[kayson]

Wouldn't this be violating copyrights left and right? Presumably most of these listings have pictures and I'd be surprised if Amazon were asking permission to reproduce them. Would the same apply to item descriptions...?

[otterley]

No. The producer of a good has no copyright in images made of that good by someone else. Ordinarily, the photographer holds the copyright to an image, unless it was a work for hire.

So if I buy a thing, take a photo of it, then use my photo to accompany a listing for that thing, the manufacturer of that thing has no recourse in copyright law.

[bramblerose]

Unless the design of the object is copyrightable (which it often is!) in which case the photo is a derivative work.

[jonhohle]

The first sale doctrine allows for public of owned works for the purpose of sale. Otherwise eBay, used book store, and flea markets would all be massively violating copyright.

[AlotOfReading]

First sale doctrine doesn't apply here. Amazon never owns the products being sold. They're just purchasing products on behalf of the actual owner.

Moreover, I'm pretty sure purchasing a product does not give you the rights to use all the marketing materials for that product. Those copyrights are separate.

And the act of listing inherently happens before any purchase.

[ehhthing]

Search engines would have been violating copyright for the last 20 years.

[autoexec]

Much of the internet is copyright violations. If copyright were enforced as written the internet as you know it would stop existing. Our draconian copyright laws are designed to protect the power and profits of a small number of industries and unless they see profit in going after the countless violations that go on every single day they just look the other way while extorting easy targets with fat wallets. The last thing they want is to piss off enough powerful people that laws get changed and their racket gets disrupted.