Does your company employ a Charlie Sheen? A Charlie Sheen employee is one of your company's best rainmakers who generates huge profits along with huge amounts of publicity for your company via traditional means or social media. Some of the media may be positive but other press may be negative.
A Charlie Sheen may be considered a wild card (#winning, #Tigerblood) in that he may act in a manner that nobody may envision. Some of his actions may be self-destructive while others may be just bizarre. However much trouble a Charlie Sheen may cause, he adds huge revenues to your bottom line and creates much needed buzz for your company. Therefore, finding a way to get along with your company's Charlie Sheen to continue the win-win economic relationship may be in the best interests of all parties involved.
The real Charlie Sheen is an American Actor who has been in the public eye for more than 30 years. He is the son of famed actor Martin Sheen and his brother is Emilo Estevez. Some of Charlie Sheen's work includes major roles in the movies Platoon and Wall Street, and in the television sitcom Spin City. However, during his life, Charlie Sheen has had many ups and downs reportedly due to substance abuse. Since 2003, Charlie Sheen has been the main star of CBS' highly rated situation comedy Two and A Half Men. The sitcom has been ranked in the top 20 for each of its 7 seasons and it has been in syndication since 2007. The producer of Two and a Half Men is Chuck Lorre.
In the Social Media Age, differences between employees and their employers can easily go viral. In the Charlie Sheen vs. Chuck Lorre heavyweight fight some Hollywood insiders believe that Lorre exacerbated the situation by stating negative personal opinions about Sheen on vanity cards that are placed at the end of a television episode. In addition to putting his personal opinions on the vanity cards, Lorre also created a website: www.chucklorre.com that contains all of his vanity cards.
Last week, Two and a Half Men was canceled for the rest of this television season allegedly because of Sheen's rants against Lorre and CBS/Warner Bros. Over the past few days, Sheen has stated he may sue CBS/Warner Bros. for hundreds of millions of dollars. Sheen has hired one of Hollywood's top lawyers and appears willing to move forward with legal action. A letter on Radaronline.com may even be the actual correspondence that Sheen's lawyer sent to CBS/Warner Bros.
The bottom line is that employers should not create a hostile work environment for their employees. The generally accepted definition of a hostile work environment may soon include the creation of social media posts that denigrate employees. On March 1, 2011, Sheen created a Twitter account www.twitter.com/charliesheen and within 24 hours attracted more than a million followers. Therefore, regardless of whether you agree with Sheen's behavior, he still commands a huge audience and has great entertainment appeal. In addition, Sheen appears ready, willing, and able to return to work. Unless Sheen's employment contract contains a well-defined morals clause and Sheen has breached it or another contract clause, Sheen may be entitled to the rest of the money owed to him under his contract.
Social Media has changed conventional wisdom in business and law and every company must be aware of the legal issues inherent with social media usage. It is too early to tell if CBS/Warner Bros./Lorre will apologize to Sheen while licking his feet but it would not surprise me if we get at least one more season of Two and A Half Men with Charlie Sheen. As they say, "there's no business like show business."
To learn more about the legal, business, and entertainment ramifications of social media usage you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label Social Networking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Networking. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Facebook Acts As An Alibi For A Brooklyn, New York Teenager
Social Media is being used everyday by the police and prosecutors as evidence in court. Up until now, Social Media and Social Networking usage has been primarily used as evidence against defendants. However, in what may be the first highly publicized defense usuage, a Brooklyn, New York teenager was able to utilize Facebook as an alibi when he was accused of a crime.
According to the The New York Times, the teenager was incorrectly identified by a victim as a robbery suspect. Fortunately, the teenager was an active Facebook user and was on Facebook at his family's home computer at the same time that the alleged crime occurred. Due to the electronic evidence from the Facebook post, prosecutors dropped the charges and the teenager was freed from Riker's Island, one of the most dangerous prisons in the country.
Some skeptics may point out that someone else may have used the teenager's account to make the post to create an alibi. And others may state that a savvy techie can figure out a way to be in two places at once. That is always the possibility in any case. However, the bottom line is that Social Media is here to stay and police, prosecutors, judges, juries, and defense attorneys need to learn how to incorporate it into the U.S. Justice System.
