International

The Uncertain Legal Future of Embedded Photographs in Tweets by Julia Paraynuk

The Uncertain Legal Future of Embedded Photographs in Tweets

Designers, brands, retailers, news outlets, and many other companies have taken advantage of the advent of social media platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook as a means of reaching a wide array of consumers. Through the use of embedding and linking, companies frequently re-share photos obtained from other sources. Recently, however, a slew of organizations were subject to legal attack for engaging in this commonplace practice.

In 2016, nine news organizations and blogs were sued over their use of a photo of New England Patriots quarterback, Tom Brady, pictured with Boston Celtics’ General Manager, Danny Ainge, and NBA star, Kevin Durant. Photographer Justin Goldman initially snapped the photo, after which he uploaded it to Snapchat. The photo went viral, with other users uploading it to Twitter. Numerous news outlets published articles on their websites, wherein the photo was included by embedding users’ Tweets. Notwithstanding these news organizations’ use of conventional embedding procedures—i.e., including an embedded code that directs viewers to the original source—Goldman sued, arguing that his copyright ownership of the photo had been violated.

On February 15, 2018, Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a surprising ruling in Goldman v. Breitbart, denying summary judgment and holding that when the defendant organizations’ posted embedded Tweets on their websites, they violated plaintiff’s exclusive display right. Judge Forrest began her unexpected ruling by acknowledging that when the Copyright Act was amended in 1976, tweets and embedded links were unimaginable. Almost forty years later, applying the Act in a transformed landscape to novel, unanticipated technologies, Judge Forrest took an expansive reading. This interpretation could sound the death knell to many organizations’ and individuals’ traditional use of Twitter and other online networking platforms. Most recently, in May of 2019, Goldman reached a settlement with one of the defendants, Time, Inc., in essence precluding any further appeals in the case. Consequentially, Judge Forrest’s 2018 ruling, and its potential implications, remains good law in New York.

Ultimately, designers, retailers, and all other companies now face an uncertain future, wherein familiar internet practices, such as embedding or linking photos from third party sources into posts, may need to be reconsidered. Now, only time will determine the approach higher courts will take with regard to embedded images and copyright infringement. In prior similar cases, the Ninth Circuit applied the “Server Test,” which imposes liability for publishing copyright materials when the copyrighted image is hosted on the publisher’s own server, but not when it is embedded or linked from a third-party source. While Forrest’s 2018 ruling eschewed the “Server Test,” as new cases are brought in coming years, it will be critical to see whether other Circuits depart from the “Server Test,” adhere to it, or create a different approach for analyzing copyright infringement in the social media context.

Supreme Court Holds That Trademark Licensor Cannot Terminate License Due to Bankruptcy by Julia Paraynuk

On April 23, 2019, China announced critical amendments to its Trademark Law that aim to address bad-faith trademark registration. The new amendments are scheduled to take effect on November 1, 2019. Given western brands’ and designers’ vulnerability to targeting by bad-faith applicants in China in recent years, these amendments present a much-welcomed reform. Nevertheless, given the intricacies of China’s enforcement proceedings, and the ambiguity around certain provisions, uncertainty remains as to the effectiveness of these recent developments.

The Trademark Squatting Landscape in China

The 2019 amendments are perceived as a necessary and indispensable development, required to eliminate trademark applications made in bad faith. In recent years, western brands have been plagued with bad-faith trademarks registered in China. Many western companies, both well-established and newly formed, fall victim to trademark hoarding and trademark ransom schemes, which damage their business and stymie their company’s growth.

Trademark squatting in the Chinese market takes several forms, ranging from trademark extortionists seeking to hold trademarks for ransom to bad-faith trademark applicants endeavoring to dominate the Chinese market with counterfeit goods. Although a substantial portion of western brands do not engage in direct business in China, many of these companies have been subject to trademark piracy—and some companies that fell prey to such schemes may have even been unaware.

