Jump to content

happiestsellerever! using my personal image *WARNING*


Recommended Posts



happiestsellerever! is selling several Atari itens using my personal picture (from a magazine article), which may lead some people to think those items are actually mine - they're not!


I've filled a copyright infringement form through ebay, let's see if they pull the ads off.






Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you have good luck on your claim with eBay. Just so you know, when I reported that someone was using my item photos, eBay did nothing. When I called, they basically said that they were too overloaded to deal with the claim.

In my experience, talking to their customer service is like talking to a snotty teenager who is trying to text one of their friends. Maybe they are not all like that though (teens or customer service reps).


I notice Happiest put his mark on it like he owns it. Dirty rat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes @CPUWIZ - that's me in the picture. Of course, it's from a published magazine. However, since he's not saying anything about the reasons why he is using the picture, I think someone may eventually think those are items from my collection. Of course, no there, everyones knows the kind of seller he is.


@Lathe26, I filled a trademark/copyright form with digital signature and all, I hope this is serious enought to make eBay take action. Afterall, it's my personal image illustrating all his ads. I have never authorized that, of course.


@atari181, some friends here in Brazil pointed me to those ads, I believe they were monitoring "Dancing Plate" search, since this is quite a rare cart... in fact, it's the rarest of all CCE color labes. This doesn't mean it can be sold for Air Raid prices...


@SIO2 - Dirty rat. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't agree with happiestseller, I have to say I don't agree with you either. If I posted a picture from a Nintendo Power magazine with a picture of someone in it related to an article about say a virtual boy and I was selling a water world, would you automatically assume that person in the article had one? Furthermore would you really care if they did?


According to title I assumed he stole a personal image you had of an item and was using that image to sell another item. This is totally not the case. He (I assume he) simply used an article (that you happen to be in) from a magazine. I personally do not see the problem here and why you think someone would assume you own something you don't. Even if they did I don't really understand the big deal.


As far as copyright goes there is no case here unless you own the magazine. Then it is still hardly a case because he isn't selling a copy of that image. If this was the case ebay would be violating copyright in every video they attach to product listings and such.


I think the hate for happiest is clouding the right vs wrong here and you wants to make something out of nothing. Sorry, just my opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@icemanxp300, I stopped to think a little bit about it, however the picture was "trademarked" by him and he didn't mention anything in the ad text about it. So... you sell a rare item from Brazil. You put my picture from a magazine there and say nothing about it. Here in my country I could easily prove he is, at least, suggesting something.


In any case, I didn't have any hate issue with him, untill now. I just heard about him by reading some posts here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say I hate happiest. I do think placing his mark over a mark on an image he has not created and has no ownership of is an action indicative of fraudulent tendencies.


When taken in consideration with his typical product, I can understand why some people would rather not be associated with happiest seller ever.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Happiest may have his watermark set up automatically. I remember when I had my store with my brother, the Ebay photo you see has your name watermarked over it, but if you try and save the picture I believe the watermark doesn't save, or maybe it's when you click on the photo to zoom in, the mark isn't there. I know there was some instance this happened because I complained to Ebay that what is the point of placing my watermark on the photo if someone can still get my photo without the watermark. With the amount of crap Happiest has for sale, he probably doesn't personally put the watermark, but has that program set up with his Ebay preferences.


I agree with Ice though, I don't think you have a case of someone showing a picture of a page from a magazine to help their case of how rare the item is. They're not selling your picture, nor even the magazine itself.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hello guys, I have an important UPDATE to this topic.

During our previous dicussion, I've notice two sentiments here:


1) Some people believe eBay does nothing about those issues, as it was made apparent not only by this topic, but by others I've read on AA.


2) Some people believe I had nothing to complain about my image, since it was printed on a magazine. With knowledge of my country's laws, I don't agree with this, it's not prerrogative of the magazine to fill a complain about my image.


Well, I had the feeling eBay was doing nothing, because it had previously redirected my complain to the VeRO page, an intellectual property program: http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/programs-vero-ov.html - I had filled a form there, electronically signed, and nothing had happened.


Since upon, I have contacted eBay VeRO program, and they have told me the form should have been submitted briefly, but if it was not, I could send a printed, signed and scanned copy of it by e-mail. And I did that.