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
According to the The New York Times, the teenager was incorrectly identified by a victim as a robbery suspect. Fortunately, the teenager was an active Facebook user and was on Facebook at his family's home computer at the same time that the alleged crime occurred. Due to the electronic evidence from the Facebook post, prosecutors dropped the charges and the teenager was freed from Riker's Island, one of the most dangerous prisons in the country.
Some skeptics may point out that someone else may have used the teenager's account to make the post to create an alibi. And others may state that a savvy techie can figure out a way to be in two places at once. That is always the possibility in any case. However, the bottom line is that Social Media is here to stay and police, prosecutors, judges, juries, and defense attorneys need to learn how to incorporate it into the U.S. Justice System.
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Facebook Sued For Allegedly Violating the Video Privacy Protection Act
Social Media website Facebook was recently sued along with Blockbuster for breaking the Video Privacy Protection Act (USC Title 18 Section 2710) because Facebook was making some type of public notation every time a Texas woman was renting a video from Blockbuster. Apparently, Facebook and Blockbuster had or have some type of partnership that involves an information sharing agreement that allowed video rental information to be shared without the Facebook user's authorization or ability to opt out.
Facebook's information sharing problem was partly due to its Beacon Advertising System that is supposedly being discontinued. Beacon was initially designed as an opt out instead of an opt in system. Therefore, Facebook users needed to be extremely vigilant to keep their personal information private.
The proliferation of social media and social networking sites has made it difficult to keep one's personal details private. Unfortunately, unless there is some type of consumer backlash that forces Congress to pass strong legislation that sets an enforcement mechanism that includes stiff penalties, this type of information sharing will dramatically increase in the near future.
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Facebook's information sharing problem was partly due to its Beacon Advertising System that is supposedly being discontinued. Beacon was initially designed as an opt out instead of an opt in system. Therefore, Facebook users needed to be extremely vigilant to keep their personal information private.
The proliferation of social media and social networking sites has made it difficult to keep one's personal details private. Unfortunately, unless there is some type of consumer backlash that forces Congress to pass strong legislation that sets an enforcement mechanism that includes stiff penalties, this type of information sharing will dramatically increase in the near future.
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Employers Are Using Social Media to Reject Job Applicants
The current economic climate has been extremely brutal across the country. In many industries, a paradigm shift has occurred and thousands of jobs that have been cut will never re-appear when the economy recovers. Those companies that are hiring have a large pool of candidates to choose from. However, having the "pick of the litter" is not good enough for some employers. According to an article on MSNBC.com, some employers are not just reviewing the information that an applicant has provided, but they are also diving deep into the candidate's social media background to find people to contact that may have some "dirt" on a candidate. This is only a breach of protocol from the normal process and not illegal. However, some companies are now requiring as part of the interview process that a candidate sign a waiver not to sue if a former boss or a social media contact disparages a candidate. While the former is just sneaky, the later is downright disgusting and should be against the law.
People who need a job will sign almost anything when they are in a vulnerable position. A waiver may provide immunity to an "off-list" reference to say anything about the candidate whether true or not. When the reference is someone a candidate has chosen there usually is not much to worry about. However, this type of waiver may be forced upon a candidate for every single "friend" or "connection" that a person has in their social media accounts.
I am generally against Congress interfering with our daily lives. However, this is the type of situation if allowed to become a generally accepted business practice could undermine people's ability to obtain a job or even keep a job. Therefore, before this type of practice becomes widespread, Congress needs to step in to stop it dead in its tracks.
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
People who need a job will sign almost anything when they are in a vulnerable position. A waiver may provide immunity to an "off-list" reference to say anything about the candidate whether true or not. When the reference is someone a candidate has chosen there usually is not much to worry about. However, this type of waiver may be forced upon a candidate for every single "friend" or "connection" that a person has in their social media accounts.
I am generally against Congress interfering with our daily lives. However, this is the type of situation if allowed to become a generally accepted business practice could undermine people's ability to obtain a job or even keep a job. Therefore, before this type of practice becomes widespread, Congress needs to step in to stop it dead in its tracks.
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Details In The New FTC Endorsements and Testimonial Rules May Curb False Product Testimonial Claims But It Will Create Confusion
The Federal Trade Commission just released its final guidelines governing the use of edorsements and testimonials in advertising. Implementing updated rules for the first time since 1980 is a great idea. A lot has changed since the Carter administration. In particular, the Internet has supplanted television, radio, and printed newspapers as the most important media communication tool. However, upon closer review of the new rules, it appears that some of the rules are beneficial, while others are ill conceived, difficult to enforce, and create more problems than then solve.
