An appeals court recently ruled that a mother may be banned from posting about her children and ex-husband on Facebook. According to Mycentraljersey.com, "[t]he restriction on what she [the mother] could say on Facebook was imposed after her ex-husband's family and the Hunterdon County Prosecutor's Office argued that the mother's maniacal postings were frightening, saying that they referenced Book of Revelation in the Bible, serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, Satan and Adolf Hitler."
In the initial ruling the judge stated, "You can talk about what you want to talk about, but don't reference (your husband) or the children," The woman claimed that the restriction was a prior restraint.
On the surface, this sounds like a clear cut First Amendment violation; however, it appears that
the court imposed the special condition with the purpose of advancing the mother's rehabilitation. The woman was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was arrested in May 2011 after trying to take her children to Canada in violation of a custody order. She pled guilty to interference with custody and in return it appears that the prosecution dropped kidnapping charges.
The bottom line is that infringing on one's First Amendment rights is a slippery slope. Taking away someone's right to freely express themselves is not something that should be done without weighing other options. It would not surprise me if these types of cases become more commonplace in the future.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label Social Networking Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Networking Law. Show all posts
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Texas Bill To Allow Service of Process Via Facebook
Texas recently introduced a bill that would allow for service of process via Facebook. Texas House Bill 1989 if enacted would make the Lone Star State the first in the United States to allow for service of process via social media as an alternative means of service.
In 2002, a U.S. court approved service of process via email. In 2008, an Australian court allowed for service of process via social media. In February of 2012, I told ABC News that I believe service of process via social media will become a reality in the future.
As I stated on February 25, 2012, the biggest problem with service via social media is authentication. Even though a digital account may appear to belong to a litigant in a judicial proceeding, account authentication is required to ensure that the account belongs to the right person.
I believe service of process via social or digital means will eventually become more common. However, absent the proper safeguards to ensure the right "John Doe" is actually served this method has many challenges.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
In 2002, a U.S. court approved service of process via email. In 2008, an Australian court allowed for service of process via social media. In February of 2012, I told ABC News that I believe service of process via social media will become a reality in the future.
As I stated on February 25, 2012, the biggest problem with service via social media is authentication. Even though a digital account may appear to belong to a litigant in a judicial proceeding, account authentication is required to ensure that the account belongs to the right person.
I believe service of process via social or digital means will eventually become more common. However, absent the proper safeguards to ensure the right "John Doe" is actually served this method has many challenges.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, March 4, 2013
White House Says: Unlocking Cell Phones Should Be Legal
Should it be legal to unlock your cell phone? It was up until earlier this year. However, due to a ruling by the Library of Congress that was based on a new interpretation of the DMCA it is now against the law to unlock your legally bought subsidized cell phone.
Last month, a petition that was started on the White House's web site received more than 100,000 e-signatures to request that that ruling be changed. Today, the White House responded and stated that unlocking cell phones should be legal.
Once a consumer has fulfilled his contractual obligations to a service provider for a subsidized cell phone why shouldn't he be able to utilize his cell phone on another carrier? When someone buys a new car and is finished paying off any outstanding loans on it he is able to generally sell or utilize the vehicle in any manner that suits his purpose. This includes updating the car's engines and internal mechanics. Therefore, why shouldn't cell phone owners have the same rights?
While the White House and the FCC's acknowledgement that this is a matter that may need a legislative resolution is good news; changing the law will take more than a couple of announcements and/or blog posts.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Last month, a petition that was started on the White House's web site received more than 100,000 e-signatures to request that that ruling be changed. Today, the White House responded and stated that unlocking cell phones should be legal.
Once a consumer has fulfilled his contractual obligations to a service provider for a subsidized cell phone why shouldn't he be able to utilize his cell phone on another carrier? When someone buys a new car and is finished paying off any outstanding loans on it he is able to generally sell or utilize the vehicle in any manner that suits his purpose. This includes updating the car's engines and internal mechanics. Therefore, why shouldn't cell phone owners have the same rights?
While the White House and the FCC's acknowledgement that this is a matter that may need a legislative resolution is good news; changing the law will take more than a couple of announcements and/or blog posts.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
U.S. Social Networking Online Protection Act Reintroduced
The Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOPA) was reintroduced today by Congressman Elliot Engel of New York. The bill would ban employers and
schools from being able to request or require that employees, job applicants, students, or student applicants provide access to personal password protected digital accounts.
The bill is a win for businesses, schools, employees, job applicants, student applicants, students, and the right to privacy.
With access comes responsibility. Without access it would be very difficult for an employer or school to be held legally liable for the digital content that an employee or student posts on their personal digital accounts. Therefore, the bill may protect businesses, schools, and taxpayers from tremendous legal liability.
This bill is needed because some companies are approaching employers and schools with the pitch: require your employees and/or students to verify their digital media credentials so we can scan everything they have said online, everything said about them online, and everything their digital connections discuss online. In general, nobody should be required to verify their personal digital credentials/activities/content absent a legal proceeding that requires it. More information will be forthcoming.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
(Full Disclosure: I am working with Congressman Engel's office on this bill.)
With access comes responsibility. Without access it would be very difficult for an employer or school to be held legally liable for the digital content that an employee or student posts on their personal digital accounts. Therefore, the bill may protect businesses, schools, and taxpayers from tremendous legal liability.
This bill is needed because some companies are approaching employers and schools with the pitch: require your employees and/or students to verify their digital media credentials so we can scan everything they have said online, everything said about them online, and everything their digital connections discuss online. In general, nobody should be required to verify their personal digital credentials/activities/content absent a legal proceeding that requires it. More information will be forthcoming.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
(Full Disclosure: I am working with Congressman Engel's office on this bill.)
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Does Prince Harry have a claim for invasion of privacy?
Some naked photos of the United Kingdom's Prince Harry have been leaked online. There are rumors that there is also video of Prince Harry in the buff quietly being shopped to the highest bidder. These photos and the video were allegedly taken in the privacy of Prince Harry's private hotel suite in Las Vegas, Nevada.
In Montesan v. Donrey Media Group, 668 P.2d 1081 (1983), Nevada reiterated that it has impliedly recognized an action for invasion of privacy. According to the Second Restatement of Torts, § 652D (1977), in order to maintain a cause of action for invasion of privacy it must be proven that a public disclosure of private facts has occurred which would be offensive and objectionble to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
Does Prince Harry have an expectation of privacy in his private hotel room? Did Prince Harry give up his right to privacy when he invited others into his personal hotel suite? Could the person(s) who are allegedly shopping these photos and/or videos be charged with state and/or federal crimes? Does Prince Harry have a civil cause of action against the person(s) who shot the video?
In the criminal case against Dharun Ravi for webcasting a sexual encounter that his roommate had with another person in the privacy of their shared Rutgers University dorm room Ravi was found guilty of invasion of privacy. Since people generally have an expectation of privacy in their dorm rooms and own homes should they also have an expectation of privacy in their hotel suites?
How far should this right extend in the Social Media Age?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Does Prince Harry have an expectation of privacy in his private hotel room? Did Prince Harry give up his right to privacy when he invited others into his personal hotel suite? Could the person(s) who are allegedly shopping these photos and/or videos be charged with state and/or federal crimes? Does Prince Harry have a civil cause of action against the person(s) who shot the video?
In the criminal case against Dharun Ravi for webcasting a sexual encounter that his roommate had with another person in the privacy of their shared Rutgers University dorm room Ravi was found guilty of invasion of privacy. Since people generally have an expectation of privacy in their dorm rooms and own homes should they also have an expectation of privacy in their hotel suites?
