Greenwashing and Copyright Infringement in Advertising Strategies

Greenwashing and Copyright Infringement in Advertising Strategies 

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the use of artistic creations with environmental appeal in advertising campaigns. These practices aim to convey a message of sustainability and ecological awareness values highly regarded by newer generations. However, environmental responsibility is sometimes no more than a false display of virtue. In many cases, the indiscriminate use of third-party intellectual property violates the most basic rights of its creators.

Pardon the pun, but not everything is “green and rosy.” This article explores how these practices affect artists, consumers, and the advertising industry itself.

What Is Greenwashing?
Greenwashing refers to marketing techniques that create a false impression of environmental responsibility. Companies often use imagery of forests, oceans, and other natural elements to suggest their products or services are sustainable even when their practices harm the environment.

This tactic not only misleads consumers but also diverts attention from truly sustainable solutions.

Copyright Infringement in Environmental Art
Many artists create works to raise awareness about environmental issues, often producing iconic imagery that contributes to public debate. In today’s information age, such content spreads quickly and gains wide resonance.

It’s no surprise, then, that large corporations set their eyes on this artistic language after all, it represents a niche market and an entirely new and engaged consumer audience, regardless of whether these brands genuinely align with the ideals being expressed.

Such practices not only infringe upon creators’ legal rights but also distort the original message of the artworks, often associating them with brands that have questionable records on sustainability.

Let’s Revisit Some Cases
A well-known case occurred in 2021, when a major European retail chain was accused of using a photograph of the Amazon rainforest without permission. The image, taken by a renowned Brazilian photographer, was used in a campaign promoting supposedly sustainable paper products. However, the company faced criticism for lacking proper forest management certification.

The photographer sued the French chain for copyright infringement. The case was widely covered by outlets such as The Guardian and Le Monde. It ended in a multi-million-dollar settlement, with the campaign pulled from circulation and a public apology issued highlighting the importance of respecting intellectual property rights and corporate transparency.

Another recent case involved a global campaign by a famous soft drink brand, which reused without permission an environmental-themed graffiti piece by a well-known American street artist. Originally painted on a wall in Los Angeles, the artwork addressed ocean pollution.

The company scanned the graffiti and used it on plastic bottle labels, ignoring the broader criticism surrounding plastic overuse. The artist filed a lawsuit, resulting in a legal settlement that required the labels to be withdrawn and financial compensation to be paid.

Finally, although the next example doesn’t involve direct copyright infringement, many readers may recall bank or telecom campaigns promoting their transition to digital services using empowered slogans like “save trees by using less paper,” accompanied by beautiful landscapes or romantic music.

As we know, while digitalization may reduce paper consumption, it often ignores the environmental impact of producing electronic devices and the rising energy demands of the digital world. These campaigns overlook the paper industry’s sustainability advancements and promote a false equivalence between paper usage and rampant deforestation.

Impacts and Implications
These and many other cases illustrate how greenwashing harms both artists and consumers.

For creators, the losses are twofold: financial, due to unauthorized use of their work, and symbolic, through the distortion of their message.

For consumers, trust in brands is eroded when the supposed sustainable practices prove to be misleading or exaggerated.

How to Combat These Practices

1. Education and awareness: Consumers must learn to spot greenwashing and critically assess corporate messaging.
2. Regulation and enforcement: Regulatory bodies and civil society must increase oversight of advertising, ensuring companies substantiate their sustainability claims.
3. Legal action: Artists should seek legal support to defend their copyright and prevent misuse of their work.
4. Ethical corporate practices: Brands should pursue genuine collaborations with artists, respecting intellectual property and promoting transparency in campaigns.

Conclusion

The indiscriminate use of environmental art in corporate campaigns not only harms artists but also undermines awareness efforts around urgent environmental issues. Combating greenwashing is essential to protect artistic integrity and foster corporate responsibility.

Copyright infringement is a widely condemned practice subject to legal remedy. Brazilian, American, and European laws all contain specific provisions to ensure full protection of intellectual creations.

Whether authorized or not, artists are not always informed of the context, purpose, or potential backlash associated with linking their socially conscious work to a brand’s purely financial goals.

Without sounding too pessimistic, it is up to artists to remain vigilant over their intangible assets; to consumers, a healthy skepticism of convenient displays of virtue; and to companies, besides basic decency, a fear of the law. An implicit system of checks and balances.

Tanderson Danilo Schmitt Morales
Legal Coordinator of the Brazilian Book Chamber
Specialist in Copyright Law, Cultural Management