“Adpocalypse”

By: Carl Rustad

Youtube Hate Preachers Share Screen With Household Names.” “Google’s Youtube has Continued Showing Brands’ Ads With Racist and Other Objectionable Videos.” These are the headlines Google faced in March 2017, as ads for Google’s advertising partners allegedly appeared alongside hateful or inappropriate Youtube videos. Within days, high-profile advertisers including Wal-mart, Pepsico, General Motors, AT&T, Dish, and Starbucks all pulled their ads from the platform

Google responded to these allegations by “implementing broader demonetization policies around videos that are perceived to be hateful or inflammatory” and “strengthen[ing] advertiser controls for video and display ads.” Using algorithms, Youtube “automatically weed[s] out inappropriate content,” sorting each uploaded video into categories purportedly reflecting their desirability to advertisers. Advertisers can exclude videos from categories like “tragedy and conflict,” “sensitive social issues,” “sexually suggestive content,” “sensational and shocking,” and “profanity and rough language.” Clearly these options reach far more content than the originally-complained-of hate speech. Videos determined inappropriate for advertisers are “demonetized,” meaning ads will not appear on them, they are deprioritized in search, and content creators will not receive any ad revenue from the video. The resulting drop in ad revenue is referred to as “Adpocalypse.”

As a result of these efforts, Youtube claimed “many advertisers have resumed their media campaigns on Youtube,” but also acknowledged that content creators faced “revenue fluctuations” due to demonetization and promised to provide “more detail around advertiser-friendly guidelines.”  Meanwhile, some content creators on the platform claimed to see an initial 80 percent drop in ad revenue due to demonetization, leveling off to a “40, 50, 60 percent drop” as videos were deemed not suitable for all advertisers. Prominent vlogger Vlogbrothers opined “[demonetization] has really squeezed creators who are making content that’s maybe good, but not, like, super-happy-family-fun-time stuff.”

Private Platforms Provide Strong Extralegal IP Protections

Adpocalypse demonstrates both the interest and the power that companies have in protecting their brands on private platforms. Brands are already entitled to certain legal protections. A trademark holder is protected against damaging associations in several scenarios, including when unauthorized use of their trademark causes confusion as to the source or sponsorship of a product, or tarnishes the brand by association with “unsavory” ideas. See AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats; Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC. On the other hand, there is no trademark infringement when the trademark is being used to describe a product or talk about a competitor’s product. See KP Permanent Make-Up Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc. These are considered “fair uses” of a trademark.

But the companies on Youtube, of course, do not have to point to their carefully balanced intellectual property rights in order to control their representation on the platform. They can simply refuse to advertise on a platform if it tends to associate their brand with any less-than-ideal content. This is not a new phenomenon. Media has long catered to advertisers, with media scholar C. Edwin Baker claiming “the greatest threat of censorship in this country comes not from the government, but from advertisers . . . .” As online platforms mediate a steadily increasing amount of our time, advertiser censorship may become correspondingly more pervasive and omnipresent. With algorithmic and computing advances, such censorship can be systematically extended to hosted individual speech as seen in Adpocalypse.  

Real Time Content Moderation: The Future of Advertising? 

Adpocalypse concerned advertisers’ association with undesirable uploaded videos, which are scanned for content and demonetized and search deprioritized if they are deemed unsuitable for advertisers. This hawkish breed of moderation is enabled by advances in automated decision making. Over 500 hours of content are uploaded to Youtube every minute; each video must be scanned and categorized as safe or unsafe for advertisers. 

Platforms are now facing pressure to provide real time moderation to prevent violations of their terms of service by censoring disinformation, incitations of violence, and other abuses. Facebook Horizons already includes real time moderation features  allowing it to instantly deplatform or censor abusive–as determined by Facebook alone–virtual reality users. The advantages of such a system are obvious. Hate speech, harassment, and other universally-condemned behavior can be taken offline before it happens. Unfortunately, the concerns real time moderation raises are just as obvious. 

Platforms will continue to compete for ad revenue. As Adpocalypse demonstrates, online platforms are not simply censoring hate speech; they are beginning to censor anything not “advertiser-friendly”. Allowing fine control over the spaces in which advertisers’ products appear, not just how their ads appear, is a profitable course of action. One easily foreseeable use of real time moderation is to limit the visibility of advertiser-unfriendly speech in VR chat. But there is no reason to believe the technology will be confined to such transparent and simplistic uses. Facebook already sells sophisticated and hyper-targeted ads. Plus, US advertisers are willing to pay about $250 billion a year to control what consumers associate with their products. The market is there.

