General Advertising Industry News & Updates

Subscribe to General Advertising Industry News & Updates

The General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, took effect May 25, 2018. As predicted, the GDPR has complicated access to WHOIS information (commonly used to look up the contact information for website domains for, among other things, stopping others from infringing IP rights) and given ICANN (the corporation that manages WHOIS data) a headache.

ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) continues to struggle to identify a proposal that bridges the gap between the requirements of the GDPR and access to WHOIS information. On the day the GDPR took effect, ICANN passed a Temporary Specification, which attempted to facilitate GDPR compliance while also preserving parts of the WHOIS system of domain name registration data. This temporary guideline states the registrar and registry operator must provide reasonable access to personal registration data to third parties for: (1) legitimate interests, except where those interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the registrants or (2) when the specified request is deemed lawful by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), a court having jurisdiction, or applicable legislation or regulation.

First, these temporary specifications have not prevented the brand enforcement problems I previously discussed. For example, some European domain name service registrars have decided to no longer collect WHOIS information. Furthermore, Brian Winterfeldt has reported that a California-based registrar has declined a data access request related to a specific enforcement effort of intellectual property rights and that other registrars are responding to such requests on a “case-by-case basis with no transparent or predictable criteria.” More alarming is the report that at least one global company has estimated its ability to enforce trademark rights against infringing domains may drop 24%.

Second, the EDPB still has problems with ICANN’s proposal. On July 5, 2018, the EDPB urged ICANN to develop new legal justifications for why it asks for the data that makes up the WHOIS database and provided further guidance in developing a GDPR-compliant WHOIS model. ICANN appears to be taking the EDPB’s guidance to heart and is hopeful they can create a GDPR-compliant-model that satisfies their purpose of providing WHOIS data to those who need it.

Unfortunately, only time will tell if a GDPR-compliant WHOIS database will emerge. In the meantime, it has become more difficult to determine who is in charge of websites infringing on intellectual property rights making brand enforcement more challenging.

The FTC has amended its Jewelry Guides (formally, the “Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries”) which aim to help prevent deception in jewelry marketing by providing clear standards.

The Jewelry Guides, like other industry guides published by the FTC, are intended to help marketers understand their responsibilities with respect to avoiding consumer deception.  The Guides themselves are not binding law, but instead offer the FTC’s interpretation of how Section 5 of the FTC Act applies to certain practices within the industry.

For those in the jewelry industry, the issuance of these changes suggests it may be a good time for a compliance check.  Some noteworthy changes include:

  1. No more thresholds for describing alloys as “gold” or “silver.”

Under the old Guides, marketers were prohibited from using the terms “gold” and “silver” to describe a product made of a gold or silver alloy (combination of gold or silver and one or more other precious metals) unless the ratio of gold/silver to other metals met certain minimum thresholds.

The revisions eliminate these requirements.  From now on, any gold alloy may be marketed as “gold” as long as the marketing contains “an equally conspicuous, accurate karat fineness disclosure.”  The same goes for silver alloys as long as the marketing contains a conspicuous and accurate disclosure of the parts-per-thousand measurement.

  1. New requirements for describing silver- and platinum-coated products.

A preexisting rule advises against using the term “gold” to describe a product that is merely gold-coated.  The revised Guides extend this rule to silver and platinum products.

  1. New rule prohibiting the use of incorrect varietal names to describe gemstones.

The FTC now expressly prohibits the use of incorrect varietal names like “yellow emerald” or “green amethyst” to describe gemstones.  Instead, marketers should use scientifically-correct terms like “heliodor” and “prasiolite.”

  1. Relaxed rules for lab-grown diamonds and gemstones.

The revisions make several changes to the rules for marketing lab-grown diamonds and gemstones.  For the most part, these changes benefit the lab-grown sector.  For instance, the FTC now cautions marketers not to use the terms “real, genuine, natural, or synthetic” to imply that a lab-grown diamond “is not, in fact, an actual diamond.”

The Guides still prohibit the use of terms like “real” and “natural” to describe lab-grown diamonds and gemstones, but the FTC indicated that it might be willing to reconsider this position.

We do it all the time, but is it legal? Maybe. Maybe not.

