The Doctrine of ‘Personality Rights’ in the UK

The Doctrine of ‘Personality Rights’ in the UK The United Kingdom has never acknowledged a specific doctrine of ‘personality rights’; the law provides neither coherent nor consistent protection, as the courts are ‘sceptical about creating monopoly rights in nebulous concepts such as names, likeness or popularity’.[1] Therefore celebrities and other high-profile individuals rely on a combination of passing off, trademark, copyright and privacy laws for protection of the commercial value of their personality. None of these were invented to protect personality rights; however they are gradually developing to adjust to the commercial reality of the value of celebrity merchandising and endorsements. Misleading the public by giving a false impression of endorsement of a product by a celebrity has been to commit the tort of passing off for over a decade.[2] The tort of passing off was traditionally defined as ‘nobody has the right to represent his goods as the goods of someone else’.[3] The ‘ classical trinity’ is necessary to succeed in passing off: ‘the goodwill or reputation must be attached to the products or services of the plaintiff, the misrepresentation must lead to the confusion as to the source of the goods and services, and this confusion must cause damage to the claimant’.[4] In the case of Fenty Ors v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop) Anor,[5] high street fashion retailer Topshop licensed an image of popstar Rihanna’s face from a photographer and printed it on a t-shirt without either her permission being sought nor obtained. Rihanna then sued for passing off. Mr Justice Birss applied the doctrine to the dispute. Although on very particular facts, Birss J found in favour of Rihanna and established a general principle that arguably goes against any celebrities who might have hoped to see the creation of a doctrine of personality rights. This decision develops the tort of passing off to small degree whilst emphasising that, in each case, the facts are decisive.[6] The debate about the recognition of personality rights in the UK is gathering impetus in the wake of Fenty with academics like Walsh questioning if ‘personality rights are finally on the agenda’.[7] In the 1970s the UK courts were regularly unwilling to find false impressions relating to merchandising resulted in misrepresentation because of the need to show that they were engaged in a ‘common field of activity’. This introduced a somewhat blunt test for confusion and there often would be no proximity between, for example, a radio broadcaster and a cereal manufacturer.[8] Until the test was discarded, at least as an absolute condition,[9] it limited attempts to expand the categories of misrepresentation to cover licensing connections.[10] Where the absence of a common field of activity was not conclusive the court for example held the use of the name of the pop group Abba on merchandise did not amount to passing off on the basis that there was no real possibility that the public would be confused into thinking that Abba had approved the goods merely because their name or photograph appeared on them.[11] Likewise the use of a photograph of the Spice Girls on the cove r of a sticker collection was held not to constitute passing off.[12] An important exception came when it was held passing off had been established where cartoon characters, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, were on clothing without authorisation, since the public did expect the goods to be licensed.[13] This case was distinguished from the Abba scenario on the basis that it was brought in the context of the unauthorised reproduction of images of cartoons in which copyright existed, rather than the image or name of a celebrity. Yet the decision is generally viewed as opening up character merchandising law in the UK. In the seminal case of Irvine Laddie J held passing off covered cases of false endorsement, like where Talksport had altered an image of racing driver Eddie Irvine to have him hold a branded Talksport radio for advertising purposes without his permission. Laddie J considered the increasingly popular marketing practice of personality licensing, including the licensing of a personality’s name or likeness outside a celebrity’s area of expertise as a common and lucrative practice for them, to reject the ‘common à ¯Ã‚ ¬Ã‚ eld of activity’ condition. Laddie J identified the inherent flexibility of passing off by saying ‘the sort of cases which come within the scope of a passing off action has not remained stationary over the years†¦passing off is closely connected to and dependent upon what is happening in the market place’.