As a result, happiestseller item eBay Auction -- Item Number: 2916143989851?ff3=2&pub=5574883395&toolid=10001&campid=5336500554&customid=&item=291614398985&mpt=[CACHEBUSTER] has been removed and they encouraged me to submit new complains, now via e-mail, since I am a VeRO registered member. So, apparently, yes, I was in my right for complaining about that!


That was surprisingly nice, despite full of red tape. I have just submitted a new complain with all items using my personal image, let's see!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More items just removed:













@icemanxp300, I personally wouldn't mind if he just explained what my picture was doing there... some text stating that I'm the biggest Atari collector in Brazil (I 'presume' it's the reason why he put my picture first place), or explaining WHY is my picture there, just for sake of who's bidding. I don't want people thinking those are my ads or that I'm endorsing his outrageous prices in any form.


Better yet, he could ask me about it!


How about I put, say, pictures of Rick Weis, Ian and Marco in my ads (just as an example) without mentioning anything? How weird would that be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who don't see a problem- it's an issue of provenance and false representation.


I only have the barest familiarity with Portuguese, but that article does seem to be about TomBrazil as a collector specifically. Couple that with the auto-watermark, and it makes a listing that suggests that the person in the article is happiestsellerever, posting a scan of a professional publication on his collection to prove the games have been verified real by an educated source. None of which is true, of course. If that was stated in the listing (here's an article about another collector talking about how rare this is!), or if the article was about the game(s) alone and not a person who collected them, it would be largely a non-issue.


Glad you've got them pulling listings for you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanx, @HoshiChiri, that was the point, really.


I'm just not sure whats the problem with @icemanxp300 - the guy seems to be eager to erupt a flame. I did like his first reply, but after that it became very stupid - he has even deleted a comment. Well, I personally don't have an ego problem with this "collecting stuff recognition", it he only would able to see that. I just think all people have the right not to be misrepresented, they don't need to be a celebrity in order to recquire that.


Of course, to US and possibly all other countries, I'm really and unknown person. However, in Brazil videogame scene, it is quite the opposite. It wasnt even me who spotted the ad, but about half a dozen people in forums and social that brought it to my attention and asked me if I wouldn't do anything about it.


One of my friend encouraged to do this post to alert AA members - if I only knew this would cause so much rejection to some people here, I wouldn't lose my time doing that!

In any case, if this post seems so irrelevant to you, ice, you shouldn't dedicate your time to answer every reply and give this post even more status :) even less important than this post it's the time you spend trying to understate it. It's really lame and loser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom I am going be straight up blunt here. I find this thread completely ridiculous. You give me the impression you are very self centered over your video games and think of yourself as a celebrity of kinds over the video games you own. This thread gives me the impression that you think you are so important because of what you own or in this case don't own that you "image" is being hurt over this.


He posted an article from a magazine that had relevance to something he was selling. By your interpretations nobody should ever be allowed to use any articles to promote anything they are selling. I personally did not link anything from his auction to being related to the person in the article "which happened to be you".


While you said you wouldn't mind if he had explained what your picture was doing there. There was nothing to explain. Your picture was there because you were the person in the article he found that had relevance to something he was selling. There was no other intentions there and further more I highly doubt anybody would assume otherwise.


Did he ever say "I am the person pictured in this article"? Did he say he was selling the exact items from the article? You are just annoyed it was happy using an article you were in. I can see the magazine having a case over him watermarking the picture but I do not see you having a case.


If I sold a virtual boy and used the image below would you assume I was the person in the ad or selling that exact persons virtual boy he had? If I said something like "exact virtual boy prop that was used in this ad". Yeah I can see a problem with something like that.



  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happen to agree with Antonio (Tom) if someone used an article about me and my collection in their auction I would definatly have a problem with it. I mostly don't have any issues with Happieseller when it comes to prices, but when he lies or misrepresents an items "provenance" I have a huge problem with it. He has done it with items the I have sold him(in outrageous ways)

I sold him a Strangeland Homebrew that Scott Dayton made with Scot's Signature on it. He listed it as Dee Snyder'so Autograph! He has nothing but misrepresentation in mind with this and I am 100% sure of it.

Edited by atari181
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...