The prevalence of bad-faith trademarks in China is a consequence of China’s first-to-file system, low filing fees, laissez-faire review, and absence of sufficient procedures to prevent trademarking abuses. While many companies do not see the need in spending the time and/or money registering a trademark in China prior to entering the Chinese market, China-based pirates act quickly and seize the opportunity to register the marks in China despite no intent to use the trademarks. Once such bad-faith trademarks are registered and approved, western brands had been left scrambling with the few remedial options offered by China’s pirate-friendly regime.  Unlike in first-to-use countries like the United States, China’s first-to-file system fosters a hospitable environment for bad-faith applicants since users are not required to demonstrate “intent to use” the trademark. Rather, applicants need only pay a modest filing fee. Absent a requirement for substantial evidentiary support verifying an applicant’s need for the trademark, quick-thinking pirates who identify trends in western markets are able to acquire numerous trademarks, hoarding the trademarks for ransom or using the marks to develop a robust counterfeit market in China. Since China does not impose a maximum cap on the number of trademarks one entity or individual may hold, pirates have been free to exploit the system, amassing an exorbitant number of bad-faith trademarks and profiting off of ransom settlements for each mark. The lack of procedural demands imposed on pirates for responding to invalidation appeals, the absence of penalties and/or fines for pirates, and lawyers’ willingness to represent pirates faced with invalidation suits curated an atmosphere wholly favorable to pirates and utterly disadvantageous to western brands who fall victim to trademark squatting.

The frequency of such piracy has forced western brands to expend exorbitant investigation and litigation costs to invalidate bad-faith marks. In cases where trademark squatters register marks solely for ransom purposes, a non-use cancellation attempt is often an unfruitful path for brand owners, since this route requires waiting numerous years to demonstrate a pattern of non-use. On other hand, in instances where pirates register marks for counterfeiting purposes, non-use cancellation is not a viable option, since the marks are in fact “in use.” Given China’s lack of an established system for invalidating bad-faith trademarks, even the most striking cases of trademark squatting have been difficult to invalidate, generating drawn-out trademark disputes that cost western brands thousands of dollars and last several years. For example, CFDA’s 2018 data indicates that pirates targeting small and mid-sized fashion firms demand from $315,000 to $1.1 million and receive up to $310,000 after extensive negotiation. Taken in conjuncture, the ransom demands, litigation fees and timing delays, render the transaction costs of remedying piracy issues enormous.

Given the injurious effects of China’s trademark laws and the paramount industry concerns raised, reforms were essential.

Starting the Conversation with the Chinese Government

In March 2018, Steven Kolb, President and Chief Executive Officer of CFDA and Douglas Hand of Hand Baldachin LLP travelled to China to meet with representatives of the Chinese National People’s Congress and members of China’s Patent and Trademark Office. During their trip, Mr. Hand and Mr. Kolb sought to shed light on systemic abuses in the Chinese trademark system and advocated for reforms in China’s trademarking procedures. Upon providing insight onto the destructive effects of bad-faith trademarks on western brands, Chinese consumers, and Chinese markets, Mr. Hand and Mr. Kolb offered numerous proposals for improving the Chinese trademark system.

Mr. Kolb and Mr. Hand emphasized several overarching reform proposals aimed at alleviating piracy concerns and increasing scrutiny on bad-faith applicants. These suggestions generally mirrored the perceived ails of the current Chinese system, offering potential solutions to deep-rooted issues. Mr. Kolb and Mr. Hand encouraged the adoption of a more demanding trademark registration review process, wherein obvious bad-faith applications would be rejected at the outset. They also advocated for increasing transaction costs for pirates, so as to make bad-faith trademarking a less lucrative industry for users. Additionally, proposals for imposing fines for bad-faith trademarking and shifting the burden to applicants to demonstrate “good faith” were suggested. It was also recommended that designers’ personal names be afforded greater protection, given the ease with which emerging designers’ names spread to foreign countries upon their entry into western markets. The reform proposals put forward by Mr. Kolb and Mr. Hand sparked a critical conversation amongst Chinese government officials and laid the groundwork for the amendments adopted in 2019.

2019 Amendments to Article 4, 33, and 44 of the 2013 PRC Trademark Law

In April of 2019, China adopted key new regulations, which will change China’s approach to trademarks in several respects. First, the standards for trademark registration have been heightened. Article 4 of the 2013 PRC Trademark Law’s added the phrase, “Applications for the registration of trademarks in bad faith that are not intended to be used should be rejected,” renders Article 4 the new vehicle for regulating trademark squatters.  Article 7.1 requires applicants have a bona fide intention to use the trademark and demands that applicants provide “demonstrable evidence” of such intention to use. Although this evidence standard is vague, its caveats will likely be determined through the amendments’ implementation process.