Embedding content from one source, e.g., a website, into another source, e.g., another website, is not uncommon. News sites embed photographs from Instagram, twitter messages, and videos into their content. Businesses embed videos and photographs of their products into their websites. Embedding also occurs when we post a link from a website into our social media accounts. For instance, after copying and pasting a website link into a social media post, an embedded version of the website automatically generates. This auto embedding typically consists of the formation of a small box or window which may include a reference to the website, an article name or title, and/or an image or video from the website. But is such use of embedded content copyright infringement?

Under the Copyright Act, the owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to “perform…. [or] display the copyrighted work publicly.” 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(4)-(6). Under the act, to” perform or display a work publicly” includes “to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work… to the public, by means of any device or process.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. The Act further defines “display” as “to show a copy of it, either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image, or any other device or process.” Id.

In Perfect 10 v. Google the Ninth Circuit established the “server test.” In this 2007 decision, it was held that Google’s presentation of images in its search results via in-line linking did not infringe another’s copyrights because Google did not make a copy or store a copy of the image on its servers. That is, the court found that Google wasn’t displaying a “copy.” For many, this settled the issue: as long as the content was hosted on third-party servers, an in-line or embedded link showing the same content elsewhere would not infringe. But in the last several months, something unexpected happened.

Two district courts recently rejected the holding in Perfect 10 to the extent it required actual possession (e.g., a copy on the accused infringer’s server) as a prerequisite for infringement because neither could find any such requirement in the express language of the Copyright act.

First, the Northern District of Texas held that when one website displays content from another’s website through embedding, it can publicly display copyrighted works of another “by ‘showing a copy’ of the works via a ‘process’” in violation of the Copyright Act. In effect, the court held, this was a live stream of another’s copyrighted content and no different than if a movie goer live streamed a movie via the internet to the public – actions that clearly constitute infringement even if the infringer does not possess a copy. Next, the Southern District of New York similarly held that embedding content into a website such that it displays content from another source could violate a copyright holder’s display rights, even if the website’s server did not store a copy of the work.

Thus, the law on embedded content may not yet be as settled as some believed. Of course, there are always defenses to copyright infringement to consider, like fair use. In the meantime, however, it may be wise to think twice before posting embedded content.

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court announced that it was granting the petition for writ of certiorari in the copyright infringement case previously discussed on this blog here and here.  The case is Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC and involves the question of when a copyright holder can properly file a copyright infringement lawsuit.

34126235 - copyrightCurrently there is a circuit-split as to whether the term “registration” as used in the Copyright Act includes the mere filing of a registration application or whether it requires that the Copyright Office have actually approved or denied the registration application.  The plaintiff in the case, Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp., filed suit before the Copyright Office had approved or denied its application, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of its complaint on that basis.  The United States Solicitor General, who the Supreme Court invited to weigh in earlier this year, urged the Court to take the case and uphold the Eleventh Circuit’s position.

The Supreme Court is now poised to resolve the dispute and to give copyright holders clarity as to whether they may file suit merely after filing an application for a copyright registration.

The FTC filed a lawsuit earlier this month in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah charging telemarketers with violating the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule.  The FTC alleges that defendants deceptively claimed their “business coaching” would help consumers earn thousands of dollars a month by starting a home-based Internet business.

According to the complaint, the defendants’ telemarketing operation relied on “leads” supplied by other companies.  Typically, these were consumers who had purchased some work-from-home-related product or service online for less than $100. For a fee or a percentage of defendants’ sales, the company that sold the product or service would encourage the buyer to contact an “expert consultant” or “specialist” to see if they qualify for an “advanced” coaching program.  However, when the consumer called to speak to a “specialist” they were merely routed to defendants’ telemarketers.

According to the lawsuit, the defendants then charged consumers up to $13,995 for their purported business coaching program, which merely provided information that was already freely available on the Internet.  Ultimately, most people who bought the service did not develop a functioning business, earned little or no money, and ended up deeply in debt.

Although they may not immediately connote a traditional form of advertising, food menus and labels serve as a form of advertising in the minds of many consumers and are regulated by Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”).  Read below for two important updates/reminders in the food-related space.

62909081 - calorie dessert for each piece. problem with obesity. popular dessert menu.Menu Labeling:  As a follow up on a prior blog post and as detailed in today’s Consumer Update from the FDA, the FDA is requiring this month that certain types of food establishments post calorie information on menus and menu boards and provide nutrition information upon request in order to help consumers make informed choices in ordering food items.  The FDA’s requirement applies to chain restaurants as well as eating establishments with more than 20 locations, and the FDA’s Consumer Update provides examples of the types of locations where consumers should expect to now see calorie posting, if they don’t already.

