Branding products and services and how the law protects your brand is extremely important in the social media age. Recording artists, writers, and film makers are utilizing social media to create their brand and to include other brands in their work to attract the attention of corporate sponsors.
Recently, a New York Times article discussed how some entertainment contracts include specific branding clauses and that some talent feel pressured to include certain brands in their work to attract sponsors. Television product placement is not new. During most live television programs the announcers usually state throughout the program that the show or event is sponsored by xyz company. One of the most famous movie product placements was Reese's Pieces in the movie E.T. in 1982. When I watched the movie as a child I had no idea that this was a product placement. However, as an adult I would expect that most adults who watch the movie know or should know that including Reese's Pieces prominently in the movie was a big advertising coup for Hershey.
Under the recently revised FTC Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising "material connections" between advertisers and endorsers must be disclosed. However, I am wondering when is this threshold actually met? For example, if an artist includes a brand in his work in the hopes that the brand will end up sponsoring his work, and then the brand eventually sponsors the artist's work does this connection need to be disclosed since the original work was not created with a "material connection" between the artist and the brand? If an artist posts his original work on Youtube or another social media website before there is a "material connection" but later a corporate sponsor is attracted to the project does the artist now need to disclose this sponsorship?
These are some of the many legal issues that the social media age has created. Constantly changing technology will only make these issues more difficult to analyze. To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
A Catch-22 in the Social Media Age
Earlier this week a prominent client of mine asked me what I can do to stop a local blogger from constantly writing about my client’s personal activities and linking to my client’s company’s website. I explained the available options and discussed with him why it may be best to ignore the blogger. I mentioned the Jones Day v. Blockshopper.com case that was settled last year where a large law firm, Jones Day, filed suit against an internet company that listed the real estate purchases of some of the law firm’s employees and then linked to the employee’s law firm biographies. This case was settled out of court and the bottom line is that Blockshopper.com is still able to link public land records to the web biographies of Jones Day employees.
I told my client something I’m sure many are taught in elementary school, to ignore the bully, and eventually, the bully will go away. My client was told not to do what Jerry Seinfeld did to Kathy Griffin’s character Sally Weaver in the January 1998 Seinfeld episode “The Cartoon.” In the social media age, if a cease and desist letter is sent to a blogger, assuming the blogger can be identified, it will just provide the blogger more ammunition and will most likely increase traffic to the blog. Most of my clients are Type-A personalities and it goes against their make-up to ignore this type of situation. In general, the 1st Amendment protects most forms of speech. Therefore, in many of these situations it is be best not to legitimize the offending blog’s comments by providing a response. To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Social Media and The Right To Publicity
The Right To Publicity enables a person to profit off of his or her name or likeness. This right varies from state to state and may be extremely valuable for entertainers and professional athletes who have a marketable name or likeness. This right was first recognized by the U.S. Courts in 1953 in Halean v. Topps 202 F.2d 866. Here, a baseball card company sued a competitor alleging that it owned an exclusive right to photograph and to publicize ballplayers they had under contract and that a competitor did not have the right to utilize a player's likeness in their trading card set while the player was still under contract with the plaintiff.
The Halean Court stated, "that, in addition to and independent of that right of privacy, a man has a right in the publicity value of his photograph, i. e., the right to grant the exclusive privilege of publishing his picture, and that such a grant may validly be made 'in gross,' i. e., without an accompanying transfer of a business or of anything else. Whether it be labelled a 'property' right is immaterial; for here, as often elsewhere, the tag 'property' simply symbolizes the fact that courts enforce a claim which has pecuniary worth. This right might be called a 'right of publicity.' For it is common knowledge that many prominent persons (especially actors and ball-players), far from having their feelings bruised through public exposure of their likenesses, would feel sorely deprived if they no longer received money for authorizing advertisements, popularizing their countenances, displayed in newspapers, magazines, busses, trains and subways. This right of publicity would usually yield them no money unless it could be made the subject of an exclusive grant which barred any other advertiser from using their pictures."
Entertainers, professional athletes, and celebutantes (those famous for being famous) have a love-hate relationship with the paparazzi. The paparazzi serve a much needed role because they help these people stay in the public's eye. According to the L.A. Times, some celebrities may have formal or informal relationships with members of the paparazzi which feed the publicity machine that is so important to an entertainer's career. Celebrities sell the rights to their images for staggering sums. For example, according to the Today Show, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie sold photos of their newborn twins to People and Hello magazines for $14 million dollars. Pitt and Jolie had previously sold images of their daughter
The bottom line is that social media may create new revenue opportunities that if properly utilized has the potential to become major income streams. Unfortunately, for most entertainers and professional athletes the window of opportunity to capitalize on these assets is short and unpredictable. Therefore, social media action plans must be created and implemented during the early stages of a celebrity's or athlete's career. To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Entertainment and Sports Social Media 360 Deals
Entertainment 360 deals have slowly become more prevalent in the entertainment industry during the past several years. A 360 deal is one where a record label or entertainment company signs talent to a contract that entitles the company to derive revenue not only from traditional revenue streams such as record sales, but also from all other monetizeable areas. These other revenue streams may include: endorsements, merchandise sales, publishing, and songwriting. The revenue splits vary depending upon an artist's leverage in the industry.