[14] Although Irvine was celebrated as a turning point in the protection of personality rights, the important limitation in the judgment was that passing off was limited to false endorsement and excluded merchandising cases. The classic celebrity-merchandising situation seems similar: the celebrity has a reputation and the public knows that it is common practice for celebrities to market their popularity by granting merchandise licenses.[15] Laddie J differentiated between cases of endorsement and merchandising, however in Fenty Birss J approved Laddie J’s reasoning but made it clear there is no difference in merchandising cases and that the legal principles apply equally well in passing off if the public had been deceived into thinking the celebrity had authorised the product. Rihanna easily established sufficient goodwill in the fashion industry, as a style icon because of her ‘cool, edgy image’.[16] This was demonstrated in her endorsement contracts with Nike and Gillette, her fashion design and promotion work with rival retailer River Island, and she had worked with HM, Gucci and Armani to collaborate on and design clothing. Birss J therefore stated Rihanna’s ‘identity and endorsement in the world of high street fashion was perceived†¦to have tangible value by an organisation well placed to know’.[17] Misrepresentation was the key issue. Topshop argued the clothing was simply a t-shirt bearing an image of Rihanna and the public had no expectation that it was authorised by her, whereas Rihanna contended that the particular facts of the case meant customers were misled into believing she had endorsed the t-shirt herself. The court considered the point in depth, addressing the various circumstances before considering the issue as a whole. Certain evidence considered was found to be neutral to finding a misrepresentation. The fact there was other unauthorised clothing bearing Rihanna’s image on sale did not imply that the public would necessarily believe that such clothing was authorised. Topshop had sold both clothing bearing authorised images and clothing, which was approved or endorsed by celebrities. Overall, its customers were neutral: having no positive expectation either way when considering clothing bearing a celebrity’s image. Also the t-shirt was fashionable an d on sale in a high street retailer. Certain factors indicated finding in Topshop’s favour. Some of Rihanna’s official merchandise included an ‘R slash’ trademark logo or her name, the t-shirt lacked both, and apart from a few days online the word ‘Rihanna’ was not used at all. There was also no genuine evidence of actual confusion. However on balance, significant factors supported RIhanna. Topshop had made considerable effort to emphasise connections in the public consciousness between the store and celebrities notably Kate Moss, and now more importantly Rihanna. This made it more likely purchasers would conclude that the t-shirt was authorised and being a fashion retailer, consumers would reasonably expect Topshop to publicise and sell products authorised by celebrities. Topshop’s prior association with Rihanna was important as Topshop ran a competition in 2010 to win a personal shopping appointment with Rihanna. Rihanna also visited Topshop in 2012 which they chose to publicise by tweeting to their 350,000 Twitter followers, just before the t-shirt went on sale – a significant commercial communication in the eyes of Birss J, to a demographic who valued social media highly. Topshop had therefore repeatedly associated itself and it products with Rihanna in a high-profile manner and this demonstrated Topshop were looking to take advantage of Rihanna’s position as a style icon. The image on the t-shirt was taken during the video shoot of RIhanna’s single ‘We Found Love’ from her 2011 ‘Talk that Talk’ album. Importantly, it showed Rihanna with the same hairstyle and headscarf as the album cover. This meant that the image was not just recognisably Rihanna but looked like a promotional shot for the music release. The court found that it was entirely likely that, to her fans, the image might be regarded as part of the marketing campaign. This was a critical point in the de cision. Although Birss J believed a ‘good number’ of purchasers would buy the t-shirt without considering the question of authorisation, he concluded that, in the circumstances, a substantial proportion of those judging the t-shirt (specifically Rihanna fans) would be encouraged to think that it was clothing authorised