On The Shady Side... Of Green

Greenwashing has been a "thing" for some time. Now shareholders are making proposals based on it.

What is greenwashing? My spellcheck doesn't like the word. Apparently, it is the environmental equivalent of whitewashing, and it's been in use for thirty years.  With whitewashing, one spins something "bad" to sound "not so bad".  With greenwashing, one spins something not environmentally friendly to seem... environmentally responsible. It's mostly a PR and honest advertising issue. It may involve oxymorons such as "clean diesel", maybe "clean coal", and "100% organic".

Legal bloggers for Jenner & Block LLP  Todd Toral and P. J. Novack penned an interesting explanation of greenwashing, and a groundbreaking attempt by Greenpeace and others to use the old Green Guides offensively against a Big Oil company for, allegedly, misleading consumers about the greenness and social responsibility of its work.

https://consumer.jenner.com/2021/04/does-novel-greenwashing-enforcement-action-portend-a-new-trend.html#page=1

Speaking of Honest advertising, the legal blogsphere is buzzing (a little bit) about dishonest influencers.  Apparently, the public is not smart enough to figure out that if a celebrity endorsement looks like for profit product placement, sounds like paid product placement... it most probably is a glorified advertisement.  The thing is, ones greenback-related motivations have to be disclosed every time, and perhaps the same goes for book promotion.

For the IP Law Watch blog of law firm K&L Gates of Boston, blogger Keisha Phippen discusses the topic of responsible influencing, and offers excellent and easy tips for how to avoid acting on the shady side of the law.

https://www.iplawwatch.com/2021/04/are-you-influencing-responsibly/

Finally, for today's loosely linked theme of shady doings, green stuff, money and deception is a great green gem about ransomware put out by Stephen Noel O'Connor of Leman.

Go here for the full article as a .pdf

https://thoughtleadership.leman.ie/post/102gt6m/leman-cyber-update-ransomware-explained

 

Or read the extract here:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=91e09e07-b9e4-4fab-ba95-b45f6fc5d453

Did you know that in some countries in may be illegal to pay ransomware? 

Oh, and if you got the letter from Kroger about their pharmacy records being hacked at Accellion, remember there is a time limit (window closes May 31st)  to take up that offer for 24 months of Experian "Identity Works" id theft coverage. Separately, American Anesthesiology was compromised in a phishing attack. It might be wise to freeze your credit (free to do, easy and free to undo as long as you retain your PIN).

Equifax 1-800-525-6285

Experian 1-888-397-3742

TransUnion 1-800-680-7289

 

 

All the best,

Rowena Cherry 

SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/  http://www.rowenacherry.com

Flattery Will Get You.... In Trouble

They say that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery... until they call it plagiarism or copyright infringement.

And then, there are famous hairy features, attractive hairy features, mind you. If you pay homage to such things for fame and profit, you might violate a famous person's valuable rights to publicity.

Legal bloggers Linda A. Goldstein and Amy Ralph Mudge blogging for the law firm Baker & Hostetler LLP discuss  the lost case of iconic eyebrows and a product named without permission.

http://e.bakerlaw.com/rv/ff004c2750a3e46347a15e287b44be8e8af5c0ad/p=6238948

Celebrities forfeit a lot of personal privacy by virtue of being celebrities, but they retain the right to profit from their own personas--or to prevent others from exploiting their names and likenesses for commercial gain.

https://f.datasrvr.com/fr1/419/60144/ROP.pdf

This pdf from Alan L. Friel of BakerHostetler is interesting reading.

This writer's takeaway for authors is, never, never reveal that your hero's bedroom eyes were inspired by a famous living actress, or that your heroine is based on a reality star.

Also, if you want a famous person on your cover, be sure you have all rights.  Cover heroes can be tricky absent a signed, written agreement.

And then, there is the problem of asking for flattery, aka incentivizing reviews. Just because a lot of your competition does it, does not make it legal and safe.  The "best" reviews are freely given, not solicited and not paid-for.

Legal bloggers  Leonard L. Gordon  and Tyler Hale blogging All About Advertising Law for Venable LLP  explain.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6d4aa6de-5bf6-40e4-a101-150b24179f35&utm_source=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium=html+email+-+body+-+general+section&utm_campaign=lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=lexology+daily+newsfeed+2019-04-11&utm_term=

Or
https://www.allaboutadvertisinglaw.com/2019/04/ftcs-snack-service-settlement-reminds-dtc-companies-not-to-incentivize-reviews.html#page=1

Although authors may not think that the FTC case about free food in exchange for a screenshot of a flattering review applies to them, it well might.

All the best,

Rowena Cherry
SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/ 

Perils of Posting Photos... Even of Yourself

The copyright of a photograph belongs to the photographer.
Photographed persons have the right of publicity (which means that their images are not free for advertisers to use to promote services or products.)

For authors, this might mean that a selfie is the best possible photo for the back matter.