How far should this right extend in the Social Media Age?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Missouri repeals social media ban aimed at online student teacher interaction
Missouri repealed its recently enacted student-teacher social media ban which prohibited students and teachers from interacting with each other online. I wrote about the law on August 2, 2011 and at the time stated:
"there is a tremendous lack of understanding regarding social media by elected officials across the country. Does Missouri have a law that bans teachers and students from being able to join the same Churches, Mosques, and Synagogues? Does Missouri have a law that bans teachers from interacting with students in activities outside of the school environment?...This new law is an over-reaction and will most likely soon be challenged and eventually overturned."
Missouri did the right thing in repealing the law because it not only infringed on First Amendment rights but it would also be very difficult if not impossible to enforce. When enacting new legislation lawmakers must understand exactly how the law works and how it may affect constitutional rights.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
"there is a tremendous lack of understanding regarding social media by elected officials across the country. Does Missouri have a law that bans teachers and students from being able to join the same Churches, Mosques, and Synagogues? Does Missouri have a law that bans teachers from interacting with students in activities outside of the school environment?...This new law is an over-reaction and will most likely soon be challenged and eventually overturned."
Missouri did the right thing in repealing the law because it not only infringed on First Amendment rights but it would also be very difficult if not impossible to enforce. When enacting new legislation lawmakers must understand exactly how the law works and how it may affect constitutional rights.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Tweet deletion may lead to tampering with evidence charges
May deleting a Tweet and/or sending out false and misleading social media posts result in tampering with evidence charges? In the case against Dharun Rhavi regarding his alleged role in roommate Tyler Clementi's apparent suicide, evidence tampering charges are based upon allegedly deleting a Tweet and creating false and/or misleading social media posts.
Clementi was a freshman at Rutgers University and it is believed he committed suicide last year by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. It is thought that Clementi was so distraught after he found out that Ravi had webcasted a sexual encounter that Clementi had with another man Clementi decided to take his own life.
After law enforcement started to investigate the circumstances surrounding Clementi's death, it is alleged that Ravi tampered with evidence by deleting one or more of his Tweets and making false and/or misleading social media posts in an effort to cover up the allegations that he may have invaded Clementi's privacy.
Deleting Tweets and/or trying to cover up one's online activity is futile. Whether its the Library of Congress preserving public Tweets or Google indexing an old cached version of a website or a post, once something is put online it can never be permanently removed from the Internet.
I believe evidence tampering charges based on social media usage will increase in the future as more people utilize social media and social media becomes a larger part of the judicial process. I have no idea if Ravi was deleting his Tweets to intentionally tamper with evidence of if he was just a scared college freshman who was afraid of the media scrutiny that was surrounding his roommate's death.
This is another example of how one's online activities are just as important, if not more so, than everything done off-line. Unfortunately, it appears that a few clicks of a mouse along with some ill-advised Tweets and other social media posts may have contributed to the suicide of young person.
In the Internet Age, a hidden web cam in the movie American Pie was a funny joke. In the Social Media Age, a hidden web cam is no laughing matter because billions of people may view what is streamed online and this may have unintended consequences.
This tragic case should be a wake up call to restart a national conversation on personal privacy. I believe social media education should be taught starting in elementary school. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) only protects children under the age of 13 so our children should be provided the tools necessary to successfully navigate the Social Media Age before they reach 13 years of age. If the lessons learned from this tragedy are not discussed with our children Tyler Clementi will have died in vain.
To learn how to protect your privacy and your children in the Social Media Age you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Clementi was a freshman at Rutgers University and it is believed he committed suicide last year by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. It is thought that Clementi was so distraught after he found out that Ravi had webcasted a sexual encounter that Clementi had with another man Clementi decided to take his own life.
After law enforcement started to investigate the circumstances surrounding Clementi's death, it is alleged that Ravi tampered with evidence by deleting one or more of his Tweets and making false and/or misleading social media posts in an effort to cover up the allegations that he may have invaded Clementi's privacy.
Deleting Tweets and/or trying to cover up one's online activity is futile. Whether its the Library of Congress preserving public Tweets or Google indexing an old cached version of a website or a post, once something is put online it can never be permanently removed from the Internet.
I believe evidence tampering charges based on social media usage will increase in the future as more people utilize social media and social media becomes a larger part of the judicial process. I have no idea if Ravi was deleting his Tweets to intentionally tamper with evidence of if he was just a scared college freshman who was afraid of the media scrutiny that was surrounding his roommate's death.
This is another example of how one's online activities are just as important, if not more so, than everything done off-line. Unfortunately, it appears that a few clicks of a mouse along with some ill-advised Tweets and other social media posts may have contributed to the suicide of young person.
In the Internet Age, a hidden web cam in the movie American Pie was a funny joke. In the Social Media Age, a hidden web cam is no laughing matter because billions of people may view what is streamed online and this may have unintended consequences.
This tragic case should be a wake up call to restart a national conversation on personal privacy. I believe social media education should be taught starting in elementary school. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) only protects children under the age of 13 so our children should be provided the tools necessary to successfully navigate the Social Media Age before they reach 13 years of age. If the lessons learned from this tragedy are not discussed with our children Tyler Clementi will have died in vain.
To learn how to protect your privacy and your children in the Social Media Age you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Florida Judge Orders Debt Collector Not To Use Social Media To Contact Debtor
Florida Judge W. Douglas Baird ordered Mark One Financial LLC not to utilize social media when trying to contact Melanie Beacham over an alleged debt of $362. Ms. Beacham sued the debt collector in 2010 for violating her privacy.
Debt collectors have been using social media to contact debtors for several years. However, only in the past year has this activity been deemed news worthy by the mainstream press.
The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) appears to be silent on if and how debt collectors may utilize social media to collect on unpaid debts. Under some state laws, debt collectors are not allowed to publicize one's debts. Generally, if you can't act in a certain manner in the real world that same behavior in the virtual world is not acceptable.
In Sohns v. Bramacint, (Civil No. 09-1225; October 1, 2010), a United States District Court of Minnesota case, a debt collector allegedly accessed a debtor's MySpace page to intimidate the debtor. The debtor alleged that the debt collector had violated the FDCPA and won summary judgment based on the totality of the methods the debt collector utilized.
These types of cases will only increase in the future as more debt collectors actively utilize social media in order to collect on unpaid debts. Therefore, I advise everyone to be very careful about what they post online. You never know who is following your Facebook and MySpace posts, your Tweets, your blog posts, and/or your LinkedIn Tripits.
To learn how to protect your online content from prying eyes you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Debt collectors have been using social media to contact debtors for several years. However, only in the past year has this activity been deemed news worthy by the mainstream press.
The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) appears to be silent on if and how debt collectors may utilize social media to collect on unpaid debts. Under some state laws, debt collectors are not allowed to publicize one's debts. Generally, if you can't act in a certain manner in the real world that same behavior in the virtual world is not acceptable.
In Sohns v. Bramacint, (Civil No. 09-1225; October 1, 2010), a United States District Court of Minnesota case, a debt collector allegedly accessed a debtor's MySpace page to intimidate the debtor. The debtor alleged that the debt collector had violated the FDCPA and won summary judgment based on the totality of the methods the debt collector utilized.
These types of cases will only increase in the future as more debt collectors actively utilize social media in order to collect on unpaid debts. Therefore, I advise everyone to be very careful about what they post online. You never know who is following your Facebook and MySpace posts, your Tweets, your blog posts, and/or your LinkedIn Tripits.