by the popstar. They would have recognised that particular image of Rihanna not simply as an image of her but as a particular image of her connected with the particular context of the album. Many of these purchasers would have bought the product because they thought that Rihanna had authorised it; others would have bought it because of the value of the perceived authorisation itself. In each case, the idea that it was authorised was part of what motivated them to buy the product and in each case they would have been deceived. The test for damage was also easily satisfied. If a substantial number of purchaser’s were deceived into buying the t-shirt because of a false belief that it was authorised by Rihanna herself, then that would have damaged Rihanna’s goodwill, both by way of sales lost to her merchandising business and a loss of control over her reputation in the fashion sphere.[18] Considering the particular facts, it is not surprising Birss J found in Rihanna’s favour. The classical trinity of passing off were fulfilled, however this decision is unlikely to open the floodgates for cases to be brought every time a celebrity’s image is used without a merchandising license, as it was made clear ‘the mere sale by a trader of a t-shirt bearing an image of a famous person is not without more, an act of passing off’.[19] Birss J was eager to emphasise that ‘there is today in England no such thing as a free standing general right by a famous person (or anyone else) to control reproduction of their image.’[20] The judgment is useful as a confirmation of the general principles of passing off applied to unauthorised use of celebrity images.[21] If the UK is approaching the creation of a doctrine of personality rights in some form, it is necessary to analyse the justifications and gauge whether they are robust enough to validate the subsequent restraints that would be placed upon society. The justifications suggested in support of personality rights fall largely into three groups: moral, economic and consumer protection arguments. The labour-based moral justification is founded on John Locke’s theory of property.[22] Essentially, itprovidesthat an individualhasamoralrightintheobjectofvaluetransformedbecauseoftheir efforts. Nimmer supported this point by contending that the person who has ‘long and laboriously nurtured the fruit of publicity values’ and has spent ‘time, effort, skill, and even money’ in their creation, is presumably allowed to enjoy it.[23] Professor McCarthy feels personality rights are ‘a â€Å"common-sense†, self-evident right needing little intellectual rationalisation to justify its existence’.[24] However, Madow deconstructs these arguments by contending that fame is something ‘conferred by others’ and is not necessarily down to the efforts of the individual.[25] Moreover according to Madow the labour argument ignoresthe fundamentalrole themediaplayinthecreationofcelebrities.He uses the example of Einstein andobservesthatth emedia selectedhim becausehedidinterviews, wasquotable and hehadtheright‘look’.[26]TheimageofEinsteinthat is familiar today,what itmeanstothe pubic themadbutpleasant scientistwith bushywhitehairandmoustache wasa personality createdby themedia. Therefore only when the media and public take notice and attach importance to a personal image can it fully enter into the market place.[27] Thus contrary to the statement by McCarthy, it would appear a celebrity cannot justify that they solely created their public image and consequently cannot stake an indisputable moral claim to the exclusive ownership or control of the economic value that comes with it. Personality rights can also be justified on economic arguments. Economic theory proposes persons should be economically incentivised into ‘undertaking socially, enriching activities’ such as creating a persona that benefits society culturally,[28] and this creativity can only be encouraged if the person is given exclusive right to control their creations, because this ‘provides incentive for performers to make economic investments required to produce performances appealing to the public’.[29] However Carty doubts whether personality rights would produce increases in ‘economic activity’ or ‘innovation’.[30] Following Madow’s ideas, the UK is currently without a personality right, yet celebrities still gain significant income from their publicity values and failure to introduce such a right in the future will not stop individuals profiting from the income already gained through endorsements and merchandising officially authoris ed by them.