I recently reviewed the text of Federal Register Notice 73 FR 72374 that was published last year. This notice discussed proposed changes to the regulations governing endorsements and advertisements. The new guidelines published in 16 CFR Part 255 are subject to go into effect on December 1, 2009. Under the new rules, bloggers will now have to disclose if they are receiving monetary incentives or payment in kind to write about a product or service. Additionally, celebrities will now be required to disclose if they have any economic ties to a product or service if they promote a product it on a talk show or via social media. I am in favor of the spirit of these rules because it will inform consumers about any possible conflicts of interest by those who are giving testimonials. Unfortunately, the rules appear to be intentionally broad and ambiguous and therefore they may cause more problems than they solve.
In addition, as part of the overhaul, there is a less publicized rule regarding celebrity endorsements that I like to call the Entertainment Lawyer Employment Act. Under this new rule, if a celebrity stars in an advertisement and reads a script that misleads the public about a product or a service, the celebrity may be personally liable along with the company who hired the celebrity. This new rule will force entertainment lawyers to include language in endorsement deals that requires advertisers to cover any attorney fees an endorser may incur related to the endorsement.
16 CFR Part 255 states, "[t]he addition of new Section 255.1 (d) and the new examples featuring celebrities, does not create new liability for celebrities, but serves merely to let them (and their advisors) know about the potential liability associated with their endorsement activities." I have to disagree with this assertion because it opens the door for celebrities to be held personally responsible for the information in their paid endorsements.
If you read example 4 on 73 FR 72391, you will understand the ridiculousness of the above statement about the rule. The rule places an unfair burden on celebrities and actors to ensure that the content of an advertisement is not misleading. This burden should only be with the company that is making the claim and not an actor. In the example that the FTC provides, a celebrity endorser is pitching a chicken roasting system. During the commercial's taping, the celebrity watches the roasting system cook 5 chickens incorrectly. However, the script calls for the celebrity to state, "if you want the perfect chicken every time, in just 30 minutes, this is the product you need." The celebrity follows the script as required by his or her contract and under the new rules the celebrity is subject to liability along with the advertiser for misrepresentation. The rationale given is that, "a significant percentage of consumers are likely to believe the celebrity's statements represent his own views even though he is reading from a script."
I have no problem with the advertiser being liable for intentional misrepresentations, but holding an actor, celebrity, professional athlete, or paid endorser liable also over reaches. This new rule may force paid endorsers to read scientific journals or memorize the Encyclopedia Britannica to ensure that their statements about products they endorse are true. Additionally, it may require specialized insurance to cover any claims that may arise from a celebrity endorsement. If a significant percentage of consumers in our country believe everything that comes out of a celebrity's mouth we have a bigger problem on our hands that no guidelines will be able to resolve.
If John Madden states, "EA Sports Madden NFL Football is the Perfect Football Video Game," he may be liable under the FTC's new rules for misrepresentation. Every Baltimore NFL fan knows this is a false statement because the perfect NFL football video game would have an All-Time Baltimore NFL team that includes both Johnny Unitas and Ray Lewis playing on the same Baltimore NFL team. Until Madden's NFL football game corrects this problem, Mr. Madden and EA Sports cannot claim that Madden NFL Football is the perfect product without incurring liability under the new rule.
Do you now see the ridiculousness of this part of the new guidelines?
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
I recently reviewed the text of Federal Register Notice 73 FR 72374 that was published last year. This notice discussed proposed changes to the regulations governing endorsements and advertisements. The new guidelines published in 16 CFR Part 255 are subject to go into effect on December 1, 2009. Under the new rules, bloggers will now have to disclose if they are receiving monetary incentives or payment in kind to write about a product or service. Additionally, celebrities will now be required to disclose if they have any economic ties to a product or service if they promote a product it on a talk show or via social media. I am in favor of the spirit of these rules because it will inform consumers about any possible conflicts of interest by those who are giving testimonials. Unfortunately, the rules appear to be intentionally broad and ambiguous and therefore they may cause more problems than they solve.