To learn how to protect your online content from prying eyes you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
A Wall Street Journal Investigation Proves the Need For the Social Media Privacy Protection Act
A recent Wall Street Journal investigation found that some third party applications on Facebook and MySpace were both obtaining more personal data from the applications' users than they were allegedly allowed. This situation has been going on for a long time so I am not sure why this was such a shock to major media outlets. I have been writing about the need for stronger internal privacy controls by the major social media sites for months because of this issue.
On June 2, 2010, I blogged that Facebook/Disney's Tickets Together application was inherently dangerous. This application enables child molesters to know in advance where our children may be at a particular date and time. After Facebook/Disney launched the application, the New York Times wrote an extremely positive article about the application without fully understanding how the application works. Even after I pointed out how dangerous this application may be to our children, the New York Times dropped the ball and did not investigate this application or others. However, I am glad that the Wall Street Journal did the investigative reporting that was needed to demonstrate that some social media web sites may turn a blind eye to this troubling problem.
Earlier this year, Gawker reported that Google fired an engineer because the engineer allegedly accessed user accounts without authorization. The engineer allegedly accessed the accounts of young children. According to TechCrunch, this is the second time a Google engineer has been fired for unauthorized access of users' accounts. In that same TechCrunch article, it linked to a blog post that alleged that at least two Facebook employees have been fired for accessing its users' data.
I am loathe to articulate the need for further government regulation because the government has a hard time enforcing the laws already on its books and delivering some basic government services. For example, why can't the government settle on a secure and reliable method to vote? Electronic voting without a paper receipt that may be reviewed for a recount is too easily susceptible to hackers.
An easy solution to unauthorized data proliferation is to avoid putting your personal or professional information on a social media site. However, the social media companies want you to continue to "share" so they can monetize your data and users want to continue to "share" so they showcase themselves to others. There is no easy answer here but since the industry continues to fail miserably to enforce its own internal policies and does not have any real incentive to protect its users' data it may be time for Congress to act. Therefore, until the major social media companies demonstrate a real initiative to protect its users' personal data I strongly advocate for the passage of the Social Media Privacy Protection Act.
To learn how to protect and monetize your social media profile you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
On June 2, 2010, I blogged that Facebook/Disney's Tickets Together application was inherently dangerous. This application enables child molesters to know in advance where our children may be at a particular date and time. After Facebook/Disney launched the application, the New York Times wrote an extremely positive article about the application without fully understanding how the application works. Even after I pointed out how dangerous this application may be to our children, the New York Times dropped the ball and did not investigate this application or others. However, I am glad that the Wall Street Journal did the investigative reporting that was needed to demonstrate that some social media web sites may turn a blind eye to this troubling problem.
Earlier this year, Gawker reported that Google fired an engineer because the engineer allegedly accessed user accounts without authorization. The engineer allegedly accessed the accounts of young children. According to TechCrunch, this is the second time a Google engineer has been fired for unauthorized access of users' accounts. In that same TechCrunch article, it linked to a blog post that alleged that at least two Facebook employees have been fired for accessing its users' data.
I am loathe to articulate the need for further government regulation because the government has a hard time enforcing the laws already on its books and delivering some basic government services. For example, why can't the government settle on a secure and reliable method to vote? Electronic voting without a paper receipt that may be reviewed for a recount is too easily susceptible to hackers.
An easy solution to unauthorized data proliferation is to avoid putting your personal or professional information on a social media site. However, the social media companies want you to continue to "share" so they can monetize your data and users want to continue to "share" so they showcase themselves to others. There is no easy answer here but since the industry continues to fail miserably to enforce its own internal policies and does not have any real incentive to protect its users' data it may be time for Congress to act. Therefore, until the major social media companies demonstrate a real initiative to protect its users' personal data I strongly advocate for the passage of the Social Media Privacy Protection Act.
To learn how to protect and monetize your social media profile you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Brett Favre, Sexting, and Social Media Crisis Management
Brett Favre, the NFL, and the Minnesota Vikings have a social media public relations crisis that needs to be resolved immediately. This matter was allegedly caused by Brett Favre's innapropriate use of social media and electronic communication devices.
According to Deadspin, in 2008 while Brett Favre was playing for the New York Jets he contacted Jets hostess Jenn Sterger mulitple times in order to spend some "personal time" with her. It appears that Ms. Sterger was not interested in spending "personal time" with Favre. On Deadspin.com's website it is also alleged that Favre may have tried to have inappropriate contact with other females who had some type of professional relationship with the Jets organization. The messages allegedly left by Favre on Sterger's voice mail appear to be very troubling. In addition, it is alleged that Favre sent pornographic photos of himself electronically to Sterger.
On December 2, 2009, and on December 10, 2009 I discussed how Tiger Woods should handle his social media crisis. Unfortunately, Woods did not follow my advice and he lost his family, his reputation, millions of dollars in endorsements, and the ability to focus on his professional career.
As of this writing, Brett Favre has not publicly addressed in detail this matter and has reportedly only apologized to his teammates for being a distraction. Favre has said little to the media regarding the allegations against him. However, Favre has not stated that he is innocent of these allegations.
If Favre directly addresses this matter he has to be careful about what he says because there may be legal issues in addition to the NFL personal conduct policy issues that need to be resolved. At first glance, it appears that any possible legal issues may only be civil and not criminal in nature. One possible legal issue may be sexual harassment. However, this situation is fluid and may change depending on the facts uncovered.
Therefore, I advise Favre to do what I advised Woods to do: sit down with your legal counsel and tell them exactly what happened so your legal team can draft and execute a strategy that will keep your reputation intact. Favre's relationship with his family, fans, sponsors (Ex: Wrangler), the NFL community, etc... depends on Favre working closing with his legal team to resolve this matter. If there is a possibility that Favre's accuser has evidence that may damage Favre's reputation it may be in Favre's best interests to reach a confidential settlement with his accuser so Favre can keep his image intact. I would hate to see Favre experience the same type of downward spiral that has engulfed Tiger Woods.
This matter should be a wake up call to everyone to watch what you post on the Internet. In particular, you should be careful about what you write in an email, what you say in a voice mail or text message, and what you post on a social media site such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter, etc...
To learn how to protect your social media profile you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
According to Deadspin, in 2008 while Brett Favre was playing for the New York Jets he contacted Jets hostess Jenn Sterger mulitple times in order to spend some "personal time" with her. It appears that Ms. Sterger was not interested in spending "personal time" with Favre. On Deadspin.com's website it is also alleged that Favre may have tried to have inappropriate contact with other females who had some type of professional relationship with the Jets organization. The messages allegedly left by Favre on Sterger's voice mail appear to be very troubling. In addition, it is alleged that Favre sent pornographic photos of himself electronically to Sterger.
On December 2, 2009, and on December 10, 2009 I discussed how Tiger Woods should handle his social media crisis. Unfortunately, Woods did not follow my advice and he lost his family, his reputation, millions of dollars in endorsements, and the ability to focus on his professional career.
As of this writing, Brett Favre has not publicly addressed in detail this matter and has reportedly only apologized to his teammates for being a distraction. Favre has said little to the media regarding the allegations against him. However, Favre has not stated that he is innocent of these allegations.
If Favre directly addresses this matter he has to be careful about what he says because there may be legal issues in addition to the NFL personal conduct policy issues that need to be resolved. At first glance, it appears that any possible legal issues may only be civil and not criminal in nature. One possible legal issue may be sexual harassment. However, this situation is fluid and may change depending on the facts uncovered.