[31] According to Madow such protection also has ‘distributional consequences’,[32] whereby personality rights elevate the price of merchandise and advertising in general, placing more wealth in the hands of a select few, who already derive significant income, and away from the mass of consumers making up society.[33] Another justification for personality rights is the consumer protection argument focusing on the idea that without protection, the public will be misled about the authorisation of a celebrity’s association with a product or service. At first sight the consumer protection argument appears advisable, joining protection of the celebrity’s success with protection of the consumer, and it mirrors the traditional rationale for trademark and passing off.[34] However personality rights would allow celebrities to stop commercial uses of their personas that are not fraudulent or deceptive, and Professor Shiffrin states personality rights give celebrites power ‘to control the dissemination of truth for his or her own profit’.[35] On another level, Madow argues the degree to which personality rights would stop the consumer being misled is generally superfluous,[36] because in situations where there is a realistic chance that, consumers will be deceived or confused about a celebrity’s association or endorsement, legal mechanisms better adapted for that reason already exist, notably passing off. In conclusion, the extent to which Fenty constitutes a creation of a doctrine of ‘personality rights’ is limited. In the words of Roberts ‘this judgment does not change the law; and it does not create an â€Å"image right†. It simply applies the existing doctrine of passing off to the evolving commercial reality of the value of celebrity endorsements’.[37] The decision is important as it improves a flaw in the Irvine verdict,[38] in the same way that Irvine marked the first time that passing off was applied to false endorsement, Fenty is the first time it has been applied to false merchandising featuring a real person, with merchandising claims having only previously succeeded in relation to fictional characters,[39] and indicates that UK courts are slowly recognising the need to protect the commercial value of celebrity merchandising. It is clear from the case that the result was carefully balanced on particular facts and that if for example Rihanna had not been a fashion icon or the image was different she would have less chance of being successful. Fenty highlights the issue of misrepresentation is however always one of fact, and the false belief of the purchaser is key: to constitute passing off, a false belief incited in the mind of the prospective purchaser must play a role in their choice to buy. Although there are persuasive advocates of the creation of a doctrine of personality rights,[40] and there is also no definite rationale for an absolute rejection,[41] it would seem the decision in Fenty should be welcomed because there are substantial drawbacks in the moral, economic and consumer protection justifications put forward. The decision develops passing off to a small degree to keep up with modern business practice without creating personality rights, which are not necessary as celebrities are already sufficiently protected. The tort of passing off has again demonstrated its inherent flexibility and that it is ‘ closely connected to and dependent upon what is happening in the market place’. To sum up, ‘without an element of consumer deception, English law in this area remains characteristically cautious’,[42] and this should be welcomed. [1] J. Klink, ’50 years of Publicity Rights in the United States and the Never Ending Hassle with Intellectual Property and Personality Rights in Europe’, (2003), 4 IPQ 363, p.366. [2] Irvine v Talksport Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 423 [3] Reddaway v Banham (1896) 13 RPC 218 at 244 per Lord Halsbury [4] Reckitt Colman v Borden [1990] 1 WLR 491 at 499 per Lord Oliver [5] [2010] EWHC 2310 (Ch) [6] D. Meale, ‘Rihanna’s face on a T-shirt without a licence? No, this time it’s passing off’, (2013) 8(11) JIPLP 823, p.823. [7] C. Walsh, ‘Are personality rights finally on the UK agenda?’, (2013) 35(5) EIPR 253, p.253. [8] McCulloch v Lewis A May [1947] 2 All ER 845 [9] Lyngstad v Anabas Products [1977] FSR 62 at 67; [10] Wombles Ltd v Wombles Skips Ltd [1975] FSR 488 Ch D; [11] Lyngstad v Anabas Products [1977] FSR 62 [12] Halliwell Ors v Panini Ors (6 June, 1997, unreported) [13] Mirage Studiosv Counterfeat Clothing [1991] FSR 145 [14] [2002] FSR 60 at para 13-14 [15] J. Klink, op.cit., p.375. [16] Fenty v Topshop [2013] EWHC 2310 (Ch) at [46] [17] Ibid at [42] [18] Ibid at [72] [19] Ibid at [75] [20] Ibid at [2] [21] H. Beverley-Smith and L. Barrow, ‘Talk that tort†¦of passing off: RIhanna, and the scope of actionable misrepresentation: Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop), (2014), 36(1) EIPR 57, p.61. [22] J. Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1952) [23] M.B. Nimmer, ‘The Right of Publicity’, (1954) 19 Law and Contemporary Problems 203, p.216. [24] J.T. McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy, (New York: C.Boardman, 1987), s.1.1[B] [2] at 1-5; s.1.11[C] at 1-46. [25] M. Madow, ‘Private Ownership of Public Image: Popular Culture and Publicity Rights’, (1993), 81 CLR 125, p.182. [26] Ibid, p.190 [27] J. Fowles, Celebrity Performers and the American Public, (Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1992), p.84. [28] J.T. McCarthy, ’Melville B. Nimmer and the Right of Publicity: A Tribute’ (1987) 34 UCLA LR1703, p.1710. [29] D.E. Shipley, ‘Publicity Never Dies: It just Fades Away, (1981) 66 Cornell LR 673, p.681. [30] H. Carty, ‘Advertising, Publicity Rights and English Law’, (2004) 3 IPQ 209, p.251. [31] M. Madow, op.cit., p.211 [32] Ibid, p.218. [33] Ibid [34] H. Carty, op.cit., p.252. [35] S. Shiffrin, ‘The First Amendment and Economic Regulations: Away from a General Theory of the First Amendment’, (1983) 78 NW ULR 1212, p.1258. [36] M. Madow, op.cit., p.233. [37] J. Roberts, ‘Face off: Rihanna wins â€Å"image rights† case’, (2013), 24(8) Ent LR 283, p.285. [38] A. De Landa Barajas, ‘Personality rights in the United States and the United Kingdom – is Vanna too much? Is Irvine not enough?’, (2009) 20(7) Ent LR 253, p.258. [39] J. Roberts, op.cit., p.285. [40] S. Bains, ‘Personality rights: should the UK grant celebrities a proprietary right in their personality? Part 2’, (2013) 18(6) Ent LR 205 [41] [42] H. Beverley-Smith, op.cit., p.61.

The Unchanged Character of Hester in Hawthornes The Scarlet Letter Ess

The Unchanged Character of Hester in Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter In the course of most stories, at least one of the main characters changes in one way or another. In The Scarlet Letter, one of the main characters we see a change in is Hester. Through the course of the novel, it appears that Hester changes from an arrogant, unremorseful woman to a much kinder and helpful, repentant woman. Although it appears that Hester has learned a lesson from her sin and consequential punishment, has she really changed her sinful ways? If she has, why, then, is she going to leave for Europe with Arthur Dimmesdale? In the beginning of The Scarlet Letter, we see Hester being punished publicly for the sin she has committed with Arthur Dimmesdale. In chapter two, Hawthorne writes, "he [the town-beadle] laid his right hand upon the shoulder of a young woman, whom he thus drew forward until, on the threshold of the prison-door, she repelled him, by an action marked with natural dignity and force of character, and stepped into the open air, as if by her own free-will." Two paragraphs later, Hawthorne writes, "And never had Hester Prynne appeared more lady-like, in the antique interpretation of the term, than as she issued from the prison. Those who had before known her, and had expected to behold her dimmed and obscured by a disastrous cloud, were astonished, and even startled, to perceive how her beauty shone out, and made a halo of the misfortune and ignominy in which she was enveloped." At this first appearance to the townspeople, Hester acts as if nothing is wrong, as if she has chosen to appear before the people, rather than take it as a punishment. Hester’s haughty appearance does not accurately reflect the way she is feeling on the i... ...ir marriage. By running off with Arthur, she would be committing adultery again. Some people would argue that Roger and Hester were never married and, therefore, they didn’t commit adultery. In that case, they may not have committed adultery, but Hester still would have committed fornication, also a sin in God’s sight (Mark 7:21, Acts 15:20, among others). At one point in the story, Hawthorne explains that Hester has learned much from the letter (ch 18 – "The scarlet letter was her passport into regions where other women dared not tread. Shame, Despair, Solitude! These had been her teachers, —stern and wild ones, —and they had made her strong, but taught her much amiss."). Although Hester has changed in some ways, the change that was supposed to be brought about by the scarlet letter never happened. In the end, Hester was still planning to commit adultery again.

