More money, more problems. The fine line between independent bloggers and bloggers-as-brands is getting murkier by the second.

Sponsored posts, public appearances, blogger partnerships. The relationship between bloggers and brands is evolving with each new project and placement and becoming a major hot topic in the blogging community. More bloggers are asking to be compensated for their written/visual content and name usage, which is  important because bloggers are an extremely valued voice in the industry. But readers are voicing their concerns about editorial integrity and how blogs seem to be becoming platforms for sponsored content instead of blogs that truly reflect the blogger’s individuality and original voice.

As a blog reader, it is natural to be curious about how bloggers are making money and what they are paid in regards to public appearances and sponsored content. We are a nosy culture and we want to know everything. However, to play devil’s advocate, not every business discloses financial deals and earnings so why should bloggers do the same? The FTC mandates that a blogger must disclose the material connections they receive from brand endorsements but we have yet to see any notable actions from the FTC in regulating this policy. Bloggers typically disclose when they’ve received free product or gifts on behalf of a brand but we’ve noticed that nothing is mentioned about public appearances, party and travel trips. It seems unlikely that bloggers can live the life of a true jetsetter without being compensated for their adventures. But gifting trips or adventures is a pretty standard PR gesture, and it isn’t surprising that PR reps are extending this opportunity to various bloggers. When it comes down to it, the blogger-brand-reader relationship is complex. Does the blogger have a duty to their readers to hold themself to the purest of editorial standards? Or does the blogger, like a spokesperson or celebrity, have a right to privacy when it comes to business deals?

What’s a blogger to do?

Case in point, one of my favorite bloggers has taken the sponsored post road. As a reader, I’m conflicted because I don’t find these posts particularly interesting. But I recognize that they are monetizing their content and building their business. We are, after all, advocates for becoming your own business person.

There isn’t a set standard as to blogger public disclosure and it’s a topic that has generated lots of buzz in the fashion industry, including a mention in Fashionista back in November. This gray, blogging business area is one that will continue to grow in its controversial nature as blogger-brand partnerships become more predominant in the fashion industry.

My question to you, the blogging community, is:

How transparent should bloggers be with their bloggers in regards to their business deals?

Tweet

Love me, love my blog. And my Twitter updates. And my Facebook status. And my Instagram photos.

When I was first getting my blog off the ground a few years ago, my parents told me I was sharing too much of my personal life in my posts. (Yes, they read my blog everyday.) They believed that if I was going to blog about fashion, stories about my weekend adventures and photos of my friends and I hanging out shouldn’t be part of the equation. Partly because they brought it to my attention, I realized that as my blog readership grew, my more distant followers didn’t particularly care about those posts.

Contrast that with the blog and twitter feed of someone like Bryanboy. He doesn’t hold back at all – from intoxicated late-night tweets to quirky rants on sex and his boyfriend – he puts it all out there. And he has 250,000 Twitter followers who love it.

Is your personal life relavant to your blog?

Blogging has allowed each of us to extend a part of our personality and share it with an unimaginably large audience. We can share our fashion, anecdotes about our lives, and really just about anything we want. Pile social media on top of that – the meteoric rise in popularity of Facebook, Twitter and Instagram – and we’ve virtually eliminated the word shy from our vocabulary.

While it’s all well-and-good that we’re sharing the details and minutia of our day-to-day lives (here’s a photo of my dinner, a tweet about how sleepy I am, an status update of where I’m traveling this weekend, etc) – what about our offline friends, family, and spouses who are inadvertently included in these updates?

An interesting article from The New York Times last week explored the issues that can arise between couples when one person is using social media to share private moments, photos or stories that include the other without their knowledge. In some instances, the spouses are requesting approval of such posts before they go out to the masses. Do you think Bryanboy’s boyfriend knows about the tweets? Is it just part of the fabulous Bryanboy package?

Authenticity or TMI?

We share a lot of our lives on our blogs. How much of it includes the people around us? How much sharing is too much? Should we be asking permission to reveal details of our intimate relationships, share photos of our loved ones or tweet our grievances with our IRL friends? (You know things have gotten crazy when we’ve developed an abbreviation to be used online, to represent things that happen in real life, or IRL. Does that seem ridiculous to anyone else?)

If we hold back for fear of upsetting someone, does that take away from the authenticity of our voice?

Do you check with the people you care about before talking about them or posting a photo online? Is it essential to keeping the peace in a relationship? Do you have a different policy for social media or your blog when it comes to sharing? Let us know in the comments!

[Image Credit: Flickr creative commons.]

Tweet

Such does not seem to be the case with jewelry designer (and IFB community fashion blogger) Wendy Brandes and high street retailer Topshop. Brandes designed a collection of “swear rings” back in 2008, and recently Topshop began selling set of “punctuation rings” that looked nearly identical to Brandes’ design. Below you can see Topshop’s copy on the left, and Brandes’ original 2008 design on the right:

Wendy posted about the Topshop rings on her blog on Sunday, and almost instantaneously the blogging community was abuzz with displeasure and calling for action. From The Frisky to Fasshonaburu to Vintage-a-Peel, bloggers voiced their outrage at Topshop and support for Brandes.