In addition, as part of the overhaul, there is a less publicized rule regarding celebrity endorsements that I like to call the Entertainment Lawyer Employment Act. Under this new rule, if a celebrity stars in an advertisement and reads a script that misleads the public about a product or a service, the celebrity may be personally liable along with the company who hired the celebrity. This new rule will force entertainment lawyers to include language in endorsement deals that requires advertisers to cover any attorney fees an endorser may incur related to the endorsement.
16 CFR Part 255 states, "[t]he addition of new Section 255.1 (d) and the new examples featuring celebrities, does not create new liability for celebrities, but serves merely to let them (and their advisors) know about the potential liability associated with their endorsement activities." I have to disagree with this assertion because it opens the door for celebrities to be held personally responsible for the information in their paid endorsements.
If you read example 4 on 73 FR 72391, you will understand the ridiculousness of the above statement about the rule. The rule places an unfair burden on celebrities and actors to ensure that the content of an advertisement is not misleading. This burden should only be with the company that is making the claim and not an actor. In the example that the FTC provides, a celebrity endorser is pitching a chicken roasting system. During the commercial's taping, the celebrity watches the roasting system cook 5 chickens incorrectly. However, the script calls for the celebrity to state, "if you want the perfect chicken every time, in just 30 minutes, this is the product you need." The celebrity follows the script as required by his or her contract and under the new rules the celebrity is subject to liability along with the advertiser for misrepresentation. The rationale given is that, "a significant percentage of consumers are likely to believe the celebrity's statements represent his own views even though he is reading from a script."
I have no problem with the advertiser being liable for intentional misrepresentations, but holding an actor, celebrity, professional athlete, or paid endorser liable also over reaches. This new rule may force paid endorsers to read scientific journals or memorize the Encyclopedia Britannica to ensure that their statements about products they endorse are true. Additionally, it may require specialized insurance to cover any claims that may arise from a celebrity endorsement. If a significant percentage of consumers in our country believe everything that comes out of a celebrity's mouth we have a bigger problem on our hands that no guidelines will be able to resolve.
If John Madden states, "EA Sports Madden NFL Football is the Perfect Football Video Game," he may be liable under the FTC's new rules for misrepresentation. Every Baltimore NFL fan knows this is a false statement because the perfect NFL football video game would have an All-Time Baltimore NFL team that includes both Johnny Unitas and Ray Lewis playing on the same Baltimore NFL team. Until Madden's NFL football game corrects this problem, Mr. Madden and EA Sports cannot claim that Madden NFL Football is the perfect product without incurring liability under the new rule.
Do you now see the ridiculousness of this part of the new guidelines?
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
U.S. Secret Service Requests That Facebook Remove a Poll Asking Whether President Obama Should Be Assassinated
The U.S. Secret Service is investigating a poll on social media website Facebook that asked whether President Obama should be assassinated. Facebook complied with the Secret Service's request to take down the poll and now the Secret Service is investigating the creator of the poll to determine the intent behind its creation.
I understand the Secret Service's concerns regarding keeping the President and his family safe. In 1995, while attending The George Washington University, I woke up one day and the Secret Service without any announcement decided to permanently close down Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House due to security concerns. This occurred two years after the first attack on the World Trade Center and soon after the Oklahoma City bombing. These tragedies along with several other incidents made the Secret Service reassess the security measures in place to protect the President and the First Family.
I have mixed feelings about the Secret Service getting involved in this matter. I think the Secret Service should do all it can to protect the President and his family. However, my question is where do we draw the line in determining what is acceptable free speech under the 1st Amendment? There are many opinions
that I find distasteful and moronic; in particular, some opinions from members of my own extended family. Even though I may not agree with an opinion, I agree that everyone has a right to his or her own opinion and ideas.
Most interactive web sites have a Terms of Service/Terms of Usage section that discusses how the site can be utilized by its users. If a user is violating a web site's policies, the user can be barred from the website and the user's posts can be removed. However, I am not in favor of the executive branch of the government determining what is acceptable speech. In general, the legislative branch of our government creates the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch determines if a law is constitutional and how it may apply. These checks and balances have generally worked for more than 200 years.
This type of censorship by the Secret Service or other law enforcement agencies will increase with the rise in popularity of social media. I predict that one day that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case involving censorship of a social media website by the government.