Ask Me: Poem Analysis Essay

This is one of my favorite poems as it has allowed me to relate in so numerous ways when it comes to life. All through my life there have been many ups and downs, and many people that have come and gone; but no matter what the series of events that I have come across have made me who I am today. There have been many people that have played important roles in my life but as William Stafford entails people will come and go; and people will play all kinds of roles in your life. When people make inquiries from me whether I would take anything in my life back if i had a chance, I answer with no since the people I have been involved with and the blunders I have made shaped who I am today. The poem is written in the future tense; from the first person perception of â€Å"I†. This is style isvery different from other poets. Stafford reaches out to audiences in the first line with the words â€Å"ask me†. Stafford writes of a future occasion when questions will be asked of him. It begins with a dialogue between the orator and another person. We have no reason to believe that the orator is not Stafford himself. The other person could be the audience, but sounds more like a close companion or at least somebody who knows him well. The poem begins: â€Å"Some time when the river is ice ask me mistakes I have made. Ask me what I have done in my life.†(Stafford) In these two sentences, he brings in two things: first, what the poem is regarding (his life), and second the main metaphor (the river iced over). For the rest of the first stanza he talks of the consequence other people have had whether good or bad. Or somewhat he is asking the listener to ask him; which is odd since the second verse begins: â€Å"I will pay attention to what you say† (Stafford). The second stanza reddens out the metaphor of the ice-covered river. That while it looks immobile; what’s beneath is a different story: â€Å"We know the current is there, concealed; and there are comings and goings from miles away† The river in the rhyme, for Stafford, as it has been for many poets although the ages, is an image and metaphor for the orator’s life. Fascinatingly in an interview, when he is talking about himself he make use of the same image:â€Å"I keep following this kind of concealed river of my life, you know, whatever the subject or impulse which comes, I follow it along gullibly (Stafford). And I don’t have any sagacity of its coming to a sort of upsurge, or of its petering out either.† The poem is saying that there is a difference to be made, between how immobile and peaceful the ice-covered river may look on the facade; this could be how human beings remembers their life, a sequence of actions and events frozen in recall. And what is beneath, that actions and blunders cannot be seen in isolation, but are managed and influenced by events and people. In the same way the path of a river is influenced by things that govern its course. Stafford gives us the eventual life lesson concealed within life’s blunders. We all ask ourselves and others as well if our choices are slip-ups. But in reality no choice in life is a slip-up, but an example in which we learn from. You will always have people within your life that are there to upset you or help you, but in the end what is done is your option. We as humans are not ideal and shouldn’t hide behind â€Å"the ice† for the â€Å"mistakes† we have made, for in our life is already planned out for us it’s our choice on what road to take. Stafford gives us encouragement within his rhyme; permitting us to see ourselves for who we are and not what we do. Work cited Stafford, William. â€Å"Ask Me.† Gioia, X. J. Kennedy and Dana. Literature. New York: Pearson, 2010. 643. Book

Free Essays on Drugs And Crime

Around four million people use illicit drugs each year. Most illicit drug use is relatively controlled 'recreational' use of cannabis and ecstasy. People who try illicit drugs are more likely than others to commit other forms of law breaking. However there is no persuasive evidence of any causal linkage between drug use and property crime for the vast majority of this group. A very small proportion of users - less than 5% of the total - have chaotic lifestyles involving dependent use of heroin, crack/cocaine and other drugs. An even smaller proportion of users - perhaps around 100,000 people - finance their use through crime. The majority of those who steal to buy drugs were involved in crime before their drug use became a problem for them. This group of criminally involved problem users commits very large amounts of shoplifting, burglary and other crime to finance drug purchases. If appropriate drug treatment is given to this group, they reduce their offending levels. There are links between some forms of illicit drug use and crime is obvious. The precise nature of these links is not. Widely differing claims are made about the extent to which crime is 'drug-driven'. This paper assembles research evidence that can shed light on the relationships. We have focused on key pieces of recent British research, but we have also discussed relevant American work. This review is restricted to an examination of the links between drug use and property crime. This is because debate in the UK currently revolves around the impact of drug use on crimes such as burglary, shoplifting, robbery and other theft. We have