Rights done wrong

A(nother) cyber libertarianism backlash presents a timely reminder of understanding the consequences before unleashing the dogs of law.

As the saying goes, public opinion doesn’t have a law degree. It does, however, have access to the internet and isn’t shy on taking up the cyber torches and pitch forks when it feels curbed. And so this week a refresher lesson in cyber liberalisation was dished out to a company who failed to understand its market before dawning its big legal wellie boots and plunging on in to a reputational quagmire. 

Come on down YouTube, and, in particular, brothers Benny and Rafi Fine.

So what happened this time?

The brothers operate a successful YouTube channel named Fine Brothers Entertainment, which showcases ‘Kids React’, a series of videos displaying children’s reactions to various situations. The success gave rise to the spin off ‘Adults React’. In a YouTube sea of ‘reaction videos’ the Brothers sought to trade mark words including ‘react’ in Class 41, Entertainment, to protect their position. In so doing, however, what the Brothers and their advisers failed to take into account was how such an act may be perceived by their followers and subscribers: as an attempted oppression of freedom. The perception of the Brothers attempting to police or control the internet was met with unhappy incandescence. While no video of the Brothers’ reactions is available, hundreds of thousands of followers left, an apology was issued and the trade mark applications were abandoned.   

It stands as a timely reminder to businesses that protection and enforcement of rights must be weighed with other commercial realities such as how your market or audience may perceive your actions. The failure to understand that much of the channel’s success stemmed from the supporters’ approval of its non-big-corporate approach was then compounded by an attempt to obtain trade marks and an appearance of oppression of those most likely to be protective of their cyber libertarianism. Poor show, chaps.

Barbra’s lawyers find themselves in the duck sauce

No mention of backfiring rights enforcement can be complete without a nod to the quintessential case of Barbra Streisand. When Barbra’s lawyers attempted to sue California Coastal Records Project for breach of privacy owing to a photo of Barbra’s house featuring in their archive, well, they did not make a very good job of it. So unsuccessful were the lawyers in their approach that the attempted suppression and the reaction that followed created such great interest that the image was not just seen by more than might otherwise have seen it, but it actually went viral. The ‘Barbra Streisand Effect’ was born.

The Jack Daniels solution that goes down well

One example of a success story comes from the approach taken by the legal team of American whiskey Jack Daniels, who, when faced with a book cover very similar to their bottle label acted cleverly. The ensuing cease and desist was (according to the recipient) ‘as if the Gentleman Jack had penned it himself’. The polite and friendly approach was not only in-keeping with the laid back brand but was posted online by the recipient and went viral for all the right reasons. Cheers!


For rights done right, contact Brymer Legal.