Column Director of special projects Department of the Agency Louder Anastasia Gritskova. A few weeks ago, the Agency Louder sent a personal invitation to the opening of the store brand clothing. In the design of each of them we used pictures from the public Instagram profile of the addressee.
In response to the website Buro 24/7 published an article under the title “Photos from the editors of Buro 24/7 is suddenly become — what we think about it”. The article presents the opinion that any private content that is published online should be protected legally and “can not be used for any other purpose” — especially in the design of branded, though, and non-commercial products.
We noted that the page with the note on the website Buro 24/7 is illustrated with photos from Instagram-profile artists like Amalia Ulman. And there is no doubt that they were published with such order. Caught in the unpleasant position of the accused, we decided to look into the history of the issue and researched the subject. In may 2015 on the new York art fair Frieze Art Fair Gagosian gallery managed to sell a few works of the infamous American artist Richard Prince.
Work-foot prints of screenshots from the Instagram accounts of TwentySomething cool kids lengthy review of Prince were sold at a price of $90 thousand. However, another surprise — with the authors pictures no one even thought to contact. Most learned about the exhibition from friends and subscribers.
For some, it was a good way to gain a new audience, while others threatened to sue Prince in the court. The Internet is a place where nothing dies forever.
Bad vacation snaps in the album “Cyprus 2012” smeared photos from the party, the selfie with her ex-husband caught a rare scoundrel. Jose Palieri from CNN Money writes. “Using social network, you lose some rights. As soon as your pictures end up in the public field, they go out of control forever”.
Official representatives warn Instagram. If someone uses your photos for exhibition, advertising, or political propaganda — to understand yourself according to the laws of the country of residence. Art gallery is not the only place where I might run into your shots.
The New York Times wrote about the history of shereen way. The woman left the hashtag #crocs under the photo of four year old daughter walking in the shoes of this brand. After some time Sherin was surprised to find photos in the gallery of user images site Crocs — but no permission to publish it is not allowed. Marketers have something to justify.
More than a quarter of Internet users have installed ad blockers, the rest are either affected by banner blindness, or carefully ignore everything that resembles a classic is. Take UGC content is much cheaper and easier, in addition, the audience will not label it as an Intrusive marketing and will treat him with great confidence. Similar goals we pursue in an attempt to fully customize the communication.
First, we started writing names on the cups of coffee and bottles of Coca-Cola to build what the author of the book Lovemarks, Kevin Roberts calls the Intimate connection. Now we create from photos in motivating Instagram street posters and produced a personal magazine to read in flight on the basis of likes and photos of passengers in Facebook. Most of this approach is captivating, but there are those who long ago postulated the “death of privacy” is clearly not for everyone.
We live in the era of total transparency, while legal regulation is seriously lagging behind. And yet the only norm is the so-called netiquette, the rules of which only are produced, including through such precedents. And here we marketers, brand managers, Agency staff, should become the carriers of this cultural norms.
Advisor to the President of the Agency CROS Olga Sivkova believes that the content Manager needs to ensure that the content provided by the author or the author gave permission to use it. Many believe that it is sufficient to specify the author in the caption. However, we cannot be sure that such “compensation” for the use of intellectual product quite satisfied user. What a person wears sneakers of your brand, doesnt mean hes ready to become your model.
To prevent such situations in several ways. Unique branded hashtag campaign, in which you collect content. A good example is the campaign Nike Play Russian. Uploading a photo or video, the author automatically agrees that the content may be used for promotional purposes.
In such cases it is better to prescribe the terms and conditions, as, for example, did Macys for the campaign #macyslove. Comment to photos — easier way. You find any UGC content on behalf of brand asking permission to use photos for marketing purposes. You can prompt the user to confirm permission with the help of a hashtag, as in the example with Pelican Hill Resort so can avoid any ambiguity.
Even if you were able to get permission from the author, we still have to do the following. To hide the author in the photo. To change the photo of the author by adding your logo or text.
To add to the text of the publication information, which may not like the author or the veracity of which you are unsure. In exceptional cases, to ask the author permission to use the content impossible, as it devalues the surprise — if we are talking about a unique personalized gift or flashmob. In such cases, should be guided by common sense and tact.
Those who are concerned about privacy of their personal data, the General Director of Google Eric Schmidt gave advice back in 2009. “If there is something that you dont want others to know about you, perhaps you should stop doing this”. As noted by the inventor of the worldwide web Tim Berners-Lee in his recent software column in The Guardian, in a digital age we sacrifice anonymity and the right to privacy in exchange for the opportunity to use modern technical innovations and free services.
Berners-Lee called the loss of control over their personal data and one of the three main threats to a secure future of the Internet. For those who disagree there is always a way to become a media Luddite, close your profile and disable the ability to look after themselves.
Legally we are not immune from the fact that commercial brand, a contemporary artist or a political party to use our photos for profit. And its not illegal until until proven otherwise. Social media users may refer to the Berne Convention or the Rome Statute. But while the legal mechanisms for the protection of copyright on the Internet is not developed, the only thing we can do is to carefully read the user agreement and create such precedents, provoking wide discussion.
If you represent a brand or PR Agency, try to perfectly follow the rules of netiquette — twice ask before you repost, please include authorship, do not edit the original UGC before the publication, better on their own provoke the creation and distribution of branded content in social networks. Send your speakers and case studies about advertising and marketing on [email protected]