Michael Jackson's estate recently signed an agreement that appears to be what I call an "Entertainment Estate 360 Deal." The full details of the contract have not been disclosed as of this writing, but, it sounds as though this agreement may break new ground in the manner in which entertainment contracts slice and dice intellectual property rights. According to the New York Times, the agreement "allows Sony and the estate [of Michael Jackson] to collaborate on a wide range of lucrative licensing arrangements, like the use of Jackson music for films, television and stage shows and lines of memorabilia that will be limited only by the imagination of the estate and the demand of a hungry worldwide market." This groundbreaking agreement appears to fully monetize Michael Jackson's estate in a manner that will benefit the estate's heirs. Unfortunately, Michael Jackson may have been worth more dead than alive.
Generally, in the world of U.S. professional sports 360 deals do not exist. NFL players have an incentive to quickly monetize their social media assets because on average their playing careers last approximately 3.4 years. In order to properly leverage an athlete's social media potential, a player needs to be both talented on the field and have a unique and engaging personality. Chad Ochocinco has this rare combination and this has enabled his twitter account to attract sponsors due to his ability to acquire almost 800,000 followers.
As an attorney who practices entertainment, sports, and social media law, I am always looking for creative methods to increase my client's revenue streams. In my February 5, 2010 post, I discussed "Social Media Engagement Product Placement Contracts." To elaborate further on this topic, I want to discuss what I call "Social Media 360 Deals." In a "Social Media 360 Deal," a celebrity or professional athlete's social media assets are utilized to create synergy for both the client and the sponsor(s). Due to the constantly changing technology of social media, an attorney must be well versed in not only contract law and intellectual property, but must also fully understand the technology and capabilities of the social media platforms involved. To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Michael Jackson's estate recently signed an agreement that appears to be what I call an "Entertainment Estate 360 Deal." The full details of the contract have not been disclosed as of this writing, but, it sounds as though this agreement may break new ground in the manner in which entertainment contracts slice and dice intellectual property rights. According to the New York Times, the agreement "allows Sony and the estate [of Michael Jackson] to collaborate on a wide range of lucrative licensing arrangements, like the use of Jackson music for films, television and stage shows and lines of memorabilia that will be limited only by the imagination of the estate and the demand of a hungry worldwide market." This groundbreaking agreement appears to fully monetize Michael Jackson's estate in a manner that will benefit the estate's heirs. Unfortunately, Michael Jackson may have been worth more dead than alive.
Generally, in the world of U.S. professional sports 360 deals do not exist. NFL players have an incentive to quickly monetize their social media assets because on average their playing careers last approximately 3.4 years. In order to properly leverage an athlete's social media potential, a player needs to be both talented on the field and have a unique and engaging personality. Chad Ochocinco has this rare combination and this has enabled his twitter account to attract sponsors due to his ability to acquire almost 800,000 followers.
As an attorney who practices entertainment, sports, and social media law, I am always looking for creative methods to increase my client's revenue streams. In my February 5, 2010 post, I discussed "Social Media Engagement Product Placement Contracts." To elaborate further on this topic, I want to discuss what I call "Social Media 360 Deals." In a "Social Media 360 Deal," a celebrity or professional athlete's social media assets are utilized to create synergy for both the client and the sponsor(s). Due to the constantly changing technology of social media, an attorney must be well versed in not only contract law and intellectual property, but must also fully understand the technology and capabilities of the social media platforms involved. To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Litigation Facebook Friending
Litigation Facebook Friending is going to become a major litigation due diligence issue in the coming years. In my January 8, 2010 post I created a legal definition for a Facebook Friend. In that post I defined a Facebook Friend as:
"someone whom is added to your network on a social media website. A "Facebook Friend" may or may not be someone with whom you have ever met or interacted with other than requesting that he or she be added to your network or that you confirmed that he or she be added to your network."
Neither Black's Law Dictionary nor Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary has a definition for Litigation Facebook Friending. Therefore, I would like to create a legal definition for this activity. Litigation Facebook Friending occurs when a plaintiff or a defendant in litigation "encourages" a non-party to "Facebook Friend" one of the other litigants or a member(s) of the jury so an opposing litigant(s) can obtain inside information on another litigant(s) or a member of the jury.
