Jeremy,

The quote that you mentioned is made up, if you look at the date "Evening Herald April 1, 2012", but I think the point is valid.

Jeremy, I think the shorter way of summing up your previous point is that ownership of an item (letters in this case) does not equate to ownership of copyright. (e.g. You can buy an original Ted Nasmith the next time you're at Moreton, but you're not buying the copyright for it..)

BH

This one's pretty funny! I'm almost tempted to buy one for my house (if it didn't have to be shipped from Australia). It'd be perfect for any home bar or game room - and in the long run, it will save you a lot of "Powder!"

http://cgi.ebay.com/J883B-LED-Sign-Sa ... 4154ea29c8#ht_3029wt_1132

Does not appear that ebay will be forced to deal with the fakes and frauds, at least not by the US Courts. No liability for ebay the ruling states.


http://www.antiquestradegazette.com:8 ... n=update&utm_content=ATG2

"A ruling in favour of Tiffany would have forced eBay to vet their listings, but two lower courts had previously sided with eBay, saying the online auctioneers couldn't be held liable unless they had specific knowledge that particular items might be counterfeit. But in a July 2008 ruling, a U.S. District Court said that ultimately it was the responsibility of the trademark holder to monitor instances of trademark infringement."

So, it looks as though it's up to the Estate to police this sort of thing. Or is it? Doesn't always come back to the old maxim, 'Buyer beware?'

I don't think it does (Garm) come back to the old maxim; not when someone is sold something claiming to be, let's say signed in this case, when (knowingly) it is not. The courts (US in this case) may have ruled in their favour this time, but the caveat still (probably) stands "unless they had specific knowledge that particular items might be counterfeit." I think if a trademark holder informs eBay, & assuming the claim (of infringement) can be substantiated, then eBay are going to find it hard to justify doing nothing.

The problem is when the sale is not deliberately misleading, & the seller is unaware of the falsehood of their claims; particularly in the case of the general public selling things on a site like eBay. I don't think any of this has much to do with signed Tolkien items, as very few people could prove (legitimately) a signature is false. Personally I think the onus should normally fall on the seller, but this hardly seems practical or possible in these circumstances; how could anyone sell a signed item?

BH

...another fake one...

http://cgi.benl.ebay.be/J-R-R-Tolkien-signed-copy-Cursor-Mundi-/160516812216?pt=Antiquarian_Collectible&hash=item255f8c2db8#ht_720wt_1139

Can someone explain this auction to me? Seem a little out of line, just a bit.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ... &ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

I can't believe someone one would bid that much. I bought that same set recently (buy it now) and in near fine condition for under $70 on eBay.

This is ridiculous indeed. I actually had to go back and look a second time because I thought it was just a high asking price. I hadn't even considered that it had bids that high! The only explanation I can muster is from an ebay experience of my own. I had listed a copy of the Deluxe History of Middle Earth Part II, which at the time was typically fetching $250 to $300, from the other auctions I had been watching. By the end, my auction somehow reached nearly $800, and I thought I had hit the jackpot (relatively speaking, that is). After a few days of non-payment, I contacted the bidder, who had no idea about the auction and was not even a Tolkien fan. It turned out that his account had been hijacked and bids were placed without his knowing. Maybe a similar situation on the ACE set?