Second, punitive and statutory damages will now be imposed for trademark infringers and trademark agents who provide assistance in piracy schemes. The amendments increased statutory damages to approximately $743,000 in instances where calculating precise damages would be too arduous. Additionally, the revised punitive damages scheme no longer calls for treble damages, now providing quintupled damages in instances of “bad faith” or other “serious circumstances.” Although it remains to be seen whether trademark applicants will be subject to fines for bad-faith applications, as opposed to only trademark agents and agencies, this measure imposes costs on pirates that were previously nonexistent, thus providing a deterrent both for individual trademark squatters and their trademark agent aiders.

While these amendments constitute a long-awaited first step in regulating pervasive trademark squatting in China, the scope of their impact remains to be seen. Several concerns remain, such as the possibility that Article 4’s language does not prohibit registration of counterfeit trademarks registered with intent to use. Furthermore, the harshness of the new damages penalties is ambiguous, for China’s courts have previously been hesitant to levy fines. Similarly, the breadth of the fines’ applicability, as between trademark applicants and agents, is unsettled. In the months after the amendments become effective on November 1, 2019, their implementation will serve as a bellwether for the stringency with which they will be enforced.

Impact on Western Brands

Notwithstanding the indeterminate aspects of these amendments’ implementation, these changes have the capacity to provide substantial positive benefits for western brands. The more rigorous trademark application review that Mr. Kolb and Mr. Hand advocated for during their trip to China has the potential of lowering western brands’ transaction costs and litigation expenses. Moreover, a decreased frequency of piracy and trademark squatting will afford western brands the opportunity to enter Chinese markets and take advantage of China’s lower-cost sourcing options. The hope of these amendments for western brands is that emerging designers will face less of a pressing urge to immediately register their trademarks in China upon launching their brands in the U.S. market, since there will ostensibly be less fear of pirates’ ability to successfully register trademarks in bad faith.

Thus, with strict implementation, these amendments may facilitate CFDA members’ ability to increase profits by expanding market reach to Chinese consumers and markets, while saving money on trademark invalidation litigation and disputes. Although the force of implementation and administration is yet to be seen, it appears highly likely that these amendments are a step in the right direction.

On April 23, 2019, China announced critical amendments to its Trademark Law that aim to address bad-faith trademark registration. The new amendments are scheduled to take effect on November 1, 2019. Given western brands’ and designers’ vulnerability to targeting by bad-faith applicants in China in recent years, these amendments present a much-welcomed reform. Nevertheless, given the intricacies of China’s enforcement proceedings, and the ambiguity around certain provisions, uncertainty remains as to the effectiveness of these recent developments.

The Trademark Squatting Landscape in China

The 2019 amendments are perceived as a necessary and indispensable development, required to eliminate trademark applications made in bad faith. In recent years, western brands have been plagued with bad-faith trademarks registered in China. Many western companies, both well-established and newly formed, fall victim to trademark hoarding and trademark ransom schemes, which damage their business and stymie their company’s growth.

Trademark squatting in the Chinese market takes several forms, ranging from trademark extortionists seeking to hold trademarks for ransom to bad-faith trademark applicants endeavoring to dominate the Chinese market with counterfeit goods. Although a substantial portion of western brands do not engage in direct business in China, many of these companies have been subject to trademark piracy—and some companies that fell prey to such schemes may have even been unaware.

The prevalence of bad-faith trademarks in China is a consequence of China’s first-to-file system, low filing fees, laissez-faire review, and absence of sufficient procedures to prevent trademarking abuses. While many companies do not see the need in spending the time and/or money registering a trademark in China prior to entering the Chinese market, China-based pirates act quickly and seize the opportunity to register the marks in China despite no intent to use the trademarks. Once such bad-faith trademarks are registered and approved, western brands had been left scrambling with the few remedial options offered by China’s pirate-friendly regime.  Unlike in first-to-use countries like the United States, China’s first-to-file system fosters a hospitable environment for bad-faith applicants since users are not required to demonstrate “intent to use” the trademark. Rather, applicants need only pay a modest filing fee. Absent a requirement for substantial evidentiary support verifying an applicant’s need for the trademark, quick-thinking pirates who identify trends in western markets are able to acquire numerous trademarks, hoarding the trademarks for ransom or using the marks to develop a robust counterfeit market in China. Since China does not impose a maximum cap on the number of trademarks one entity or individual may hold, pirates have been free to exploit the system, amassing an exorbitant number of bad-faith trademarks and profiting off of ransom settlements for each mark. The lack of procedural demands imposed on pirates for responding to invalidation appeals, the absence of penalties and/or fines for pirates, and lawyers’ willingness to represent pirates faced with invalidation suits curated an atmosphere wholly favorable to pirates and utterly disadvantageous to western brands who fall victim to trademark squatting.