By Tuesday, Topshop had issued her an apology (and tweeted it as well!) and removed the rings from their e-commerce site. In a post yesterday, Brandes thanked her PR person for making contact with Topshop about the issue, but also gave much praise to her friends who had blogged and tweeted their support and for helping get Topshop’s attention.

Topshop has also been called out for knocking off a necklace by Tom Tom Jewelry, and Claire’s Accessories is no stranger to this kind of issue either. Mass retailers are known for their uncanny ability to recreate independent designers pieces, but these cases seem to be a violation of copyright, no?

We got in touch with Wendy today to get her reaction to all this:

“I’m happy that Topshop stopped selling the similar ring design after my representative called the company — though it was pointed out to me that the wording of the company’s apology tweet was nearly identical to the language it used when it was pressured by social-media outcry to remove a dress design much like one by indie designer Yasmin Kianfar. (You can compare here.) It will be interesting to see if Topshop uses similar language next time this happens. I’m sure there will be a next time because copying is inevitable in fashion. That said, I’m impressed that so many consumers now understand the impact of an incident like this on a small company. I was really touched by the outpouring of support from people on Twitter, blogs and Facebook. I’m sure that influenced Topshop’s quick resolution of my complaint, but even if Topshop hadn’t acted, just knowing that people had my back made me feel like a winner.”

Topshop was reached but did not respond time for publishing.

[Image credits: Wendy Brandes and Topshop]

We think that despite the fact that Topshop never should have ripped off Wendy’s design in the first place, it’s an amazing example of the power of our community and the power of social media to incite change and action. What do you think?

Tweet

In our post about Wantering.com, IFB discussed the legal issues and ownership rights that accompany blog images. It sparked a great conversation in our community about not only how outside companies and websites use blogger images, but also about what our rights are as creators of original content.

As a blogger, you are the publisher, author, artist and owner of all the unique content you post. It’s yours, and you have the right to control how it is used, where it is used and who can use it. This applies to your written words as well as your original photography. Most of the time, we internet folk are pretty lax with controlling the spread of our content from site to site (via Pinterest, Tumblr, Instagram, Twitter, etc) because it’s usually helpful. Social sharing is the digital form of word-of-mouth, and it helps our traffic and grows our community. However, instances will arise where it’s important to know what your legal rights are, if you find your content in a place it shouldn’t be, being used in a way you don’t approve.

Below, IFB breaks down 9 legal terms for every blogger that are essential to knowing your rights and protecting your content:

Intellectual Property

This is a broad term that encompasses laws that govern “products of the mind,” and what ownership and rights apply to these products. Specific areas that fall under this topic include copyright, trademark, trade secrets and patent law. Most of what you need to know about intellectual property deals with copyright law. See below.

Copyright Law

This law was created both to protect and foster the creation of “original works of authorship.” Examples of this kind of copyrightable work include blog posts, photographs, videos, podcasts, news articles, musical compositions, and computer software. As the creator of copyrighted content, you have the “exclusive right to reproduce the work, distribute it, display or perform it, and to create derivative works from it, as well as the ability to transfer any or all of these rights.” Though many of us are very lax in our control of where and how our images are distributed across the internet, should you feel violated, you’re within your rights to take action!

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

You can read the DMCA in it’s entirety here, but for convenience let’s summarize it a bit. This act was created to protect as the administrator of a website or other service (like a blog), meaning that you will not be held liable for money damages for infringing content posted “at the direction of a user,” onto your site, as long as you didn’t know about it. An example of this might be posting a video you don’t own on YouTube. It’s not just video though, it could be words, pictures or anything that doesn’t belong to the person that is then published to your site (most commonly in the comments or forums).

Privacy and Publicity Rights

According to the Library of Congress, “privacy and publicity rights protect the interests of the person(s) who may be the subject(s) of the work or intellectual creation.” This means that an advertiser must obtain permission from the subject of a photograph in order to use it commercially, because the subject has retained both privacy and publicity rights in the use of their likeness. For example, a site cannot use your image, wearing Bag X to sell Bag X, unless you give permission.

Fair Use Doctrine

The part of the doctrine that is most likely to apply to bloggers is: Some material protected by copyright may be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder if it meets certain qualifications (editorial, educational, etc.) That roughly translates to: if an image is being used in a creative context, to illustrate a point,  show a trend or something you like (and it’s credited) – it’s usually okay. When that image is used for commerce without consent, that’s not Fair Use. Generally, say you republish a photo from another source to comment on it, or someone takes a paragraph from and then comments on it, that’s okay. If you’re not adding anything, – taking a photo from somewhere else and commenting on it it’s usually okay.

Plagiarism

As many of us learned in school, plagiarism is stealing ideas and content and publishing them as your own. Citing your sources is the easiest way to avoid plagiarism, whether it’s quoting someone or giving them credit for an idea you’re discussing. If you think your content has been plagiarized and you want to take action, first consider your goal. If you want this person or publication to stop and take the content down, look to see if whoever is hosting the site has registered a DCMA, and send a “take down notice” to the web host (GoDaddy, Blogger, WordPress, etc.) and they can take it down. You can bypass the actual publisher. Send a cease & desist letter, because it can take about a year to sue someone and go through the whole process. DMCA notice.