Therefore, I advise Favre to do what I advised Woods to do: sit down with your legal counsel and tell them exactly what happened so your legal team can draft and execute a strategy that will keep your reputation intact. Favre's relationship with his family, fans, sponsors (Ex: Wrangler), the NFL community, etc... depends on Favre working closing with his legal team to resolve this matter. If there is a possibility that Favre's accuser has evidence that may damage Favre's reputation it may be in Favre's best interests to reach a confidential settlement with his accuser so Favre can keep his image intact. I would hate to see Favre experience the same type of downward spiral that has engulfed Tiger Woods.
This matter should be a wake up call to everyone to watch what you post on the Internet. In particular, you should be careful about what you write in an email, what you say in a voice mail or text message, and what you post on a social media site such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter, etc...
To learn how to protect your social media profile you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Facebook's New Group Tools Should Be Opt-In
Facebook recently launced a new tool called Groups that enables users to create mini social networks within a Facebook user's list of friends. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the impetus for groups was to make communicating with your friends on Facebook more like talking with them in the real world."
Facebook Groups was created not to mimic real world communication but to better enable Facebook to monetize your personal data. Many Facebook users have hundreds of Facebook Friends. However, Facebook does not know what a user's true relationship is with each of its Facebook friends. A user's Facebook Friends may include: high school friends, college friends, graduate school friends, co-workers, family members, strangers, associates, significant others, ex-friends, ex-significant others, etc...
According to a recent PC Magazine article, a Facebook spokesperson stated "[w]e made the decision to allow Group members to add others to the Group in order to make the product simple, and because it resembles something we all understand: adding one of your contacts to an e-mail thread." An e-mail thread may be more analagous to unsolicited junk mail (snail or email) than a real group. In addition, opting-in instead of opting out would have made the product simple for users because opting out forces users to take steps that are not user friendly.
If Facebook wanted to make its new Groups feature mimic real world communication it would have enabled users to individually opt-into Groups instead of making users opt-out. Making users opt-out instead of opt-in has the potential to create some unintended legal issues for some of its users. For example, what if a boss or family member or friend reviews a Group page and found out you were a member of a Group that had some sort of stigma?
In my opinion, Facebook made groups opt-out instead of opt-in to better collect and then sell your personal data to marketers. Facebook is on a furious pace to monetize its users' data to demonstrate to prospective bidders for its future IPO Facebook's monetary potential. If Facebook cares about its users' privacy it will change its Group's feature to be opt-in instead of opt-out. When was the last time you had to opt-out of going to dinner with a real group of friends? To go out with a real group of friends you must opt-in. Therefore, I challenge Facebook to correct this major oversight to its new Group tool.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Facebook Groups was created not to mimic real world communication but to better enable Facebook to monetize your personal data. Many Facebook users have hundreds of Facebook Friends. However, Facebook does not know what a user's true relationship is with each of its Facebook friends. A user's Facebook Friends may include: high school friends, college friends, graduate school friends, co-workers, family members, strangers, associates, significant others, ex-friends, ex-significant others, etc...
According to a recent PC Magazine article, a Facebook spokesperson stated "[w]e made the decision to allow Group members to add others to the Group in order to make the product simple, and because it resembles something we all understand: adding one of your contacts to an e-mail thread." An e-mail thread may be more analagous to unsolicited junk mail (snail or email) than a real group. In addition, opting-in instead of opting out would have made the product simple for users because opting out forces users to take steps that are not user friendly.
If Facebook wanted to make its new Groups feature mimic real world communication it would have enabled users to individually opt-into Groups instead of making users opt-out. Making users opt-out instead of opt-in has the potential to create some unintended legal issues for some of its users. For example, what if a boss or family member or friend reviews a Group page and found out you were a member of a Group that had some sort of stigma?
In my opinion, Facebook made groups opt-out instead of opt-in to better collect and then sell your personal data to marketers. Facebook is on a furious pace to monetize its users' data to demonstrate to prospective bidders for its future IPO Facebook's monetary potential. If Facebook cares about its users' privacy it will change its Group's feature to be opt-in instead of opt-out. When was the last time you had to opt-out of going to dinner with a real group of friends? To go out with a real group of friends you must opt-in. Therefore, I challenge Facebook to correct this major oversight to its new Group tool.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The Social Network, Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and Social Media Public Relations
The movie "The Social Network" premiered in New York City this past Friday and will be widely distributed on October 1st. The screenplay was written by Aaron Sorkin and is based on Ben Mezrich's book, "The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius, and Betrayal."
According to the Wall Street Journal, Facebook tried to influence the narrative in "The Social Network." Last month, the New York Times stated that, "[b]ehind the scenes, however, Mr. Zuckerberg and his colleagues have been locked in a tense standoff with the filmmakers" regarding the content of the film." I don't blame Facebook for trying to persuade the filmmakers to create a film that puts its founder in the best possible light; however, Facebook needs to realize that trying to massage a message in the Social Media Age is very difficult. Instead of trying to ignore "The Social Network," Facebook should embrace and own the story of its founding with its warts, real and imagined.
In the movie, "Clear and Present Danger," the fictional president has a public relations problem on his hand because a close friend of his may have been involved in drug trafficking. Harrison Ford's character (Jack Ryan) advises the president something along the lines that he should tell the media that the friend in question was not just a friend but a close friend. This advice killed the story because the fictional president embraced and owned up to the relationship.
On December 2, 2009, and then again on December 10, 2009, I blogged how Tiger Woods should handle his public relations situation and provided David Letterman and Meredith Baxter as examples of great Social Media public relations. As the world knows, Woods did not listen to my advice. Woods allowed the situation to spiral out of control and he lost his family, hundreds of millions of dollars, and his ability to focus on his profession.
Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg should openly embrace and promote the movie, "The Social Network" because downplaying the movie and/or ignoring it enables others to own the narrative. Zuckerberg is extremely hypocritical because he wants everyone to share their private information but he refuses to reciprocate. If Zuckerberg held a press conference and publicly explained the entire situation regarding the founding of Facebook and was open and honest about all the lawsuits he has had to settle surrounding Facebook's founding the story would die a natural death because he would own the narrative.
I have read Ben Mezrich's book, "The Accidental Billionaries" and David Kilpratrick's "The Facebook Effect". Mezrich's book is a much more interesting account than Kilpatrick's. In addition, I watched Zuckerberg's recent Oprah appearance and Zuckerberg seemed uncomfortable when "The Social Network" was brought up.
The truth in how Facebook was started is most likely somewhere in between Mezrich's account and Kilpatrick's Facebook endorsed version. "The Social Network" has been made and Facebook and Zuckerberg's public relations team should embrace movie. Facebook's stance towards the movie is only going to encourage more people to want to see it.
The bottom line is that Facebook and Zuckerberg need to reevaluate their Social Media Public Relations strategy.
To learn how to create and execute a Social Media Public Relations and Crisis Management Plan and to understand the legal issues that may affect your plans you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Facebook tried to influence the narrative in "The Social Network." Last month, the New York Times stated that, "[b]ehind the scenes, however, Mr. Zuckerberg and his colleagues have been locked in a tense standoff with the filmmakers" regarding the content of the film." I don't blame Facebook for trying to persuade the filmmakers to create a film that puts its founder in the best possible light; however, Facebook needs to realize that trying to massage a message in the Social Media Age is very difficult. Instead of trying to ignore "The Social Network," Facebook should embrace and own the story of its founding with its warts, real and imagined.
In the movie, "Clear and Present Danger," the fictional president has a public relations problem on his hand because a close friend of his may have been involved in drug trafficking. Harrison Ford's character (Jack Ryan) advises the president something along the lines that he should tell the media that the friend in question was not just a friend but a close friend. This advice killed the story because the fictional president embraced and owned up to the relationship.