The frequency of such piracy has forced western brands to expend exorbitant investigation and litigation costs to invalidate bad-faith marks. In cases where trademark squatters register marks solely for ransom purposes, a non-use cancellation attempt is often an unfruitful path for brand owners, since this route requires waiting numerous years to demonstrate a pattern of non-use. On other hand, in instances where pirates register marks for counterfeiting purposes, non-use cancellation is not a viable option, since the marks are in fact “in use.” Given China’s lack of an established system for invalidating bad-faith trademarks, even the most striking cases of trademark squatting have been difficult to invalidate, generating drawn-out trademark disputes that cost western brands thousands of dollars and last several years. For example, CFDA’s 2018 data indicates that pirates targeting small and mid-sized fashion firms demand from $315,000 to $1.1 million and receive up to $310,000 after extensive negotiation. Taken in conjuncture, the ransom demands, litigation fees and timing delays, render the transaction costs of remedying piracy issues enormous.

Given the injurious effects of China’s trademark laws and the paramount industry concerns raised, reforms were essential.

Starting the Conversation with the Chinese Government

In March 2018, Steven Kolb, President and Chief Executive Officer of CFDA and Douglas Hand of Hand Baldachin LLP travelled to China to meet with representatives of the Chinese National People’s Congress and members of China’s Patent and Trademark Office. During their trip, Mr. Hand and Mr. Kolb sought to shed light on systemic abuses in the Chinese trademark system and advocated for reforms in China’s trademarking procedures. Upon providing insight onto the destructive effects of bad-faith trademarks on western brands, Chinese consumers, and Chinese markets, Mr. Hand and Mr. Kolb offered numerous proposals for improving the Chinese trademark system.

Mr. Kolb and Mr. Hand emphasized several overarching reform proposals aimed at alleviating piracy concerns and increasing scrutiny on bad-faith applicants. These suggestions generally mirrored the perceived ails of the current Chinese system, offering potential solutions to deep-rooted issues. Mr. Kolb and Mr. Hand encouraged the adoption of a more demanding trademark registration review process, wherein obvious bad-faith applications would be rejected at the outset. They also advocated for increasing transaction costs for pirates, so as to make bad-faith trademarking a less lucrative industry for users. Additionally, proposals for imposing fines for bad-faith trademarking and shifting the burden to applicants to demonstrate “good faith” were suggested. It was also recommended that designers’ personal names be afforded greater protection, given the ease with which emerging designers’ names spread to foreign countries upon their entry into western markets. The reform proposals put forward by Mr. Kolb and Mr. Hand sparked a critical conversation amongst Chinese government officials and laid the groundwork for the amendments adopted in 2019.

2019 Amendments to Article 4, 33, and 44 of the 2013 PRC Trademark Law

In April of 2019, China adopted key new regulations, which will change China’s approach to trademarks in several respects. First, the standards for trademark registration have been heightened. Article 4 of the 2013 PRC Trademark Law’s added the phrase, “Applications for the registration of trademarks in bad faith that are not intended to be used should be rejected,” renders Article 4 the new vehicle for regulating trademark squatters.  Article 7.1 requires applicants have a bona fide intention to use the trademark and demands that applicants provide “demonstrable evidence” of such intention to use. Although this evidence standard is vague, its caveats will likely be determined through the amendments’ implementation process.

Second, punitive and statutory damages will now be imposed for trademark infringers and trademark agents who provide assistance in piracy schemes. The amendments increased statutory damages to approximately $743,000 in instances where calculating precise damages would be too arduous. Additionally, the revised punitive damages scheme no longer calls for treble damages, now providing quintupled damages in instances of “bad faith” or other “serious circumstances.” Although it remains to be seen whether trademark applicants will be subject to fines for bad-faith applications, as opposed to only trademark agents and agencies, this measure imposes costs on pirates that were previously nonexistent, thus providing a deterrent both for individual trademark squatters and their trademark agent aiders.