Libel and Slander

Libel and slander are both forms of defamation. Libel is written, slander is spoken. So what’s defamation? A false statement about a person to a third party, that damages their reputation. So basically, lying. (This is a state law, so you have to look up the specific details depending on where you live.) It’s important to note that adding the phrase, “In my opinion…” in front of a statement that isn’t true does not protect you. While your blog does give you a platform to speak your mind and express your views, it doesn’t give you permission to lie about others. (We found this interesting to note, given all the recent comments and questions that arose after after our GOMI interview.)

Terms of Use

Your blog’s terms of use should be set up shortly after your site goes live. (Haven’t done it yet? Now’s the time!) This is how you set guidelines and establish your site’s relationship with it’s users. Here is where you let readers and users know what they can use from your site, as well as what your obligations are to them, and what you can do in terms of editing, removing, and changing material (this also applies to commenting). Users own the copyright to their comment, but you’ll want to make your commenters aware that you reserve the right to remove or edit any objectionable content they post, at your own discretion. There are a lot of different rules you may want to lay out for your site’s users; check out this break down of terms of use for a good starting point.

*To compile this post, we consulted heavily with two lawyers, Ruth Carter of Carter Law Firm and Quinn Heraty of Heraty Law. We also used an excellent online source for Internet publishers called Citizen Media Law Project. We recommend browsing this site for more detailed information about many of the terms and laws mentioned above.

*Disclaimer: Information in this guide is based on general principles of law and is intended for information purposes only. It is not offered for the purpose of providing individualized legal advice. Use of this guide does not create an attorney-client or any other relationship between the user and IFB or the lawyers consulted.

Tweet

As you may have read last week, there was a flurry of controversy over a recent profile of Jane Aldridge, the blogger behind Sea of Shoes, in a publication called Texas Monthly. In it, the reporter rather candidly describes days spent with Aldridge (he spent 4 weeks with her), as well as the some of the back-story of how she came to be one of the most well-known style bloggers in the space. (She also appeared in a televised interview with the author, Jason Sheeler.) New York Magazine‘s The Cut then cut-and-pasted their highlights from the profile into a post, with their trademark snark and sarcasm. That was followed by a rebuttal from Jane on her blog, arguing much of what was said came out of context. Then it was yet another follow up from The Cut, that includes a quote from Texas Monthly defending their reporter and the facts in their story. Jezebel got in on the action, too. As did ology.com. And Fashionista. All this in the span of about two days.

So, what was everyone so up-in-arms about? Jane has lived a rather privileged life, especially since her blog took off, and she’s received vicious, negative feedback, nasty comments, and even a stalker or two as a result. Too many shoes! Too much designer stuff! She’s a brat! She’s spoiled! In many people’s eyes, this profile only gave tangible evidence of what everyone thought of her already. When you start throwing around figures like $70,000 in the world of blogging, people are bound to judge.

As supporters of bloggers-as-businesses, we at IFB were rather torn about how to view all of this. Clearly, it takes money to produce the kind of content that keeps millions of people clicking on Sea of Shoes — including supplying her closet with designer and vintage pieces (her signature mix). It also takes money to run a business (her mom and dad function as her manager and lawyer), which her blog has become. Between public event appearances, designer collaborations and sponsored posts, she’s making money – the kind of money that aspiring entrepreneurial fashion bloggers dream of! (as much as $20,000 per, anyone?)

From all this backlash, I find it hard to tell if people are criticizing her family’s spending, her lifestyle or the elements of her personality that are illustrated in the Texas Monthly profile. Is she childish? Does she have a ‘mean girl’ side? Is she too close to her mother? Is she just a 20-year-old, acting like a 20-year-old?

Where do you stand? IFB wants to open up a dialog about all this drama over a member of the fashion blogging community. Here’s some of the chatter on Twitter so far:

@DressCourage: Read it, and couldn’t help but feel it was slanted by a reporter who doesn’t understand the first thing about fashion blogging.

@MsFemminista: Interesting take! I’ve never read her blog, to be honest, but I think a blog can be whatever you want it to be. If hers is a showcase for shiny, sparkly expensive things, then there’s certainly a market out there for that!

@FashionableLena: I didn’t think it was that bad. The NY Mag was. But neither will stop me from reading her blog.

@a_fashion_ado: I haven’t ever heard good things about her, but I can’t form an opinion until I’ve met her. hopefully she’s not how they make it seem.

@chicstripes: read it & a few others- the actual piece came off harsh. Thoughts on asking for permission to read prior to an article going to print?

@BagSnob I’ve known Jane for years. Shes thoughtful & intelligent & has worked hard for her success. She doesn’t deserve this media bashing.

Leave a comment below, or join the conversation by tweeting at us (@_IFB). To ensure a mature conversation, please read all of the linked articles above. The more you read, the more backing your thoughts and opinions will have!

 [Image Credit: Texas Monthly]

Tweet