On December 2, 2009, and then again on December 10, 2009, I blogged how Tiger Woods should handle his public relations situation and provided David Letterman and Meredith Baxter as examples of great Social Media public relations. As the world knows, Woods did not listen to my advice. Woods allowed the situation to spiral out of control and he lost his family, hundreds of millions of dollars, and his ability to focus on his profession.
Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg should openly embrace and promote the movie, "The Social Network" because downplaying the movie and/or ignoring it enables others to own the narrative. Zuckerberg is extremely hypocritical because he wants everyone to share their private information but he refuses to reciprocate. If Zuckerberg held a press conference and publicly explained the entire situation regarding the founding of Facebook and was open and honest about all the lawsuits he has had to settle surrounding Facebook's founding the story would die a natural death because he would own the narrative.
I have read Ben Mezrich's book, "The Accidental Billionaries" and David Kilpratrick's "The Facebook Effect". Mezrich's book is a much more interesting account than Kilpatrick's. In addition, I watched Zuckerberg's recent Oprah appearance and Zuckerberg seemed uncomfortable when "The Social Network" was brought up.
The truth in how Facebook was started is most likely somewhere in between Mezrich's account and Kilpatrick's Facebook endorsed version. "The Social Network" has been made and Facebook and Zuckerberg's public relations team should embrace movie. Facebook's stance towards the movie is only going to encourage more people to want to see it.
The bottom line is that Facebook and Zuckerberg need to reevaluate their Social Media Public Relations strategy.
To learn how to create and execute a Social Media Public Relations and Crisis Management Plan and to understand the legal issues that may affect your plans you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Protecting Your Social Media Profile Against Text Spam
On April 29, 2010, I stated why the Social Media Privacy Protection Act is needed. I reiterated my position again on July 25, 2010. I did not wake up thinking about privacy issues. However, when I logged into my Google account this morning, I received the message, "What would happen if you lost access to your Google Account tomorrow?" The screen listed my email address and requested my cell phone number in case I need to reset my password.
In my opinion, password resets via cell phone SMS is a ruse to obtain access to your cell phone number so the number may be used at a later date to perform mobile marketing. Social Media companies are trying to collect as much information about their users as possible because they are building a monetizable data bank. As the Brits may say, "brilliant."
Google may argue that a cell phone number is the easiest and most secure way for a consumer to obtain a password reset. I disagree. The best way to do this is via email and/or a personal security question. Google recently fired an employee for accessing the personal accounts of its users. Just think of all the possibilities when private companies (not the government-whole different conversation) have access to this type of personal information.
Social Media companies are trying to entice their users to turn over as much of their personal information as possible. Unfortunately, too many consumers are freely providing Social Media companies their information without a second thought. For example, there is no reason for any company to ask for or for anyone to list their religion on their social media profile.
When I recently tried assisting a friend of mine with obtaining a personal URL for his Facebook account it requested a cell phone number for confirmation. When I obtained my personal URL soon after consumers were allowed to do so I did not need to provide a cell phone number. Social Media companies want your cell phone number so they can monetize this information.
The bottom line is that people need to be careful about providing any data to third parties. Do you really want to be bombarded at some point in the future with spam text messages that you will have to pay for? Therefore, unless a company needs your cell phone number do not provide it.
To learn how to protect your Social Media Profile you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
In my opinion, password resets via cell phone SMS is a ruse to obtain access to your cell phone number so the number may be used at a later date to perform mobile marketing. Social Media companies are trying to collect as much information about their users as possible because they are building a monetizable data bank. As the Brits may say, "brilliant."
Google may argue that a cell phone number is the easiest and most secure way for a consumer to obtain a password reset. I disagree. The best way to do this is via email and/or a personal security question. Google recently fired an employee for accessing the personal accounts of its users. Just think of all the possibilities when private companies (not the government-whole different conversation) have access to this type of personal information.
Social Media companies are trying to entice their users to turn over as much of their personal information as possible. Unfortunately, too many consumers are freely providing Social Media companies their information without a second thought. For example, there is no reason for any company to ask for or for anyone to list their religion on their social media profile.
When I recently tried assisting a friend of mine with obtaining a personal URL for his Facebook account it requested a cell phone number for confirmation. When I obtained my personal URL soon after consumers were allowed to do so I did not need to provide a cell phone number. Social Media companies want your cell phone number so they can monetize this information.
The bottom line is that people need to be careful about providing any data to third parties. Do you really want to be bombarded at some point in the future with spam text messages that you will have to pay for? Therefore, unless a company needs your cell phone number do not provide it.
To learn how to protect your Social Media Profile you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Corporate Counsel's IP Trademark, Copyright & Licensing Cousel Forum
On September 14th and September 15, ALM's Corporate Counsel will be hosting a seminar that will discuss current intellectual property issues. The conference's keynote speaker will be Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights. Intellectual Property practitioners from all over the country will be speaking and will be in attendance.
Some of the topics that will be discussed at the conference include: Protecting Your IP in a Digital Environment, Monetizing Your Copyright and Trademarks, Recent Online Litigation Developments, Structuring Licensing Programs, and IP Issues in Social Media Marketing.
Some of the organizations that will be represented at the event include: The New York Times, the Recording Industry Association of America, The Author's Guild, Gannett Co., the U.S. Copyright Office, News Corporation, Comcast Entertainment Group, Conde Nast, ESPN, ABC, and NBC Universal.
The Conference will be held at The Harvard Club of New York. For more information click here.
[Full Disclosure: Shear on Social Media Law is part of ALM's Law.com Blog Network]
Some of the topics that will be discussed at the conference include: Protecting Your IP in a Digital Environment, Monetizing Your Copyright and Trademarks, Recent Online Litigation Developments, Structuring Licensing Programs, and IP Issues in Social Media Marketing.
Some of the organizations that will be represented at the event include: The New York Times, the Recording Industry Association of America, The Author's Guild, Gannett Co., the U.S. Copyright Office, News Corporation, Comcast Entertainment Group, Conde Nast, ESPN, ABC, and NBC Universal.
The Conference will be held at The Harvard Club of New York. For more information click here.
[Full Disclosure: Shear on Social Media Law is part of ALM's Law.com Blog Network]
Saturday, September 11, 2010
9/11/2001, the 1st Amendment, and Social Media
Today marks the 9th anniversary of September 11, 2001. On September 11, 2001, at least 19 terrorists attacked the United States without any provocation. Nine years ago, I was living several blocks away from the World Trade Center and I witnessed first hand the tragedy and aftermath of this cowardly attack against our country. Due to the destruction that was caused, I became displaced from my home.
To my generation, Sept. 11th means what December 7th meant to my grandfather's generation. As President Roosevelt stated during a joint session of Congress on December 8, 1941, December 7, 1941 is a date that will live in infamy. President Bush's first official address post the September 11, 2001 attacks summed up our country's initial reaction to this act of cowardice.
In the United States, the 1st Amendment protects against most free speech. An open forum to discuss ideas is the cornerstone of a democratic society. Voltaire is credited by some with saying, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." This mentality was one of the inspirations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
In the Social Media Age, people have to be very careful about what they say and do because every action or reaction has the potential to become a news story that may change international perception in a New York minute. For example, the controversy surrounding the proposal to build a mosque in the former Burlington Coat Factory building near the site of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan has caused a firestorm not only in New York City but around the globe.
This story appeared to be only a local Lower Manhattan issue until President Obama commented on the subject. The President's comments were quickly carried via social media and traditional media around the globe and all of sudden it became an international issue where world leaders, political pundits, etc... offered their two cents. The on/off again plan to create a bonfire to burn hundreds of copies of Islam's holy book, the Koran by Florida preacher Terry Jones is another example of how the mainstream media and social media may shape international opinion.