Given the impending capability and incentives for online platforms to moderate speech and the environment of speech in real time, it is time to take a hard look at the role of advertisers in platform censorship. While the First Amendment does not apply to private platforms, consumers should demand transparency from platforms about how speech is moderated and hold them accountable when moderation technology is abused to accommodate advertisers. 

(Don’t) Say My Name

3581676336_048e8a16fc_b

By Vanessa James

“We’re a company that’s so successful and everywhere you go, you see a scratchy, hairy fastener and you say…

Hey, that’s Velcro.”

So begins the recent Youtube video Velcro released on September 25, 2017. In an effort to protect itself against genericide—an intellectual property term that means the retraction of a trademark because the brand name has become synonymous with the type of product—Velcro released a video pleading with the public to stop saying “Velcro” and start instead saying “hook and loop.”

It may seem innocuous to use brand names to describe products associated with the brand, but this is actually often a red flag that the brand could potentially lose its trademark. For instance, when was the last time you drank from a “vacuum flask,” walked on a “moving staircase,” or went to a “coin laundry shop?”

Velcro, which was first registered as a trademark in 1956, is trying to avoid losing its trademark, as did thermos, escalator, laundromat, yo-yo, aspirin, and pilates. The purpose of a trademark is to uniquely distinguish the goods or services of a company and to help consumers identify the source of a product. When a trademark becomes synonymous with a class of goods, it no longer helps consumers to understand which company made the product. If this happens, the trademark may be cancelled by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Once a trademark is cancelled, the mark can no longer be used to prevent others from using the same mark to describe their products.

One factor courts consider when determining whether a trademark has become generic is whether the owner attempted to educate the public on the proper use of the mark and the generic name for the goods. Enter Velcro’s video. Ad campaigns like Velcro’s have a record of successfully stopping brands from losing their registered trademarks. Campaigns for Xerox (a 2003 advertisement from photocopier firm Xerox read: “When you use ‘Xerox’ the way you use ‘aspirin,’ we get a headache), Jeep, and Band-Aid saved those trademarks from becoming generic.  Johnson & Johnson changed its marketing jingle from “I am stuck on Band-Aids, ’cause Band-Aid’s stuck on me” to “I am stuck on Band-Aids brand ’cause Band-Aid’s stuck on me.”  Chrysler turned to the term “SUV” instead of “Jeep.” The Dow Chemical Company, which makes a well-known “line of extruded polystyrene foam products,” has worked to remind consumers coffee cups are not made of Styrofoam.

Another recent example of a company fighting to save its trademark comes from well-known jewelry chain Tiffany & Co. Tiffany initiated a legal battle with U.S. wholesaler Costco when Tiffany claimed that Costco infringed its trademark by selling “Tiffany” engagement rings. In retaliation, Costco argued that the jewelry firm’s trademark was no longer valid because “Tiffany” had become a generic term for solitaire-style rings. Judge Swain of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that Costco did in fact infringe on Tiffany’s trademark and awarded Tiffany $11.1 million plus interest in addition to $8.25 million punitive damages. For now, producing a simple, fun Youtube video is far less costly way for Velcro to protect its trademark.

Picture Source

Grammy Award-Winning Band The Eagles Sues Hotel California

Hotel CABy Daniel J Goodman

Approximately 1,300 miles from a corner in Winslow, Arizona is a hotel in Todos Santos, B.C.S., Mexico. Its name? Hotel California. One can only assume that it’s a lovely place with plenty of room for all to live it up and enjoy the beautiful Tequila Sunrise Mexico has to offer. But, according to Grammy award-winning band the Eagles, this New Kid in Town is a downright Desperado trademark infringer. On May 1, 2017, the Eagles filed a complaint in the Central District of California for trademark infringement under § 1125(a) of the Lanham Act and for trademark infringement and unfair competition under California common law. Continue reading

Better to be Absolutely Ridiculous Than Absolutely Generic: The Estate of Marilyn Monroe’s Trademark Woes

Picture1By Gwen Wei

On Monday, March 13 2017, a ruling in the Southern District of New York threw trademark practitioners nationwide into a tumult when the presiding judge left open the possibility that a celebrity name could become too generic to enforce as a trademark. The issue: the court’s “serious doubts that V. International will be able to establish that the contested marks are generic”, pitted against its concern that “[r]eaching that conclusion at this state would be premature.”  The celebrity hanging in the balance: Marilyn Monroe. Continue reading

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments for Lee v. Tam

lee-v-tam-picBy Kiran Jassal

The Supreme Court of the United States recently heard oral arguments for Lee v. Tam to decide whether the disparagement provision of the Lanham Act is facially invalid under the First Amendment. The disparagement provision resides in Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act and states that a trademark which “[c]onsists of…matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute…” may not be registered.

In 2011, Simon Shiao Tam filed a trademark application for his band name, “The Slants.”

Continue reading