While these amendments constitute a long-awaited first step in regulating pervasive trademark squatting in China, the scope of their impact remains to be seen. Several concerns remain, such as the possibility that Article 4’s language does not prohibit registration of counterfeit trademarks registered with intent to use. Furthermore, the harshness of the new damages penalties is ambiguous, for China’s courts have previously been hesitant to levy fines. Similarly, the breadth of the fines’ applicability, as between trademark applicants and agents, is unsettled. In the months after the amendments become effective on November 1, 2019, their implementation will serve as a bellwether for the stringency with which they will be enforced.

Impact on Western Brands

Notwithstanding the indeterminate aspects of these amendments’ implementation, these changes have the capacity to provide substantial positive benefits for western brands. The more rigorous trademark application review that Mr. Kolb and Mr. Hand advocated for during their trip to China has the potential of lowering western brands’ transaction costs and litigation expenses. Moreover, a decreased frequency of piracy and trademark squatting will afford western brands the opportunity to enter Chinese markets and take advantage of China’s lower-cost sourcing options. The hope of these amendments for western brands is that emerging designers will face less of a pressing urge to immediately register their trademarks in China upon launching their brands in the U.S. market, since there will ostensibly be less fear of pirates’ ability to successfully register trademarks in bad faith.

Thus, with strict implementation, these amendments may facilitate CFDA members’ ability to increase profits by expanding market reach to Chinese consumers and markets, while saving money on trademark invalidation litigation and disputes. Although the force of implementation and administration is yet to be seen, it appears highly likely that these amendments are a step in the right direction.

Supreme Court Decision On Copyright Registration Requirement

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court held that a lawsuit may not be brought for copyright infringement until the U.S. Copyright Office has acted – either granting or refusing an application for registration.  As this blog noted last year, there was a circuit split as to whether a plaintiff could sue once the application was filed.  The courts that held that filing an application was sufficient reasoned that the plaintiff would ultimately be entitled to sue after the Copyright Office weighed in, no matter the decision, so there was no reason to wait.  The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the registration requirement means what it says and that a registration must be granted or refused by the Copyright Office before a lawsuit may be brought.

As we have previously suggested, the Court’s decision will likely make bringing an infringement suit more difficult because applicants will have to wait for the Copyright Office to respond to their application, a process that could take nine months or more.  Alternatively, potential copyright owners who want to sue might feel the need to register their works immediately through the Copyright Office’s five-day expedited process, which costs $800, and could get prohibitively expensive when registering multiple works.

Due to this long wait time, we generally encourage potential owners of copyrighted works to register their works promptly to ensure that they hold a copyright in the event an infringement does occur.  The relatively small copyright registration fee of $55 allows for copyright owners to register more works and the availability of generous statutory damages and attorneys fees awards also incentivizes the registration of works before infringement begins.  Read Supreme Court decision here: Copyright registration decision

The Laws of Style – Episode 9 – John Bartlett

On this episode of The Laws of Style, Fashion Lawyer Douglas Hand is joined by John Bartlett. John is  a NYC based CFDA award-winning fashion designer, vegan, animal lover/activist, yoga devotee, gay rights enthusiast and good midwestern boy! On the episode they discuss the current state of unisex fashion, the continual relevance of preppy style and the wisdom of never selling your trademark what it happens to also be your name  We hope you’ll tune in, listen and watch this latest episode of The Laws of Style.

READ MORE

The Medium Rules Episode 10: The Amazing Journey – Christiane Lemieux, Reimagining Home Design in a Digitally Native World

“It’s interior ‘design.’  It’s not called interior ‘great chair.'” – Christiane Lemieux

On this episode of The Medium Rules, host Alan Baldachin sits down with Christiane Lemieux, founder and CEO of The Inside, the direct-to-consumer home furnishings brand focused on made-to-order, customizable, affordable furniture with a high design, contemporary aesthetic.  Prior to starting The Inside, Christiane founded the extremely popular home furnishings/lifestyle brand Dwell Studios, sold to Wayfair in 2013. READ MORE

The Laws of Style – Episode 6 – E2

“You have to have a real point of view, something that is distinctively different than what else is out there.” – Eric Jennings

On this episode of The Laws of Style, Fashion Lawyer Douglas Hand sits down with fashion industry veterans Eric Jennings (“EJ”) and Erik Ulin of E2 Consulting, a brand management firm that works with brands to establish and sustain success in the fashion industry. READ MORE

The Medium Rules Episode 9: Security Tokens Explained, with Atomic Capital

What exactly is a security token?  How is it expressed on the blockchain?  How is it traded?  Why is a security token better than an electronic share?  What are the downsides?  And, beyond all that, what are the limits of tokenization?  And what are the political and philosophical implications? 