The owners of the property in Lower Manhattan that formerly housed a Burlington Coat Factory have a legal right to build a mosque if they abide by all local zoning laws. In addition, Terry Jones has the legal right to burn the Koran assuming he does so in a manner that does not break any local Florida laws against creating bonfires. The First Amendment protects ideas and opinions, regardless of their popularity.
However, just because both of these parties have a legal right to do these things that does not mean they should do it. Legal rights and moral rights are two different things and unfortunately the media generally distorts these issues to create stories that will generate more eyeballs for their coverage and in turn more advertising dollars that strengthen their bottom line.
The media, politicians, military personnel, and businesses need to rethink their public relations strategy in the Social Media Age because in many instances social media fuels media coverage and this enables a story to become a much larger event than it ever should have become. I bet that Andy Warhol would love the Social Media Age because now everyone has the opportunity to get their "15 Minutes" of fame very easily. According to the Washington Post, Terry Jones' publicity plan started with a tweet. Now Terry Jones is a household name. This is another example of the power of social media.
As of this writing, Terry Jones has stated he will not hold a bonfire to burn hundreds of copies of the Koran. In turn, the owners of the building that formerly housed a Burlington Coat Factory in Lower Manhattan should rethink their position and look to build their mosque several blocks further away from the World Trade Center site. Even though both of these parties have a legal right to do what they have publicly stated they want to do, following through with their plans will only increase tensions on each side that may lead to unanticipated consequences that may have a domino affect. It is now time to allow each party to save face so each may proclaim they have made their point.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
To my generation, Sept. 11th means what December 7th meant to my grandfather's generation. As President Roosevelt stated during a joint session of Congress on December 8, 1941, December 7, 1941 is a date that will live in infamy. President Bush's first official address post the September 11, 2001 attacks summed up our country's initial reaction to this act of cowardice.
In the United States, the 1st Amendment protects against most free speech. An open forum to discuss ideas is the cornerstone of a democratic society. Voltaire is credited by some with saying, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." This mentality was one of the inspirations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
In the Social Media Age, people have to be very careful about what they say and do because every action or reaction has the potential to become a news story that may change international perception in a New York minute. For example, the controversy surrounding the proposal to build a mosque in the former Burlington Coat Factory building near the site of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan has caused a firestorm not only in New York City but around the globe.
This story appeared to be only a local Lower Manhattan issue until President Obama commented on the subject. The President's comments were quickly carried via social media and traditional media around the globe and all of sudden it became an international issue where world leaders, political pundits, etc... offered their two cents. The on/off again plan to create a bonfire to burn hundreds of copies of Islam's holy book, the Koran by Florida preacher Terry Jones is another example of how the mainstream media and social media may shape international opinion.
The owners of the property in Lower Manhattan that formerly housed a Burlington Coat Factory have a legal right to build a mosque if they abide by all local zoning laws. In addition, Terry Jones has the legal right to burn the Koran assuming he does so in a manner that does not break any local Florida laws against creating bonfires. The First Amendment protects ideas and opinions, regardless of their popularity.
However, just because both of these parties have a legal right to do these things that does not mean they should do it. Legal rights and moral rights are two different things and unfortunately the media generally distorts these issues to create stories that will generate more eyeballs for their coverage and in turn more advertising dollars that strengthen their bottom line.
The media, politicians, military personnel, and businesses need to rethink their public relations strategy in the Social Media Age because in many instances social media fuels media coverage and this enables a story to become a much larger event than it ever should have become. I bet that Andy Warhol would love the Social Media Age because now everyone has the opportunity to get their "15 Minutes" of fame very easily. According to the Washington Post, Terry Jones' publicity plan started with a tweet. Now Terry Jones is a household name. This is another example of the power of social media.
As of this writing, Terry Jones has stated he will not hold a bonfire to burn hundreds of copies of the Koran. In turn, the owners of the building that formerly housed a Burlington Coat Factory in Lower Manhattan should rethink their position and look to build their mosque several blocks further away from the World Trade Center site. Even though both of these parties have a legal right to do what they have publicly stated they want to do, following through with their plans will only increase tensions on each side that may lead to unanticipated consequences that may have a domino affect. It is now time to allow each party to save face so each may proclaim they have made their point.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Facebook is a Trademark Protection Hypocrite Part II
I recently wrote how Facebook is a trademark protection hypocrite because of its efforts in trying to block other companies from using the word "BOOK" in their names while not doing more to proactively protect trademarks on its own web site. Facebook is also trying to block others from using the word "FACE" in their names.
To paraphrase from an old English proverb, Facebook wants to have its cake and eat it too. This is the height of hyprocrisy. Facebook's platform enables intellectual property theft and now Facebook wants to block others from using generic terms that have been around for hundreds of years before Facebook's existence.
Facebook is currently monetizing all of its users' user generated content (UGC). This includes the trademarks of every company or individual that is on Facebook regardless of whether a company or individual has an official Facebook presence or if a third party has put that company's or individual's intellectual property on Facebook without that company's or individual's permission. Facebook knows or should know that there is widespread intellectual property theft on its web site. Unfortunately, under current law Facebook has no legal obligation to stop intellectual property theft on its web site unless a rights holder notifies Facebook of the intellectual property theft.
Facebook's intellectual property protection hypocrisy must be confronted. Facebook should not be allowed to stop others from using the words "FACE" or "BOOK" in their names and continue to profit off of intellectual property theft of others. Therefore, I challenge the AM 100 and Fortune 500 legal communities to provide assistance to Teachbook.com and to Aaron Greenspan in their legal fights against Facebook. If Facebook prevails in stopping others from using "FACE" or "BOOK" in their names this victory may have widespread unforeseen consequences.
To learn how to protect your trademarks on the Internet and on Social Media you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
To paraphrase from an old English proverb, Facebook wants to have its cake and eat it too. This is the height of hyprocrisy. Facebook's platform enables intellectual property theft and now Facebook wants to block others from using generic terms that have been around for hundreds of years before Facebook's existence.
Facebook is currently monetizing all of its users' user generated content (UGC). This includes the trademarks of every company or individual that is on Facebook regardless of whether a company or individual has an official Facebook presence or if a third party has put that company's or individual's intellectual property on Facebook without that company's or individual's permission. Facebook knows or should know that there is widespread intellectual property theft on its web site. Unfortunately, under current law Facebook has no legal obligation to stop intellectual property theft on its web site unless a rights holder notifies Facebook of the intellectual property theft.
Facebook's intellectual property protection hypocrisy must be confronted. Facebook should not be allowed to stop others from using the words "FACE" or "BOOK" in their names and continue to profit off of intellectual property theft of others. Therefore, I challenge the AM 100 and Fortune 500 legal communities to provide assistance to Teachbook.com and to Aaron Greenspan in their legal fights against Facebook. If Facebook prevails in stopping others from using "FACE" or "BOOK" in their names this victory may have widespread unforeseen consequences.
To learn how to protect your trademarks on the Internet and on Social Media you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Facebook is a Trademark Protection Hypocrite
Facebook is the 800 pound gorilla of social media and it is doing everything in its power to stay the Big Man in Social Media (BMISM) (akin to the Big Man on Campus-BMOC). These actions include protecting its intellectual property through litigation.
