I'll chip in here.
My wife is a professional stock photographer and I can assure you that 'rights' on either side are complex and ultimately depend on subject, circumstances, type of publication etc. etc.
Now we get into "Property Release" and "Model Release" for starters. However there are then rules governing, for example "Editorial" use which is non comercial (ie. picture is not being used to adverstise for commercial gain) which in most cases means a property release is not required. Also we get into "public" or "private"
If I take a pictures of kids playing on public land in a public space, and do not specifically target an individual, then there is nothing the parents can do or say. I could use these pictures for national editorial use in news papers etc. in articles about local playing fields in England. A specific focus would require a model release.
To add confusion to the whole situation there are certain areas where one can not take pictures for publication. I believe Trafalgar Square is one such place unless you have offical permission. However you can I believe take pictures of the Houses of Parliment and Tower Bridge and then these can be used in an editorial publication (including books) and you can be paid for your images.
This case of the use of the Stilo picture for promoting a wiper sale I think is quite interesting. Is this image being used in a private sale or is it commercial usage. I would say (unless the seller is a trader) then it is a private sale.
However, going back to the children play on a pitch, there is only one specifically identifiable Stilo in the image and the poster should IMHO have blurred the registration.
Professional picture libraries (such a Alamy) take great care to guide and protect both their photographers and their clients (image buyers) from potential problems.
Also, any photographer selling images would be well advised to have both 3rd party liability insurance and indemnity insurance.
I'm not 100% up to date or accurate in what I've written above but one thing I'm 100% sure of is covering our/my wife's legal liabilites.
You may trip over my wife's camera bag becuase she placed it in a stupid place (next to her feet next to you) and you'll be covered for up to £5,000,000. However the photographer next to her with just a fancy/expensive gear selling pictures as a hobby / alternative income stream is in many cases uninsured. If you trip over their tripod and cut your knee or similar then get their name, address etc. etc. If they refuse to supply then contact the zoo, park etc. officials. Any photographer who is selling pictures commercially should be insured. Sorry I'm on a high horse now but it really pisses me off that with the low and modest income my wife makes from photography there are so many "insured camera drivers" out there chancing it. We pay good money for good insurance to protect YOU at OUR expense! I just wish so many others had the same respect and responsibility.
Back to the Stilo picture. I personally would ask eBay to smudge the registration. I don't think they have to but by you asking you are showing your objection and one or more of such objections may result is new guidelines and tighter publication rules on eBay.