On this episode of The Medium Rules, Alan is joined in the HBA podcast studio by Alex Blum and Peter Lyons, respectively the CEO and CIO of the NYS-based security token platform, Atomic Capital.  Atomic Capital is split up into three lines of business – advisory, broker-dealer, and investment bank/capital raising.  In this episode of The Medium Rules, Alan and his guests walk through the basics of security tokens, i.e., what are they, how are they sold and how are they traded? 

READ MORE

The Medium Rules Episode 8: Innovators, Disruptors and Rewriters – Leonard Brody, Co-Founder of Creative Labs and Host of The Great Rewrite

How can we define and identify seismic-grade disruption? Is this recognizable contemporaneously, or only with the benefit of hindsight? And if there is some kind of taxonomy of disruption, some kind of map or workflow template we can apply, can we convert these insights into actionable mandates across both investing, startups and organizational behavior generally?

On this episode of The Medium Rules, Alan is joined in the HBA podcast studio by Leonard Brody, an award-winning entrepreneur, venture capitalist, public speaker and best-selling author. Len is currently the co-founder and Executive Chairman of Creative Labs, a joint venture with the Creative Artists’ Agency, where Len oversees the building of new ventures for some of the most well-known celebrities, athletes and political leaders globally. In addition, Len is authoring a new book in partnership with Forbes entitled “The Great Re-Write” based on the successful documentary series (4 million views) of the same name which Len produced in partnership with Forbes. Len is also a highly-sought after public speaker, lecturing at institutions such as the G8 and The United Nations. We hope you enjoy this thoroughly entertaining, lively and very warm conversation covering some of the “big” questions in tech.

LEARN MORE ABOUT LEONARD AND HIS PROJECTS:

READ MORE

The Laws of Style – Episode 5 – Jack Carlson

“When we come out with a new product, the drop is covered in Town & Country and on Highsnobiety in the same week, and that’s exactly how we want it.”  – Jack Carlson, Founder & Creative Director, Rowing Blazers

On this episode of The Laws of Style, Fashion Lawyer Douglas Hand sits down with designer, archaeologist, and US Team rower Jack Carlson, the Renaissance man behind the exciting new label, Rowing Blazers. Jack and Douglas discuss Jack’s experience as a Bronze Medal winning U.S. Men’s National rower, obtaining a doctorate in archaeology from Oxford University, and how these experiences have inspired his design.

Jack also provides a glance into his day-to-day at Rowing Blazers, discusses how he’s been able to tap into both the traditional menswear and streetwear markets, details upcoming Rowing Blazer’s collabarations, and much more.

JACK’S ENSEMBLE:
Jacket – Rowing Blazers Gun Club Tweed
Shirt – Rowing Blazers Handmade 12 Gauge England-Wales 1923 Rugby
Pants – Vintage Ralph Lauren chinos
Shoes – White Adidas Superstar
Watch – Vintage 1971 Seiko

CHECK OUT ROWING BLAZERS’ FULL COLLECTION:  https://rowingblazers.com

FIND THE FULL PODCAST ON ALL MAJOR OUTLETS:
iTunes – https://apple.co/2MWuh49
Google Play – https://bit.ly/2PVfIi7
Spotify – https://spoti.fi/2zUm2w6
SoundCloud – http://bit.ly/2OMrdnk
Stitcher – http://bit.ly/2zfGat3

If you enjoyed the podcast, kindly like the video, subscribe to our channel on YouTube, and the audio podcasts on iTunes. To stay up to date on The Laws of Style and the industry insights it provides, follow Douglas on Instagram and Twitter at @HandoftheLaw, and Douglas’s firm, Hand Baldachin & Associates at @HBAlawoffices and @HBAfashion.

Until next time, stay stylish.

The Medium Rules Episode 7: The Microinfluencer Economy with Alia Ahmed-Yahia & James Bosworth

“It’s not about you, it’s about your audience.” – Alia Ahmed-Yahia

Microinfluencer and Co-Founder of Spyglass Collective Alia Ahmed-Yahia and partner Jamie Bosworth join Alan in the podcast studio to discuss the trend of microinfluencers, their ability to drive business through engagement, the future trends in social media influence, and much more. Join us for a compelling discussion and stay for Alan’s style advice. Alia might provide a few pointers as well!

FOLLOW ALIA & JAMES:READ MORE