Therefore, I find it rather hypocritical that Facebook is suing a company calling itself Teachbook.com and claiming that Teachbook.com is misappropriating the distinctive "BOOK" portion of Facebook's trademark. I believe that Facebook filed this lawsuit because it believes if it doesn't try to stop Teachbook.com from utilizing "BOOK" in its name other companies may try to utilize the term "BOOK" in their name and perform social networking. Facebook is not the first company to do social networking and it will not be the last company to do so. However, Facebook is doing social networking better than anyone else at this point.
Under Facebook's logic, Redbook magazine may want to look into suing Facebook for trademark infringement because Redbook has a stronger claim to the word "BOOK" than does Facebook. Redbook has been around for about 100 years longer than Facebook. In addition, it appears that Redbook has had an online presence longer than Facebook and has had an online community of users longer than Facebook. In addition, some of Redbook's users are the same type of users who may also utilize Facebook. Therefore, Redbook may have as strong of a claim against Facebook as Facebook does against Teachbook.com
It is extremely hypocritical for Facebook to claim that others are infringing on its own mark when Facebook freely allows and enables its users to infringe on the trademarks of others. Facebook knows or should know that its platform is rife with trademark infringement. Since football season is upon us, I will use the NFL as an example of how Facebook is enabling trademark infringement on its own web site. When you log into Facebook and type in "NFL" you will see a large number of users utilizing the NFL's marks without the NFL's permission. In turn, Facebook is monetizing this infringement by the advertising on its web site. Therefore, Facebook does not have any incentive to stop trademark infringement on its web site because it is profiting from the massive trademark infringement that its platform enables.
Under current trademark law, Facebook is not under any obligation to remove an infringing mark until it is notified by a rights holder of the alleged infringement. Facebook does have a mechanism in place for intellectual property rights holders to notify them of infringing material. However, Facebook should do more to protect trademark owners. Until Facebook adequately addresses trademark infringement on its own web site, it should not accuse others of trademark infringement. Remember the old saying, "people in glass houses should not throw stones?" It appears that Facebook doesn't believe in this saying because Facebook is acting like a trademark protection hypocrite.
To learn how to protect your trademarks on the Internet and on Social Media you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Therefore, I find it rather hypocritical that Facebook is suing a company calling itself Teachbook.com and claiming that Teachbook.com is misappropriating the distinctive "BOOK" portion of Facebook's trademark. I believe that Facebook filed this lawsuit because it believes if it doesn't try to stop Teachbook.com from utilizing "BOOK" in its name other companies may try to utilize the term "BOOK" in their name and perform social networking. Facebook is not the first company to do social networking and it will not be the last company to do so. However, Facebook is doing social networking better than anyone else at this point.
Under Facebook's logic, Redbook magazine may want to look into suing Facebook for trademark infringement because Redbook has a stronger claim to the word "BOOK" than does Facebook. Redbook has been around for about 100 years longer than Facebook. In addition, it appears that Redbook has had an online presence longer than Facebook and has had an online community of users longer than Facebook. In addition, some of Redbook's users are the same type of users who may also utilize Facebook. Therefore, Redbook may have as strong of a claim against Facebook as Facebook does against Teachbook.com
It is extremely hypocritical for Facebook to claim that others are infringing on its own mark when Facebook freely allows and enables its users to infringe on the trademarks of others. Facebook knows or should know that its platform is rife with trademark infringement. Since football season is upon us, I will use the NFL as an example of how Facebook is enabling trademark infringement on its own web site. When you log into Facebook and type in "NFL" you will see a large number of users utilizing the NFL's marks without the NFL's permission. In turn, Facebook is monetizing this infringement by the advertising on its web site. Therefore, Facebook does not have any incentive to stop trademark infringement on its web site because it is profiting from the massive trademark infringement that its platform enables.
Under current trademark law, Facebook is not under any obligation to remove an infringing mark until it is notified by a rights holder of the alleged infringement. Facebook does have a mechanism in place for intellectual property rights holders to notify them of infringing material. However, Facebook should do more to protect trademark owners. Until Facebook adequately addresses trademark infringement on its own web site, it should not accuse others of trademark infringement. Remember the old saying, "people in glass houses should not throw stones?" It appears that Facebook doesn't believe in this saying because Facebook is acting like a trademark protection hypocrite.
To learn how to protect your trademarks on the Internet and on Social Media you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Social Plug-In Contracts and Show Me The Money
In the last few months, Facebook has been asking companies to install the Facebook "Like" button on corporate web sites and on individual articles. Facebook's "Like" button is a social plug-in and social plug-ins are all the craze right now. A social plug-in enables other users or your "online friends" to see what types of information interest you. For example, to utilize a Facebook social plug-in that is installed on a website, a Facebook user must be logged into their Facebook account. Once a Facebook user is logged into their account, they can "Like" a particular website or article on a website that has installed Facebook's social plug-in.
If a user responds to a social plug-in it enables the company who provides the social plug-in to collect data about your interaction. For example, if The Wall Street Journal installs Facebook's "Like" Button on its articles it enables Facebook to collect valuable data about The Wall Street Journal's readers. The Wall Street Journal is able to see how many Facebook users "like" an article but this data is much more valuable to Facebook than The Wall Street Journal because it enables Facebook to capture in the aggregate a tremendous amount of data about its users.
Facebook's social plug-in strategy is brilliant. Facebook is asking companies to install their social plug-in for free and it appears companies are blindly doing so because Facebook is becoming the Pied Piper of Social Media. Once a company installs Facebook's "Like" Button, Facebook is then able to collect data about a company's website users via "Like" Button usage. Facebook monetizes the "Like" Button data in what may be the holy grail of advertising.
Social plug-ins are part of Facebook's monetization strategy since Facebook is utilizing the information obtained from the usage of social plug-ins to sell advertising. If a company incorporates Facebook's social plug-ins into their website, Facebook should pay a company for utilizing this valuable real estate. A social plug-in contract may mirror in some respects a cell phone tower leasing contract since a website is a piece of virtual real estate that may have as much or more value as some pieces of real property. Therefore, if Facebook asks your company to install its social plug-in Facebook needs to show your company the money.
To learn more about social plug-in contracts and monetizing your online content you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
If a user responds to a social plug-in it enables the company who provides the social plug-in to collect data about your interaction. For example, if The Wall Street Journal installs Facebook's "Like" Button on its articles it enables Facebook to collect valuable data about The Wall Street Journal's readers. The Wall Street Journal is able to see how many Facebook users "like" an article but this data is much more valuable to Facebook than The Wall Street Journal because it enables Facebook to capture in the aggregate a tremendous amount of data about its users.
Facebook's social plug-in strategy is brilliant. Facebook is asking companies to install their social plug-in for free and it appears companies are blindly doing so because Facebook is becoming the Pied Piper of Social Media. Once a company installs Facebook's "Like" Button, Facebook is then able to collect data about a company's website users via "Like" Button usage. Facebook monetizes the "Like" Button data in what may be the holy grail of advertising.
Social plug-ins are part of Facebook's monetization strategy since Facebook is utilizing the information obtained from the usage of social plug-ins to sell advertising. If a company incorporates Facebook's social plug-ins into their website, Facebook should pay a company for utilizing this valuable real estate. A social plug-in contract may mirror in some respects a cell phone tower leasing contract since a website is a piece of virtual real estate that may have as much or more value as some pieces of real property. Therefore, if Facebook asks your company to install its social plug-in Facebook needs to show your company the money.
To learn more about social plug-in contracts and monetizing your online content you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Social Media Defamation
According to Law.com's online legal dictionary, the definition of defamation is: "the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates, have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease or being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se or slander per se and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Most states provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation and only allow a lawsuit if there is no such admission of error."