Nutrition Facts Label:  Following up on another prior blog post, the FDA recently announced that it is extending the deadline to comply with its Nutrition Facts Label rule and its Serving Size rule by 18 months.  Instead of requiring compliance by certain manufacturers this summer, the FDA will now require compliance by January 1, 2020 for larger food manufacturers and January 1, 2021 for smaller food manufacturers.  This extension is intended to provide sufficient time to ensure industry compliance.

The FTC filed a lawsuit this week against Lending Club, a peer-to-peer lending company that operates an online marketplace for personal loans.  The lawsuit accuses Lending Club of luring consumers to its website with online advertisements promising “no hidden fees,” only to go ahead and deduct significant “up-front” origination fees from the loan proceeds.  As a result, customers were surprised when the amount that actually showed up in their bank account was less than the “Loan Amount” they thought they had signed up for.

According to the FTC, this deception is made worse by the fact that Lending Club never adequately discloses the up-front fee to consumers during the entire online application process.  The fee is only mentioned once—inside an explanatory “pop-up bubble” that only appears if the applicant happens to click or tap on a relatively small and inconspicuous icon. Because applicants are not required to click or tap on the icon in order to move forward with their loan application, many applicants never saw the disclosure at all.

“This case demonstrates the importance to consumers of having truthful information from lenders, including online marketplace lenders,” said Reilly Dolan, acting director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, in a statement. “Stopping this kind of conduct will help consumers make informed choices about loan offers.”

This case is a reminder of advertisers’ responsibility to ensure that advertisements are honest and forthcoming, especially in the ever-changing landscape of online advertising.  Some key takeaways:

  • If a disclosure is needed to prevent an online ad from being deceptive or unfair, it must be clear and conspicuous. This rule applies to all forms of online advertising, including paid blog posts or ads on social media platforms.
  • The “clear and conspicuous” rule also applies across all devices and platforms that consumers may use to view the ad. Advertisers must therefore ensure that required disclosures function properly on all programs and devices.
  • Putting necessary disclosures in hyperlinks or “pop-up bubbles” is strongly discouraged, particularly where the disclosure involves important information like additional costs or consumer safety. Where they are used, ensure the link is labeled accurately and that it functions properly regardless of device or platform.

Though apparently not when it comes to suing for copyright infringement.  Earlier this week, the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in a case involving photographs taken by a monkey on a camera left unattended by a nature photographer in Indonesia—aptly deemed the “Monkey Selfies.”  The copyright infringement case was filed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. (PETA) as “Next Friends” of the monkey named Naruto against the photographer and entity that published the Monkey Selfies in a book that identified themselves as the copyright owners (although also noting that Naruto took the photographs).  After a lengthy dispute, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling and held that animals like Naruto cannot sue for copyright infringement because, as nonhumans, they lack the required standing under the Copyright Act, which does not expressly authorize animals to sue.

There are over 330 million domain names supporting over 1.8 billion websites having a unique hostname on the internet right now. But who owns each of these? There are many reasons one may want to identify the owner or operator of a particular domain or website. In addition to law enforcement and cyber security, owners of IP need to be able to enforce their rights against illegal use of their IP or bad faith domain name registration and use. For example, if your trademark is being infringed by its use on a particular website, you would want to be able to identify the owner, send a cease and desist, and/or sue. Somewhat similar to registering a home or motor vehicle, domains or websites are typically registered and information useful to identifying the individual responsible for the domain or website has, historically, been publically available.

WHOIS is a system established in the 1980s, as the modern internet was emerging. It is used to look up domain registrations in databases that store the registered users or assignees of, e.g., a domain name or IP address. Currently, the name, mailing address, phone number, and administrative and technical contacts of those owning or administering a domain name must be made publicly available through WHOIS, pursuant to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN. WHOIS is not an independent database, but rather relies on third-party accredited entities to manage data and registration. According to ICANN, it is “committed to implementing measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, subject to applicable laws.” Id.

