You may see similar examples on the site for responsible use of protected land   

designed to protect nature areas from “influencers” of social media.  

Absurd influencers ruin nature

"So I always ask myself, is it about likes and themselves

or do they really care about the planet and nature?"

Wish you weren’t here

Instagram ruining the great outdoors

How Instagram is destroying natural wonders

We’ve had enough of instagramers destroying our nature

And many more...

A watershed moment and no-return point :

an illustrative case of deleterious effects of social media’s self-promotional

campaigns in nature protected areas, with legal consequences:


A risky promotional ice water swimming challenge was organized in the lake by “influencers” (“a person with the ability to influence potential buyers of a product or service by promoting or recommending the items on social media”) and a tour operator. In the national park closed at that time (23.01.2021) by the regional Conaf resolution 57/2020. With little attention paid to the safety rules for such "challenges". In the midst of the pandemic, without respecting any Covid health protocols in force. With no communication from a lake where several lethal accidents occurred in the last years. The accompanying TVN crew filming the event was performing filmmaking in private properties without any contact with nor authorisation by the landowners. The “event” in the lake and glacier, which has neither habilitated public access nor professional rescue coverage, has been (see below) widely and continuously promoted on social networks and in the mass media (first broadcast: TVN 10 July 2021), including the publication of inadequate information about the area.


Legal issues, seeking legal and other damages: Tita Ureta , Barbara hernandez swimmer, @barbarellah , @barbarehlla_h, Leones

  1. • The obvious: The filming team was filming in obvious contravention of the basic norms for professional/commercial filming of the legislation on audio-visual services and audiovisual law. Legal actions under civil and audiovisual law are still on.

  2. • Commercials were were filmed in private land, with no contact with

or authorisation by the local landowners.

  1. • Product of the unauthorised commercial filming was sold through

the production company, issues of  fraudulent use of property of others

and of disposing of their property against their will were raised under civil law procedures.

How will the usufruct be reimbursed to the landowners?

  1. • Issues of payment of reparations and compensation to the wronged landowners for revenues from filming and advertisements; losses for private landowners and farmers can be calculate in monetary terms, unjustified enrichment issues. Potential suing for the proceeds of the movie.

  2. • Copyright issues: the image of the property of others was sold under own presumed copyright (of the influencers and the tour operator). Trading license issues: under which license the use of property was traded?

  3. • Taxation issues: General issue of taxation of influencers, for profits made, including sponsorships. No contract was concluded between the landowners and the influencers and the tour operator, who paid the taxes?

  4. • Deceptive advertising: false information about the tourism destination.

  5. • Commercial messages on social networks must be marked as advertisements.

  6. • Generating the risk of spreading pathological agents in violation of an order issued by the health authority at times of epidemic is a criminal offense under national law.

  7. • The publicity of this unacceptable, to say the least, promotional event and illicit filming, which resulted in a legal case, is continuing.

Turning no-return point for legal matters

Our Social Media might be destroying the worldʼs most amazing places ;

New social media guidance;   

www.iamag.co/huawei-gnu-gnu/

2023: France’s New Influencer Law

Travel influencers sued for deceptive advertising                                                  

Socio-ecological footprint of the event:

  1. • The value of the land so far preserved, the joint efforts to protect the nature of the valley and its image were exported and sold to and by external players of the media market, through a typical “greenwashing”. No ecosystem services locally paid.

  2. • One of the area of the filming is specially protected for its fragile biodiversity, under threat now.

  3. • Increased anthropogenic stress through the interest of mass tourism and traffic to the closed sector of the national park through private rural land, an increase of the number of public and commercial events.

  4. • The small, mainly agricultural, landowners of the valley see their property and other rights and interests ignored, their communal resources exploited. Previously done road repairs on a road used by the community are removed now to prevent further events of this type.

  5. • For the nature protection project: the substantial efforts deployed to give the still vulnerable nature and wildlife a chance to regenerate are compromised by exposure, disrespect and misuse of resources.

  6. • Probably compromising the UNESCO biosphere reserve status: staging “influencers” are not listed as a management tool in the management plan for the LSRNP and the biosphere reserve. .

  7. • In order to perpetrate this “initiative” an exclusive contract  was concluded.