Legal bloggers Linda A. Goldstein and Amy Ralph Mudge, posting  for Baker & Hostetler LLP discuss yet another celebrity being sued for adorning her social media pages with photographs of herself without the permission of the person who took the lovely shots.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1d6c17b9-b872-45f3-8e01-0054b21f1494&utm_source=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium=html+email+-+body+-+general+section&utm_campaign=lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=lexology+daily+newsfeed+2019-02-15&utm_term=

There might have been a time, early in self-publishing, when author-convention-goers might have been tempted to snap a photo of a cover model, and later to use that photo on a book cover. Models' rights and photographers' rights are much better protected these days.

Might this mean that copyright infringers face double trouble if they use an author's portrait to promote pirated ebooks?

On the topic of models' rights, Rick Kurnit blogging for Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC last week discussed the case of Cozzens v. Davejoe Re and models' Lanham Act claims in addition to their allegedly violated rights of publicity because a company made permissionless use of six ladies' likenesses on a Facebook page.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0aea81c0-40cd-4253-aa06-ac1d853ebc2b&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-02-14&utm_term=

The Lanham Act concerns false advertising.  If a photograph suggests to the audience that the model, actress (or author) endorses or participates with the service or product being offered, that is false advertising and triple damages and attorneys fees may be awarded to the wronged beautiful person.

And then, there is the Australian defamation case that really could break the internet if it succeeds. Michael Bradley, writing for the Marque Lawyers takes a position on how likely it is that "news" sits and social media platforms could be held liable for defamatory, user-generated comments.

Why is it that tech companies can set up highly profitable fora, but have no duty to monitor them?  On the other hand, it is good to remember that individual users who generate comments can be sued for defamation... at least in Australia.

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

Privacy In The Toilet

Imagine that you watch Next Generation Television on your mobile device, and it watches you back. Also you have some pre-installed software on your mobile device, which is easily hackable, but the reason for it is to target you for advertisements.

Now imagine that your device is "protected" by facial recognition. If a password is hacked, you can change a password. If your face is hacked, you cannot change your face.

Well... maybe you could, if you thought about it early enough.  That is, before you activated your device. It would mean that every time you wanted to use the device, you'd have to wear beauty patches, and you'd have to have the patches in the same spot, every time.

For a brief history of beauty patches:
https://www.stuffmomnevertoldyou.com/blogs/beauty-patches.htm

I imagine, someone will make a fortune taking a clear strip, like the backing of those things you peel, and slap onto wet skin to pull the blackheads out of your pores, and sticking an attractive pattern of black dots to it.  Give me credit, won't you?

Nowadays, too many people use tiny tattoos to cover small scars. The trouble is, if you look up tattoo ink, some of those inks are carcinogenic.

A futuristic language of  facial spots would be fun.

By lip; "I'm a kisser."
By eye; "I'm watching you."
Between brows; "Don't cross me."
Right of  forehead; "Originalist."
Left of  forehead; "Change the Constitution...."

Back to the toilet. You could be sitting there, engrossed in your streamed series, having lost all track of time, and place. Suddenly, you receive pop-up advertisements for constipation remedies, bowel blockage surgeons with expressions of deep concern on their faces,  perhaps some decorating tips for your bathroom.

Just like that young lady who took a selfie of herself in a restroom, with no regard to what was lurking behind her inside the toilet and plainly visible, the association once made might never go away. Your face might target you as interested in stool softener for the rest of your online life.

Here are my law blog inspirations:
"Moving Beyond Passwords" by Eric A. Packel of Baker Hostetler LLP

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=da4bb36f-ca66-4b4e-aef4-c282288b2e2e

In this article on Facial Recognition, we are assured that the chances are one in a million that someone else would look so much like you that they could unlock your phone. There's a very intriguing suggestion that advertisers might be able to use facial mapping to gauge how interested you are in their advertisements.
I wonder what they'd do if you frowned at every offering. Maybe pitch wrinkle cream? Anger management courses?

Other Baker Hostelter LLP blogging lawyers S. Benjamin Barnes and Alan L. Friel write
"Deception and Unfair Practices Come Preinstalled"

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=468588f4-94d7-4aec-a3c0-6555c201392c

They use an example of a person actually shopping for an owl shaped pendant, and being bombarded with    unsought advertisements for other owl shaped pendants. They also reveal by how much these pop-up advertisements reduce internet speed for the unfortunate device user by 25% if they are trying to download something, and by 125% if they are trying to upload something.

The bottom line might be, if you are interested in the internet of things, and are linking your devices, you really do need to read every word of the TOS and TOU before clicking "I AGREE".

For Kelley Drye and Warren LLP, legal bloggers John J. Heitmann, Jennifer Rodden Wainwright, and Alysa
Zeltzer Hutnik write "Will Your TV Watch You? FCC Green Lights Targeted Advertising In Next Gen TV Broadcasting Standard."

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a587f62a-79e4-426b-a928-05ff73efee46

Interestingly, the FCC did not find the privacy concerns to be persuasive.

I keep an address label stuck over the eye of the camera on my Air Mac. How about you? And I don't stream anything at all in the bathroom.( I do Sudoku.)

All the best,
Rowena Cherry