Are there legal implications to lying about your sponsors? Let's say I release a video where I say "sponsored by Company C" even though they never sponsored me. Are there legal implications to lying about that, or is this action protected by the First Amendment? At first, I thought that mentioning Company C is like doing free advertising for them, so why would they care. However, if Company C doesn't want to be associated with me, and the alleged association damages their reputation, then maybe this counts as slander: oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Since in this case, I wouldn't be blatantly saying a bad thing about the company (e.g. "their CEO is a murderer"), I imagine they would need to do a bit more work to prove to a court that their reputation was damaged. (this is also assuming that slander applies to companies)
False statements are generally protected by the First Amendment. If the video was an obvious gag or work of fiction, in which a reasonable person would understand that you were not truly endorsed, your false statement would almost certainly be protected by the First Amendment. But many false statements are not protected, typically because of their negative effects on other parties. Classic examples include defamation, perjury, and fraud. A lie about an endorsement could easily fall on either side of that line. If you are making the video in a context in which reasonable viewers would be led to believe that you truly were endorsed by that company, I could easily imagine a set of circumstances that would lead to liability: If you're releasing the video as part of a commercial endeavor, you're looking at possible claims for false advertising, unfair competition, and trademark violations (false designation, dilution, etc.). If your video is harmful to the company's reputation, you're facing a potential claim for product disparagement or trade libel. These are the corporate equivalents of the libel actions most people are more familiar with, and they generally require proving the same kinds of facts. A right of publicity/misappropriation of identity action is possible but very unlikely. Most states are very stingy about allowing businesses to bring these claims, so this one would probably be very jurisdiction-specific. Proving the case generally requires the company to show (1) that you made a commercial use of their identity, (2) that they did not authorize it, and (3) that the use caused economic harm. Beyond those, there's a whole host of business torts that I could try to squeeze this into but that are probably less likely given the hypothetical you've presented. I'd also note that your assumption about proving damages is not well-founded. Especially among the largest companies, businesses are very protective of their brands, and they invest absurd amounts of money to protect them. Pick any company with a high enough profile that someone would want to fake their endorsement, and I'd be willing to bet that their legal department could pretty quickly prepare a detailed estimate of the related damage to their brand. If a case went to trial, you'd normally expect to see an economist present an expert report calculating damages, which would begin (but not end) with any unjust enrichment you experienced because people thought you had the company's endorsement.
Your issue is trademark, not copyright. If these other guys use their mark (product name) in commerce but did not register it, they have an unregistered trademark which you could be infringing. Between two users of the same trademark, the first to use in commerce wins. (There is a territorial component but with the Internet, meh.) If the trademark is registered that gives them a presumption of validity. Trademark infringement is concerned with consumer confusion. If someone uses someone else's trademark in a way that confuses consumers as to the origin of the goods, that's a problem. What this means is that if I make tires with the name Sportie and someone else makes soap also with that name Sportie there is not a high likelihood of confusion. Likewise a hotel in Washington called Runner's Cove probably doesn't infringe a shoe store in Florida with the same name. Fantasy games and fantasy books sold over the Internet? Sounds like a potential problem that you might want to clear up before the second book.
Without a jurisdiction, I'll just say that unless the comments made in the reviews and discussions were false, the individual is unlikely to have any claim, particularly given that you've stated that this occurred over the course of a year. However, the individual may be able to argue that they were not given sufficient notice of their performance, for example through performance evaluations, and given the length of time, it likely that one would have occurred. A company may be able to terminate an employee in spite of their overall contributions if they have breached policy - for instance, an otherwise outstanding employee who attracts negative customer reviews based in fact, and who is given ample opportunity and guidance to improve, may cause brand and reputational damage to the company; in this case, it is a commercial decision to retain or terminate the employee. As for what recourse the employee has, if the comments were factual, then it is likely that they will not have any, unless the employer has not adhered to procedural requirements - for instance, in Australia, you are required to provide an employee the opportunity to have a support person present at any meeting which may result in the employee's termination - or the employer broke some other law - for instance, discrimination, bullying or harassment law. Unfortunately, the contributions an employee makes does not necessarily negate the harm they do, and complaints based on an employee's performance are completely valid if factual.
Both Bob and Charles are liable for infringement in the US. The fact that Charles had no idea that Bob was an infringer is not a defense, but it mitigates the statutory damages consequences for him. Either party can negotiate with Alice after the fact for a license, and Alice can grant either party but not the other permission to copy. The terms of the license that Alice gives Bob could either allow CCo reposting, or some more restrictive redistribution right. If the license requires a notice prohibiting further redistribution and Bob omits that notification, Bob will have breached the terms of the license in omitting the notification, so we're back to square 1. If Alice fails to specify a no-redistribution notification condition on Bob's reposting, Alice may have granted an implied license to the world, a matter which has to be determined by the courts.
There is no prohibition on lying in general. Misrepresentation If you misrepresent a fact and that misrepresentation is a material inducement to someone entering into a contract with you then there are a number of problems that follow: The (mis)representation may become a term of the contract and if not complied with can allow the aggrieved party to either sue for damages or rescind the contract. If the misrepresentation led to the contract being entered into by mistake then the contract is void for mistake The misrepresentation may have become a collateral contract an innocent or negligent misstatement may give rise to the tort of negligent misstatement misrepresentation may put you in breach of trade practices statutes. Fraud If you knowingly tell a lie with the intention of receiving a benefit then this is both the tort and crime of fraud. You receiving employment or your company securing a contract probably qualifies as intending to receive a benefit.
A reasonable person might well believe that your enterprise is being sponsored by or is affiliated with Amazon, and so you would be infringing Amazon's trademark. Even if there is no reasonable confusion, Amazon might well think otherwise and take legal action against you. You don't want to start a business by defending a lawsuit, even if you win, particularly not a suit from your supplier. Why not choose a different name, particularly as that would make it easier to expand into non-amazon cards later? Something like 'Buy Better gift cards' or 'Gift Card World' might be a better choice. In general, you may not use a firm or product name that would cause reasonable consumers to confuse you with the trademark holder, or to think that you are endorsed by, affiliated with, or sponsored by the trademark holder without permission (which you are not likely to get).
Yes australia This is a straight up and down case of “deceptive and misleading conduct”. There is plenty of case law to support that testimonials (which this is) must be genuine, not paid for as they are from an actor. Further, they cannot be cherry-picked. If 5 real people reacted and 2 reacted negatively, you cannot just show the 3 who reacted positively - you have to show them all or otherwise disclose that 3 out 5 people loved the product. When actors (or people who are otherwise getting paid) are used that fact must be disclosed if it is not clear from the context. In a typical ad where people are just shown using the product without giving a personal endorsement it’s sufficiently clear that they are actors. However, in the type of ad you describe if they were actors this would need to be stated. Television and radio personalities must disclose when they are being paid for an endorsement under enforceable codes. Influencers are required to do so under non-binding codes, however, it is likely that breach of these codes would also be a breach of the law.
Given that obscurity is not security, the company potentially exposes itself to claims of: Misrepresentation under consumer protection laws, or even fraud (things that you sell are not quite what you claim they are, and you know it) Negligence (people rely on your goods/services to be secure as per your claim but you take this very lightly and they get burnt).