not examined links with violent crime. This is not to deny that some specific drugs may facilitate violence - and others may inhibit it (Anglin Dobinson Harrison Jarvis & Parker, 1989). Nor should one ignore the systemic violence associated with some forms of drug distributio... Free Essays on Drugs And Crime Free Essays on Drugs And Crime Around four million people use illicit drugs each year. Most illicit drug use is relatively controlled 'recreational' use of cannabis and ecstasy. People who try illicit drugs are more likely than others to commit other forms of law breaking. However there is no persuasive evidence of any causal linkage between drug use and property crime for the vast majority of this group. A very small proportion of users - less than 5% of the total - have chaotic lifestyles involving dependent use of heroin, crack/cocaine and other drugs. An even smaller proportion of users - perhaps around 100,000 people - finance their use through crime. The majority of those who steal to buy drugs were involved in crime before their drug use became a problem for them. This group of criminally involved problem users commits very large amounts of shoplifting, burglary and other crime to finance drug purchases. If appropriate drug treatment is given to this group, they reduce their offending levels. There are links between some forms of illicit drug use and crime is obvious. The precise nature of these links is not. Widely differing claims are made about the extent to which crime is 'drug-driven'. This paper assembles research evidence that can shed light on the relationships. We have focused on key pieces of recent British research, but we have also discussed relevant American work. This review is restricted to an examination of the links between drug use and property crime. This is because debate in the UK currently revolves around the impact of drug use on crimes such as burglary, shoplifting, robbery and other theft. We have not examined links with violent crime. This is not to deny that some specific drugs may facilitate violence - and others may inhibit it (Anglin Dobinson Harrison Jarvis & Parker, 1989). Nor should one ignore the systemic violence associated with some forms of drug distributio...

Free Essays on Guerrilla Marketing Weapons

, colors and designs that inspire confidence. Differentiate yourself from your competitors. 2) Take advantage of research studies for determining your market. Don’t reinvent the wheel or spend a lot of money. There is lots of free information if you know where to look, for example; Internet, public libraries, local chamber of commerce, associations in your industry or a reputable research organization. 3) A customer mailing list of people who have done business with you is one of the most valuable weapons you can accumulate, as it gets larger over time. Savvy marketers spend 60% if their time talking to satisfied customers. I can personally vouch for this one; customers are easier to sell to if they have bought from you before. Another section of the book I felt was very important revolves around attitudes-mindsets. Levinson states, â€Å"attitudes will win the game or lose it†. I believe this to be very true because you market your business through your actions. Here are a few points that really stood out. 1) The way your customers are treated whe... Free Essays on Guerrilla Marketing Weapons Free Essays on Guerrilla Marketing Weapons â€Å"Guerrilla Marketing Weapons† The book I have chosen to summarize is â€Å"Guerrilla Marketing Weapons†, written by Jay Conrad Levinson and published by Penguin Group. This book targets prospective and existing small businesses, although, larger businesses could pick-up many commonly overlooked marketing weapons that Levinson sites. The information within it outlines 100 affordable marketing methods for maximizing profits, 50 of these methods costs no money (or very little) to implement. The book begins with important points for a start-up company identifying typical â€Å"textbook† marketing concepts. Other than the typical, I found a few key items interesting. 1) Customer perception is a driving force for anyone to buy from you. This starts with name, logo, theme, business cards, order forms, quality, location, dà ©cor, attire and attitude. Clearly convey your identity through words, colors and designs that inspire confidence. Differentiate yourself from your competitors. 2) Take advantage of research studies for determining your market. Don’t reinvent the wheel or spend a lot of money. There is lots of free information if you know where to look, for example; Internet, public libraries, local chamber of commerce, associations in your industry or a reputable research organization. 3) A customer mailing list of people who have done business with you is one of the most valuable weapons you can accumulate, as it gets larger over time. Savvy marketers sp end 60% if their time talking to satisfied customers. I can personally vouch for this one; customers are easier to sell to if they have bought from you before. Another section of the book I felt was very important revolves around attitudes-mindsets. Levinson states, â€Å"attitudes will win the game or lose it†. I believe this to be very true because you market your business through your actions. Here are a few points that really stood out. 1) The way your customers are treated whe...