If you know what your opposing litigant(s) and/or members of the jury are doing or thinking and they don't know that you have access to their Facebook or other social media website posts this can be a huge advantage. Does anyone remember John Grisham's novel and subsequent movie Runaway Jury?
In March 2009, the Philadelphia Bar Association Professional Guidance Committee provided an advisory opinion that stated that Facebook Friending opposing litigants may be considered misconduct. The opinion was not binding upon the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania or any other Court. I believe there will be many contradictory opinions across the country on this matter and that the American Bar Association will ultimately need to resolve this issue. To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
"someone whom is added to your network on a social media website. A "Facebook Friend" may or may not be someone with whom you have ever met or interacted with other than requesting that he or she be added to your network or that you confirmed that he or she be added to your network."
Neither Black's Law Dictionary nor Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary has a definition for Litigation Facebook Friending. Therefore, I would like to create a legal definition for this activity. Litigation Facebook Friending occurs when a plaintiff or a defendant in litigation "encourages" a non-party to "Facebook Friend" one of the other litigants or a member(s) of the jury so an opposing litigant(s) can obtain inside information on another litigant(s) or a member of the jury.
If you know what your opposing litigant(s) and/or members of the jury are doing or thinking and they don't know that you have access to their Facebook or other social media website posts this can be a huge advantage. Does anyone remember John Grisham's novel and subsequent movie Runaway Jury?
In March 2009, the Philadelphia Bar Association Professional Guidance Committee provided an advisory opinion that stated that Facebook Friending opposing litigants may be considered misconduct. The opinion was not binding upon the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania or any other Court. I believe there will be many contradictory opinions across the country on this matter and that the American Bar Association will ultimately need to resolve this issue. To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
How Do You Solve A Problem Like Maria (Juror Facebooking)?
I was invited to speak at the University of Baltimore's Lunch Time Law Series on February 22, 2010 to discuss entertainment and social media law. The Lunch Time Law Series is a great program that invites members of the legal community to discuss current trends in the law.
During the program, the State v. Dixon case was brought up. I previously blogged about this case on December 30,2009, and on January 15, 2010. In this case, five jurors communicated with each other outside of the courtroom via Facebook. The defense team found out about this after a verdict had been entered but before sentencing. Whether this activity constituted juror misconduct enough to warrant
In my opinion, the temptation to access the Internet and social media sites is too great. Over the past several years, more and more people are ditching their landlines for smartphones, which allow quick and easy access to the Internet. Therefore, the courts have to put rules in place to safeguard the integrity of the jury system.
There are several different ways to do this. The first is to sequester all jurors, which frankly is impractical for many reasons, including, cost, and inconvenience.
The second possible solution would be to require prospective jurors to list all of their social media accounts on the juror questionnaire, including for example, Twitter name and password, and Facebook userid and password. This would enable court staff and the legal parties to not only screen for juror bias, but also to ensure that the impaneled jurors are not discussing the case in violation of court admonishments. In my opinion, this would intrude on a prospective juror’s right to privacy. The U.S. Constitution does not expressly protect one’s right to privacy. However, I believe it is inherent and forcing people to turn over this information may make people more inclined than they already are to try to avoid jury duty.
A third option, and the one that I believe is most viable is to require jurors sign a form stating that they agree not to discuss their case in any medium, including social media while they are impaneled. The form would include possible legal penalties if they disobey the directive.
On September 10, 2009, I blogged about how the San Francisco Court System is handling this issue.The U.S. Federal Courts recently weighed in on this problem and their response was to put forth a new model set of jury instructions: http://www.uscourts.gov/newsroom/2010/DIR10-018.pdf
Suggested jury instructions and admonishments for disobeying the rules are not enough. Real consequences are needed to take away the temptation to surf, post, blog, podcast, etc...There are no easy answers to "solving a problem like Maria (Juror Facebook)." However, a 21st century solution that addresses these issues and anticipates future challenges is needed. To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.Friday, February 5, 2010
Social Media Engagement Product Placement Contracts
Social media rights in professional sports is going to soon become one of the biggest revenue generating streams outside of a professional player's contract. It may take several years for this prediction to pan out but I guarantee that this will occur in the near future.
There are only a handful of professional athletes who are able to obtain major endorsement deals. The traditional form of endorsement deals where an athlete such as Tiger Woods is seen utilizing or standing next to a product is going to significantly change in the near future. Since the Tiger Woods scandal, companies are now going to be extremely careful about putting all of their eggs in one basket no matter how successful an athlete is in their chosen profession. In the Social Media Age an athlete's image can drastically change with one posted youtube video. Since the corporate world is generally risk averse, many companies will soon realize that a new endorsement paradigm will need to be created.