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
I understand the Secret Service's concerns regarding keeping the President and his family safe. In 1995, while attending The George Washington University, I woke up one day and the Secret Service without any announcement decided to permanently close down Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House due to security concerns. This occurred two years after the first attack on the World Trade Center and soon after the Oklahoma City bombing. These tragedies along with several other incidents made the Secret Service reassess the security measures in place to protect the President and the First Family.
I have mixed feelings about the Secret Service getting involved in this matter. I think the Secret Service should do all it can to protect the President and his family. However, my question is where do we draw the line in determining what is acceptable free speech under the 1st Amendment? There are many opinions
that I find distasteful and moronic; in particular, some opinions from members of my own extended family. Even though I may not agree with an opinion, I agree that everyone has a right to his or her own opinion and ideas.
Most interactive web sites have a Terms of Service/Terms of Usage section that discusses how the site can be utilized by its users. If a user is violating a web site's policies, the user can be barred from the website and the user's posts can be removed. However, I am not in favor of the executive branch of the government determining what is acceptable speech. In general, the legislative branch of our government creates the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch determines if a law is constitutional and how it may apply. These checks and balances have generally worked for more than 200 years.
This type of censorship by the Secret Service or other law enforcement agencies will increase with the rise in popularity of social media. I predict that one day that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case involving censorship of a social media website by the government.
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Social Media Law Issues Will Grow Proportionately With Social Media Use
According to the media tracking company, Nielson, Social Media usuage drastically increased this past August compared to a year earlier. This past August, 17 percent of all time spent on the internet was spent doing Social Media related activities compared to only 6 percent the prior August. I predict that as the use of social media grows so will the legal issues that confront its users and society. As with any new technology, it takes some time for the law to evolve and for legal standards to be developed.
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Federal Trade Commission is Planning Privacy Discussions in December
Due to the increasing popularity of social media web sites and the numerous legal issues involved, the Federal Trade Commission is planning to hold a series of discussions regarding privacy issues and social media.
I believe this type of government involvement is long overdue. I am generally against government intervention in the private sector. However, due to the underlying concern for identity theft that is intertwined into this discussion, I believe the FTC's involvement is long overdue.
For those who are interested in submitting written comments or original research regarding this topic you should click on the link to do so. The deadline is November 6th.
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
I believe this type of government involvement is long overdue. I am generally against government intervention in the private sector. However, due to the underlying concern for identity theft that is intertwined into this discussion, I believe the FTC's involvement is long overdue.
For those who are interested in submitting written comments or original research regarding this topic you should click on the link to do so. The deadline is November 6th.
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Even Saying Good Things About Others Online Can Come Back to Haunt You
Due to our litigious society, anything you say, whether it is good or bad has the ability to come back to haunt you. Before Social Media websites become vogue, most people would obtain a written recommendation from a boss and/or ask a colleague or friend to act as a reference. To ensure that a potential hire was being honest about their background, a recruiter or potential employer might contact your former supervisor for verification of your employment.
On LinkedIn, Facebook, and other social media websites, a boss and/or colleague can easily recommend you or become a fan of yours and provide a recommendation for all users to view. In theory this sounds great because it has the potential to cut down on the costs of employment verification and due diligence. However, a problem may arise when an employee is terminated and the official reason provided is poor performance while the boss recently sang the employee's praises on a social media website. This type of conflicting information raises a red flag for labor lawyers.
Therefore, the best policy is to be reserved in your social media communications with your employees, supervisors, and/or colleagues. If an employee requests a recommendation an employer should feel free to act as personal reference since the employer has the ability to change their mind about the employee/former employee down the road. However, when acting as an online reference, the employer may not have full control over the reference after it has been posted and this lack of control has the potential to cause future potential problems.
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
On LinkedIn, Facebook, and other social media websites, a boss and/or colleague can easily recommend you or become a fan of yours and provide a recommendation for all users to view. In theory this sounds great because it has the potential to cut down on the costs of employment verification and due diligence. However, a problem may arise when an employee is terminated and the official reason provided is poor performance while the boss recently sang the employee's praises on a social media website. This type of conflicting information raises a red flag for labor lawyers.
Therefore, the best policy is to be reserved in your social media communications with your employees, supervisors, and/or colleagues. If an employee requests a recommendation an employer should feel free to act as personal reference since the employer has the ability to change their mind about the employee/former employee down the road. However, when acting as an online reference, the employer may not have full control over the reference after it has been posted and this lack of control has the potential to cause future potential problems.
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)