In the Social Media Age, libel and slander can be devastating to a person or the reputation of a business. There are numerous web sites that allow consumers and other third parties to post comments about a business or a person. Under Section 230 of the Communciations Decency Act, ISPs generally have immunity from all information posted on their websites by third party users if they meet a three pronged legal test.
On July 8, 2010, the Lebron James sweepstakes ended when James decided to sign a new contract with the Miami Heat. His old employer, the Cleveland Cavaliers was devastated. Dan Gilbert, the Cavaliers' owner posted an open letter to Cleveland's fans that bashed James. The letter contains Gilbert's opinion and does not appear to libel James. However, in an interview with the Associated Press it appears that Gilbert may have slandered James by stating, "He [James] quit, Not just in Game 5 [In the 2010 playoffs], but in Games 2, 4 and 6. Watch the tape. The Boston series was unlike anything in the history of sports for a superstar." In general, libel and slander lawsuits are more difficult for celebrities to win than for those who are not in the public eye.
James had fulfilled his contract and had no legal obligation to continue to work for the Cleveland Cavaliers. That being said, both James and Gilbert could have handled the situation in a more professional manner. James should not have requested the one hour ESPN special to announce that he was leaving Cleveland and signing with Miami. However, Gilbert's reaction to James' decision does not make him a sympathetic figure and it may have caused him some legal liability. The bottom line is that in the Social Media Age every writen or spoken word can be easily disseminated around the world in seconds. Therefore, every time a company communicates with the media it needs to understand both the public relations and legal ramifications of its message.
To learn how to avoid social media defamation you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
In the Social Media Age, libel and slander can be devastating to a person or the reputation of a business. There are numerous web sites that allow consumers and other third parties to post comments about a business or a person. Under Section 230 of the Communciations Decency Act, ISPs generally have immunity from all information posted on their websites by third party users if they meet a three pronged legal test.
On July 8, 2010, the Lebron James sweepstakes ended when James decided to sign a new contract with the Miami Heat. His old employer, the Cleveland Cavaliers was devastated. Dan Gilbert, the Cavaliers' owner posted an open letter to Cleveland's fans that bashed James. The letter contains Gilbert's opinion and does not appear to libel James. However, in an interview with the Associated Press it appears that Gilbert may have slandered James by stating, "He [James] quit, Not just in Game 5 [In the 2010 playoffs], but in Games 2, 4 and 6. Watch the tape. The Boston series was unlike anything in the history of sports for a superstar." In general, libel and slander lawsuits are more difficult for celebrities to win than for those who are not in the public eye.
James had fulfilled his contract and had no legal obligation to continue to work for the Cleveland Cavaliers. That being said, both James and Gilbert could have handled the situation in a more professional manner. James should not have requested the one hour ESPN special to announce that he was leaving Cleveland and signing with Miami. However, Gilbert's reaction to James' decision does not make him a sympathetic figure and it may have caused him some legal liability. The bottom line is that in the Social Media Age every writen or spoken word can be easily disseminated around the world in seconds. Therefore, every time a company communicates with the media it needs to understand both the public relations and legal ramifications of its message.
To learn how to avoid social media defamation you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Viacom vs. YouTube May Be a Victory For Copyright Owners
The Viacom Int'l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 07 Civ. 2103 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2010) summary judgement in favor of YouTube was hailed as a victory for technology companies and a loss for copyright owners in most major publications. In my opinion, the instant analysis of the case and its effect on future litigation misses a key important point. This point is the amount of time that Internet Service Providers (ISPs)/Online Service Providers (OSPs) have to remove infringing content once they have received a Digital Milenium Copyright Act (DMCA) take down notice.
There is a saying among lawyers that goes something like, "when the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. If both the law and the facts are against you, attack the other side." In this case, the law was clearly against Viacom. The DMCA's safe harbor is as wide as the Pacific Ocean. 17 U.S.C. Section 512 (c) provides ISPs/OSPs broad protection against claims of copyright infringement by rights holders whose work appears on the ISP's/OSP's websites. In addition, the facts of Viacom's case appeared to favor YouTube. According to the facts of the case, Viacom spent several months accumulating over 100,000 videos that were illegally uploaded to YouTube and then sent one massive take down notice on February 2, 2007 to YouTube. By the next business day, YouTube had removed virtually all of the illegally uploaded videos.
The bottom line is that the take down provisions in the DMCA worked. Several months after the lawsuit was initially filed in 2007, YouTube launched a service called Video Identification Tool which assists copyright holders in protecting their content from being illegally uploaded onto YouTube. It appears that YouTube was extremely responsive in this matter.
If YouTube did not act as quickly as it did to remove the infringing content then I believe Viacom's position would have been greatly strengthened and a different outcome may have occurred. Therefore, I don't think this was the best test case for copyright holders.
In my analysis of the DMCA, ISPs/OSPs have only a small window of time to remove infringing material once they have received a DMCA take down notice. The next time an ISP/OSP is sued for enabling copyright infringement it will need to prove that it took no more than a few business days to remove the alleged infringing material after it has been notified. If it takes more than several days for the alleged infringing material to be removed I believe that the copyright holder will have a stronger case than Viacom that the ISP/OSP should not be protected under the DMCA's safe harbor provisions. Since it took YouTube only one business day after it received a DMCA take down notice to remove the infringing content, the bar is set extremely high for other ISPs/OSPs. The take down notice was also sent more than 3 years ago and since then technology should make it even easier for ISPs/OSPs to remove infringing material once they have been notified. Therefore, I believe the length of time it takes an ISP/OSP to respond to a DMCA take down notice may be a central issue in future litigation.
To learn how to protect and monetize your intellectual property you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
There is a saying among lawyers that goes something like, "when the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. If both the law and the facts are against you, attack the other side." In this case, the law was clearly against Viacom. The DMCA's safe harbor is as wide as the Pacific Ocean. 17 U.S.C. Section 512 (c) provides ISPs/OSPs broad protection against claims of copyright infringement by rights holders whose work appears on the ISP's/OSP's websites. In addition, the facts of Viacom's case appeared to favor YouTube. According to the facts of the case, Viacom spent several months accumulating over 100,000 videos that were illegally uploaded to YouTube and then sent one massive take down notice on February 2, 2007 to YouTube. By the next business day, YouTube had removed virtually all of the illegally uploaded videos.
The bottom line is that the take down provisions in the DMCA worked. Several months after the lawsuit was initially filed in 2007, YouTube launched a service called Video Identification Tool which assists copyright holders in protecting their content from being illegally uploaded onto YouTube. It appears that YouTube was extremely responsive in this matter.
If YouTube did not act as quickly as it did to remove the infringing content then I believe Viacom's position would have been greatly strengthened and a different outcome may have occurred. Therefore, I don't think this was the best test case for copyright holders.
In my analysis of the DMCA, ISPs/OSPs have only a small window of time to remove infringing material once they have received a DMCA take down notice. The next time an ISP/OSP is sued for enabling copyright infringement it will need to prove that it took no more than a few business days to remove the alleged infringing material after it has been notified. If it takes more than several days for the alleged infringing material to be removed I believe that the copyright holder will have a stronger case than Viacom that the ISP/OSP should not be protected under the DMCA's safe harbor provisions. Since it took YouTube only one business day after it received a DMCA take down notice to remove the infringing content, the bar is set extremely high for other ISPs/OSPs. The take down notice was also sent more than 3 years ago and since then technology should make it even easier for ISPs/OSPs to remove infringing material once they have been notified. Therefore, I believe the length of time it takes an ISP/OSP to respond to a DMCA take down notice may be a central issue in future litigation.
To learn how to protect and monetize your intellectual property you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)