Is there a connection between Monzo and SumUp?
I’ve noticed a lot of adverts for SumUp on Facebook clearly showing a Monzo card in use. Other adverts for them show a nondescript card which is clearly a dummy one. But some of them show a card which is clearly a Monzo one as below.
If nothing else, I think that it would have been polite to ask first. (I’m assuming they didn’t).
Exactly, why is it bad? 
When you release a publicly available product it should be perfectly acceptable for anyone to show it off in its intended function, aka paying for things.
Not to mention, it’s free marketing for Monzo anyway. 
Free marketing if it’s a good product. But negative press for SumUp could mean inadvertent negative press for Monzo.
Also you can’t really see the Monzo logo, so you’d only really recognise it if you’re already a Monzo user.
And it’s a prepaid card.
If they can get that to work I’d be impressed
SumUp doesn’t claim to own the card and clearly acknowledges that the card belongs to Monzo and that they are selling the card reader. Monzo is being used as a demonstration tool which doesn’t show Monzo in a bad light. I see no one is complaining about the iPhone X in the photograph. I see no problem using the Monzo card.
You aren’t allowed to use a trade mark or logo or name in an advert without permission.
Believe me, I’ve spent many hours Photoshopping them out.
But it does raise an interesting question.
Did they obtain Monzo or Apples permission to use their products within the advert? Presumably the same rule applies for both?
I’m sure that Apple wouldn’t have given permission.
Is it even enforceable?
If we go down this route then we wouldn’t even be able to post a random picture of Instagram, because pretty much all the things around us (in the street, at home, etc) have some kind of trademarks (or their looks/shape itself is a trademark).
I’m guessing it’s only if something commercial is involved? Or when creators turn a blind eye to some things if it’s not for profit? Like there’s fair use with music, and you can use up to 40% or something of an original creation for a parody
You can post photos of virtually anything to Instagram. As long as they aren’t used for advertising, you’ll be fine.
If one of your Instagram posts containing copyrighted or trademarked material were to be used to advertise a product with your consent, then the publisher of the advert is liable.
If it’s without your consent, the water is muddier, but basically they should pay you.
All of the above applies only to photos used for commercial purposes. There are different rules for photos used for editorial purposes.
Tbh Instagram is notoriously horrible with enforcing proper procedures for reporting copyright violations. I have several friends who are artists and their works are frequently downloaded off Tumblr and reposted to Instagram without permission or credit.
Reporting it for copyright violation can only be done by the creator themselves and you have to fill out your full name/ address etc. which people are understandably reluctant to do, especially if they’re from Japan where copyright laws are enforced a lot more- fanartists on Pixiv sometimes get penalised by the animation group for art international fans have downloaded and resold in the form of shirts/ stickers etc.
Basically, Instagram is crap at protecting you if you actually own the image.
You can extend that to all social media companies. They break (or facilitate the breaking of) copyright laws with virtual impunity. You need deep pockets and a lot of time to take them on.
This isn’t limited to copyright infringement by the way - I have seen many outright scammy and illegal adverts on Facebook that either lead to malware or demanding payment for a service that literally cannot be true (and had plenty of bots/compromised accounts “liking” the ad and posting comments about how it really works).
Despite reporting them as spam/illegal/etc nothing gets done despite how obviously fake it looked.
on its way
