute issue!

And the same questions for @rkboid !

Moot issue.

Yes, I had a listing for the 17mm f2.8 lens, which was listed as "inactive - out of stock" rather than as "closed" or some similar. Now it's listed as "blocked."

I did not have any images of the lens, however that doesn't mean I was using stock images. That's not how Amazon works. The main listing includes images, but the third-party listing is under a separate page with a heading of "used." You can include a brief description. That's it.

This shouldn't be a squabble. Olympus has lawyers out there who are apparently after listings on Amazon. What I assume is that it's because of the perceived confusion that buyers might have about warranties when purchasing from third-party sellers. I've had other products up which Amazon has removed and notified me about similar things, however without the take-down notice. Usually Amazon self-polices this stuff.

 

[Clint]

I guess it is not a moot issue (thanks for correction - I'll blame that on OMS).The whole thing is interesting.

I noticed there were 86 items listed and started checking many of them out. Some items are no longer listed at all (can't find them through search), other have no sellers listed (such as the item you mentioned), and others have several sellers listed.

I'd diffidently being following up through the couple of means they provided. Its a matter of principle.

 

[flamingfish]

Olympus has lawyers out there who are apparently after listings on Amazon.

Not that it's important, but I'd be surprised if "Linda Silberg" from "ybrandprotection.com" is a lawyer. (Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if "Linda Silberg" didn't actually exist.) My take on this is that Olympus hired the "ybrandprotection" company to search for copyright infringements, and this is the result of some overaggressive flunky there who probably doesn't have much understanding of what copyright infringement even is. The huge list of product numbers in the complaint is a giveaway that this is a form complaint. Olympus is probably worried about cheap fakes being sold as Olympus products, not about sales of used genuine Olympus equipment, but the brand protection company isn't bothering to make the distinction.

I'd respond to Amazon about the situation and write a letter to the president of Olympus, complaining about their overinclusive brand protection.

 

[agentlossing]

Not that it's important, but I'd be surprised if "Linda Silberg" from "ybrandprotection.com" is a lawyer. (Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if "Linda Silberg" didn't actually exist.) My take on this is that Olympus hired the "ybrandprotection" company to search for copyright infringements, and this is the result of some overaggressive flunky there who probably doesn't have much understanding of what copyright infringement even is. The huge list of product numbers in the complaint is a giveaway that this is a form complaint. Olympus is probably worried about cheap fakes being sold as Olympus products, not about sales of used genuine Olympus equipment, but the brand protection company isn't bothering to make the distinction.

I'd respond to Amazon about the situation and write a letter to the president of Olympus, complaining about their overinclusive brand protection.

That's the most sensible take I've seen here about the issue, and I was leaning towards believing the same thing already. I personally don't care as I don't have any Olympus gear anymore, except for my well loved 25mm f1.8. If I chose to sell it I probably would do so here, rather than Amazon.

I would definitely be interested to hear if someone follows up with Olympus about this whole thing.

 

[Bytesmiths]

Olympus is probably worried about cheap fakes being sold as Olympus products

I've been screwed by Shamazon on fake SD cards. They formatted at the advertised capacity, but would not actually hold more than a tiny portion thereof. They were branded "Panasonic," but it seemed to be a laser-printed label. Later, I saw Panasonic SD cards with a holographic reflective portion on them.

I think I paid $22, plus return shipping. I never got my money back. I told Shamazon they would never get another dollar from me or anyone I knew. (I've already talked two people into cancelling their Amazon Prime memberships.)

So this might just be an example of the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction. Not at all to criticize those who innocently got caught up in this sting, but if it keeps Shamazon from selling (and not backing) fake products, I'm for it.

But they really do need to make their policies crystal clear. For example, I had no idea that their infamous buyer protection policy only applies to things they sell directly, and not to third-party sales that they merely facilitate.

 

[agentlossing]

Don't be a crotchety character. Amazon has an excellent customer service policy, including returns. Obviously when you buy third party you open yourself up to a riskier transaction.

 

[Bytesmiths]

Obviously when you buy third party you open yourself up to a riskier transaction.

Which is not very apparent if you are not an experienced Shamazon buyer!

On the same page as their third-party listings, they have a link to their buyer protection… which does not apply!

That is fraudulent. Perhaps inadvertent, but still fraudulent.

 

[agentlossing]

Okay then.

 

[billgreen]

I got the same notice yesterday. Been a year since i sold a few used olympus items. This in NOT about images. Its about selling used items on amazon. Soneone got it right earlier when they said the bean counters and lawyers have taken over. Its no suprise given olympus financial status. They are pulling out all the stops.

 

[djtaylor7]

Not that it's important, but I'd be surprised if "Linda Silberg" from "ybrandprotection.com" is a lawyer. (Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if "Linda Silberg" didn't actually exist.) My take on this is that Olympus hired the "ybrandprotection" company to search for copyright infringements, and this is the result of some overaggressive flunky there who probably doesn't have much understanding of what copyright infringement even is. The huge list of product numbers in the complaint is a giveaway that this is a form complaint. Olympus is probably worried about cheap fakes being sold as Olympus products, not about sales of used genuine Olympus equipment, but the brand protection company isn't bothering to make the distinction.

I'd respond to Amazon about the situation and write a letter to the president of Olympus, complaining about their overinclusive brand protection.

Doing a bit of research shows Linda Silberg is on LinkedIn as Head of Operations Europe, and the focus of the business is on fake goods.

It is almost as if they have Web scanning software which is set up too broadly, with little human checking, and I think that your suggestion sounds a good response .

 

[0000]

t is almost as if they have Web scanning software which is set up too broadly, with little human checking, and I think that your suggestion sounds a good response .

They have every incentive for this automated scattergun approach, since it's what gives them those nice Big Numbers to report back to their clients, as evidence that they're aggressively "protecting your brand"... even if their actions end up reflecting badly on the brand in question. Similar to spammers in that regard. Unfortunately, I would have to guess that the people deep within Olympus who sign off on these kinds of things are probably well insulated from any feedback from the public. Who knows? It might even be somebody at Sony, rather than Olympus...