I think this is noteworthy for two reasons. First, its a sign that the intersection of privacy and marketing is no longer an issue just for law geeks. Second, the blog seems to have done a fairly good job of visualizing how data is used by third parties.

It will probably surprise many to see that something as seemingly innocuous as online dictionaries can be used to collect so much information about people.

HT to Martin Schwimmer at the Trademark Blog

http://yelpclassaction.wordpress.com/

“Program manufacturers are natural paranoids. In their zeal to “copy protect” their programs, they tend to regard all customers as potential thieves”

Interestingly enough, Franklin made Apple computer clones and was successfully sued by Apple for copyright infringement of Apple’s operating system. Natural paranoids indeed.

Full article at Ironic Sans. HT to BoingBoing

See the article and discussion at:
Thought leaders, issue followers weigh in on who has a stake in your professional digital life

Link to the Trademark Blog which includes both the video in question and the complaint.

“I am not arguing that copyright owners should not be able to take reasonable steps to protect their copyrighted material. I am arguing, however, that they should take similarly reasonable steps to ensure that any claimed infringement actually took place. When DMCA notices are accompanied by oaths under “penalty of perjury” and these claims are accepted as writ, as they have de facto become, there should some downside for agencies that demonstrably do not act in “good faith” to verify infringement.”

If you receive DMCA takedown that you believe is inaccurate, you can and often should push back. The linked story confirms my suspicions that many companies do not review notices of alleged infringement before they send them. It isn’t yet entirely clear to what extent the sender of a wrongful DMCA notice would be liable, but certainly there is a good case to be made that if they must act in good faith.

UPDATE: There is now a part two to the initial post

Link to the FTC Press Release.
PC World’s Guide to the new guidelines

1. They can make you look bad.

See this Business Insider story about the worst Google Ads ever. The ad in question appeared with a news story about terrorists and offered a Terrorist Certification program. Probably not what the advertiser had in mind. I hope. This isn’t necessarily a legal problem, but it can be embarrassing and costly to correct. If you are using an algorithm to create your ads, you need to be aware of what that algorithm could create as output.

2. It could violate privacy laws

AOL was recently sued for its contextual advertising program because it was allegedly gathering private information in order to better target the ads. Many times the information gathered by these services are not tied back to any one particular user, but it is something to be aware of. Wired magazine recently ran an article about how easy it becomes to identify someone just by collecting a few facts. Zip code, employer, car model. . . none of these would identify you by themselves, but put a few of them together and very quickly you can have an individual identified.

3. It could be trademark infringement

Keyword based advertising is big business for search engines like Yahoo! and Google. Its also been a hot topic in trademark law. If you select a trademark to trigger your advertising, you could be infringing. Its even more certain that you would be infringing if you have that trademark appear in the text of your ad. Just about any word could be a trademark so context is important.

4. It could be false advertising

False advertising laws vary from state to state but can include anything that creates a misunderstanding with a consumer. If your ads are designed to grab words from web pages be sure you offer goods or services that you are now claiming to offer.

Contextual Advertising is a powerful tool and I think we will see much more of it rather than less. But like any powerful tool it should be handled carefully.