[wadiz] Transparency Report Vol. 13

01 · Detection

Report Received

A limited-edition merchandise project utilizing Hae*Porter IP was about to launch, touting an “official license,” when a report was received alleging issues with the licensing rights.

02 · Review

Verification of Rights Scope

We verified whether the contract granted only distribution rights or also included the authority to use the IP in advertising and label it as “officially licensed.”

03 · Action

Postponement of Launch and Acquisition of Statement of Representations and Warranties

We postponed the launch of the main funding round until the verification was complete, and proceeded with the project only after receiving a statement and warranty from the relevant parties confirming the scope of the license and the legality of the marketing content.

CASE 01 Detailed Case Study

We verified the official license and the scope of rights.

Just as a limited-edition merchandise project utilizing Hae*Porter IP was about to launch under the banner of an “official license,” a report was received alleging issues with the licensing rights. The “distribution rights” to resell genuine products and the authority to directly use the IP in advertising while labeling it as an “official license” are two separate matters.

Wadiz postponed the launch and meticulously verified whether the license agreement formally covered sales in Korea, crowdfunding channels, and the specific products for sale. We then proceeded with the project only after securing documents from both the distributor and the maker guaranteeing the legitimacy of the license. Even though the verification process took time, we prioritized creating an environment where supporters could participate with peace of mind.

Through post-launch monitoring, we discovered that a project was using another person’s photo and name verbatim in a user review. We found no evidence that the individual had consented to the use of their image for advertising or promotional purposes.

Another person’s face and name cannot be used in advertising without their consent. Even when presented as a review, using the likeness of a person depicted therein without the rights holder’s consent may constitute an infringement of portrait rights. wadiz requested that the maker either provide proof of the right to use the image or remove it; the maker complied by deleting all photos of the individuals in the review and anonymizing their names.

Through post-launch monitoring, we confirmed that a beauty project was making claims that asserted immediate efficacy and results, such as “improvement after just one use.” While this phrasing could be interpreted by consumers as indicating actual performance, no objective evidence was provided to support it.

To highlight efficacy or effects, objective evidence proving them is mandatory. Making unfounded claims about effects can lead consumers to misinterpret them as actual performance, which may violate the Labeling and Advertising Act. wadiz requested the submission of supporting documentation for the claim, and the maker provided evidence to substantiate it, thereby verifying the basis for the claim.