Enter the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, which is a European Union data protection regulation that will apply to any company that transacts with EU citizens, regardless of the location of the business. The GDPR requires any business that collects any personal data to request explicit permission from the subject before using that data. Personal data is defined as any information that can be used to directly or indirectly identify that person, e.g., a name, photo, email, computer IP address, etc. Under the GDPR, enterprises must limit access to personal data to only authorized individuals that specifically require access to that data. The penalties for violations are significant – up to 20 million Euros or more – and there are no exceptions for enterprise size or scope. Id. The GDPR goes into effect May 25, 2018.

ICANN has been struggling to identify a proposal that bridges the gap between the requirements of the GDPR and the access to WHOIS information. The proposals, thus far, do not do enough to assuage the fears of the third party entities that manage WHOIS data that their actions of publishing information to WHOIS are sufficient and justifiable. On the other hand, brand owners and other WHOIS users are concerned that the proposal takes an unjustifiably conservative approach. Thus, ICANN expects a WHOIS blackout period starting May 25, 2018. Going forward, there may be significantly less publicly available information to conduct enforcement investigations, send cease and desist letters, or prepare and file suit.

Online brand enforcement is about to become much more difficult if not, in some cases, nearly impossible.

The Copyright Act grants the owner of a copyright certain rights, including the right to reproduce, to distribute, and to perform and display the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 106. However, these rights are limited by other sections of the statute. One such limitation to the distribution right is known as the “first sale doctrine,” which states, “the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made [] is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. Id. at § 109(a). For example, if you purchase a DVD at the store, you own a particular copy of a copyrighted work. You can resale the DVD, give it away, or destroy it without infringing the copyright owner’s right of distribution. The same is true for any number of copyrighted works fixed in a variety of mediums, e.g., a CD, cassette, vinyl record, book, photograph, art print, etc. But what about digital content? That is, can you resell a song or movie you lawfully purchase and download?

The United States Copyright Office (“USCO”) has acknowledged digital content differs from traditional physical copies of works. In 2001, the USCO stated that with traditional physical copies, the natural degradation of works (e.g., scratches, fading, etc.) and “the need to transport physical copies of the works” “act as a natural brake on the effect of resales on the copyright owner’s market.” The USCO further stated that these limitations no longer exist with digital transmissions. “Digital information does not degrade…. [and] time, space, effort and cost no longer act as barriers to the movement of copies, since digital copies can be transmitted nearly instantaneously anywhere in the world with minimal effort and negligible cost.” In addition, the USCO recognized the product of a digital transmission “is a new copy in the possession of a new person” and thus the recipient “obtains a new copy, not the same one with which the sender began.” For example, when we email or text a photo, we retain our “particular” copy while the recipient receives a new copy.

In Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., the court, relying in part on the USCO’s report, found that it was impossible to digitally transfer the “particular” copy purchased; any digital transfer creates a new copy of the work, even if the original file is deleted during the transfer. First, the court found the new copy violates the copyright owner’s reproduction rights, to which the first sale doctrine is not a defense. Second, because the thing being sold is an unlawful reproduction and not the “particular” copy originally purchased, the first sale doctrine does not protect such a distribution. In another recent case, the court held that the first sale doctrine was inapplicable until a particular physical copy of copyrighted work was downloaded. Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Redbox, Automated Retail, LLC (declining to extend the first sale doctrine to the reselling of a digital code that would allow a user to download a copy of the copyrighted work). That is, in order for the first sale doctrine to likely apply the copyrighted work must physically exist as a digital copy but once downloaded, it probably cannot be digitally transferred without creating an unlawful reproduction.

The court in Capital Records also held the owner of a copyrighted work may sell, gift, or otherwise dispose of the hard drive, iPod, or other memory device onto which the digital file was originally downloaded. This solution may alleviate the numerous concerns expressed by the USCO in 2001. However, by forcing the user to dispose of their digital content in this manner it forces the user to dispose of at least part of their electronic device, which in all likelihood includes digital copies of multiple copyrighted works. In other words, in order to be protected by the first sale doctrine the owner of the copyrighted work must dispose of significantly more than he or she initially bargained for.

As digital downloads increase in popularity, the importance of this issue will continue to grow. The Second Circuit, where the Capital Records case is currently on appeal, is poised to give us further guidance by creating the first circuit level case law on digital first sale. However, when the Digital Millennium Copyright act was introduced nearly 20 years ago, it was acknowledged that this was “only the beginning of Congress’ evaluation of the impact of the digital age on copyrighted works.” Ultimately, it may again be time for Congress to evaluate this impact.