Monetary Policy (Macroeconomics) Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Monetary Policy (Macroeconomics) - Research Paper Example One of the impacts could result from a spike in Treasury yield, creating a need to raise government spending. This has a direct impact on social development as it involves spending more tax-payer’s money (http://www.ny.frb.org, n.p). In relation to societal issues impacted by the policy, the article indicates that such changes could spike up credit excesses leading to a scenario of financial instability as witnessed during the period of the Great Recession (http://www.ny.frb.org, n.p). The financial instability could be as a result of jeopardized debt ratios as well as increased amount of internal debts. On the other hand, scaling back the Federal Reserve’s Economic value has a great impact on Emerging Market Economies (EME’s). To begin with, it would lead to the reduction of the Federal Reserve’s Liquidity Cushions on foreign exchange creating a scenario whereby foreign investors withdraw their investment capitals. In addition, it would lead to a scenario of jeopardized financial stability within foreign markets thus creating vulnerability in their levels of development (http://www.ny.frb.org, n.p). "U.S. Monetary Policy and Emerging Market Economies - Federal Reserve Bank of New York." U.S. Monetary Policy and Emerging Market Economies - Federal Reserve Bank of New York. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2014.

Ethics of the Sale of Body Parts Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 2

Ethics of the Sale of Body Parts - Essay Example These laws prohibit the sale of body organs but allow individuals to voluntarily donate their body organs (parts). The Uniform and anatomical Act is the most ancient law having been formulated in 1968, to regulate the national distribution and donation of body parts. This act offers individuals an opportunity to voluntarily donate their whole body or part of it, and hospitals and medical institutions have an opportunity to accept such donations (Organ Donation Law, 2012). This law allows citizens of sound mind and who are of legal age to engage in voluntary organ and tissue donation (Organ Donation Law, 2012). According to the law, individual who expect to donate their body parts, must record their intensions most probably in a will (Organ Donation Law, 2012). The donation form should be signed by the potential donor in the presence of two other people. In case the dying patient is unable to write, he or she can indicate his or her intensions orally but in the presence of at least tw o people or; he or she can inform the attending doctor. However, the attending doctor cannot perform the actual organ removal or transplantation of the donated organ. In addition, close family members or guardians have a limited legal mandate to allow their dying patient’s body parts to be donated. ... , research and educational institutions; or individuals who meet all the requirements for receiving the organ or body part(s), the permission to accept donated organs. Ethical issues associated with legalization of the sale of body parts (Phadke & Anadh, 2002). Exploits the poor The legalization of the sale of body parts will lead to situations that exploit the poor. Middlemen involved in the sale of body parts will end up obtaining body parts for sale from unsuspecting poor individuals at a cheaper price. With an increase in the demand for body parts, such middle men may end up selling the body parts at a much higher price. Jeopardizes human dignity The sale of body parts is an act that reduces human dignity. It equates the human body to money. It is morally wrong to exchange human body parts for money. Commercializes the human body Commercialization of the human body is an immoral act. The human life and body are God given and cannot be commercialized. Deters altruism retarding the living-related and cadaver transplant programs The legalization of the sale of body parts will discourage individuals with intentions of donating their body parts to other persons in need. Such individuals may feel discouraged in case they realize that their voluntarily donated body part was commercialized. This will profoundly affect current cadaver transplant programs. Goes against medical professional ethics Medical professional are charged with the responsibility of safeguarding human life. Medical ethics does not allow for the commercialization of the human body. Since the legalization of the sale of body parts will allow its commercialization, it will have gone against the medical code of conduct. Ethical Theories: legalization of the sale of body parts Ethical code of conduct lies