Traditional print, television, and radio advertising is dying a slow death. Internet banner ads and the pay per click model is also in transition. The wave of the future is what I would like to call "Engagement Product Placement." Engagement Product Placement occurs when a paid endorser such as a professional athlete is hired to engage in a conversation with his or her Facebook Fans, Twitter Followers, or other social media connections about a product or service. Chad Ochocinco, a wide receiver for the Cincinnati Bengals, has more than 186,000 Facebook Fans and almost 750,000 Twitter Followers. Given Chad Ochocinco's popularity just imagine the opportunities available.
The companies who hire paid endorsers and the attorneys for paid endorsers must be fully versed in the Federal Trade Commission's new guidelines before negotiating Engagement Product Placement Contracts. Paid endorsers need to hire attorneys who understand the technology and full power of social media to account for the permutations that exist in this type of contract.
In the Social Media Age attorneys need to find creative ways to address all of the business and legal issues that accompany social media usage. To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
There are only a handful of professional athletes who are able to obtain major endorsement deals. The traditional form of endorsement deals where an athlete such as Tiger Woods is seen utilizing or standing next to a product is going to significantly change in the near future. Since the Tiger Woods scandal, companies are now going to be extremely careful about putting all of their eggs in one basket no matter how successful an athlete is in their chosen profession. In the Social Media Age an athlete's image can drastically change with one posted youtube video. Since the corporate world is generally risk averse, many companies will soon realize that a new endorsement paradigm will need to be created.
Traditional print, television, and radio advertising is dying a slow death. Internet banner ads and the pay per click model is also in transition. The wave of the future is what I would like to call "Engagement Product Placement." Engagement Product Placement occurs when a paid endorser such as a professional athlete is hired to engage in a conversation with his or her Facebook Fans, Twitter Followers, or other social media connections about a product or service. Chad Ochocinco, a wide receiver for the Cincinnati Bengals, has more than 186,000 Facebook Fans and almost 750,000 Twitter Followers. Given Chad Ochocinco's popularity just imagine the opportunities available.
The companies who hire paid endorsers and the attorneys for paid endorsers must be fully versed in the Federal Trade Commission's new guidelines before negotiating Engagement Product Placement Contracts. Paid endorsers need to hire attorneys who understand the technology and full power of social media to account for the permutations that exist in this type of contract.
In the Social Media Age attorneys need to find creative ways to address all of the business and legal issues that accompany social media usage. To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Are You Willing To Pay For Social Media Content?
Due to the popularity of the original Napster and other early file sharing services, a large segment of the population believes it should not have to pay for the rights to digitally download music, movies, or other forms of Internet accessible entertainment. The Recording Industry Association of America has led the fight to stop the wholesale theft of intellectual property rights from its members. According to the RIAA's website, global music piracy causes more than $12.5 billion dollars in economic losses every year and the loss of more than 71,000 jobs.
Love or hate Apple, the company created an easy to use device, the iPod and set an unofficial price point of $.99 for each entertainment segment that is downloaded. In 2007, Radiohead provided fans the opportunity to pay whatever a fan wanted for the right to download their songs. Recently, Linkin Park was a driving force behind another pay what you want effort for non-profit Music For Relief that supports the Haiti relief effort. This business model may work in some cases, but the free rider dilema where too many people don't want to pay a fair price for a product or service is still a challenge that social media content providers must confront.
Amazon recently tried to replicate Apple's business model and industry position in the book business with their price point of $9.99 per Kindle download. However, major publishing house, Macmillian has refused to accept Amazon's price point and a legal dispute may be in the works.
As an active user of social media, I am fully aware of the cost of content creation and usage. Most social media websites are financially supported by advertising. Some have paywalls that offer a teaser before requiring a user to pay and others are fully subscription based. In the pornography industry, there are group subscriptions where belonging to one site automatically enables you to access other sites with your subscription or provides a reduced rate for membership.
The newspaper industry is on life support and it appears that Senator Cardin's proposal to allow newspapers to become non-profits has not been embraced by the marketplace. In contrast, Rupert Murdoch has been preaching about charging for his newspaper's content. As a Wall Street Journal subscriber, I believe the paper is one of only a couple of news organizations in the world that offers content that its users are willing to pay a subscription premium for. However, if I was offered a flat fee to access premium content for 25 of my most visited social media websites, I may be willing to pay for it if it was priced correctly. This subscription model would be based on the way cable companies offer premium channels on top of their basic packages.
There may be antitrust issues if a group of the most popular news organizations/social media content providers formed an entity and began offering their content in a pooled subscription. The Sports Broadcasting Act enables professional and collegiate sports leagues to package and sell pooled broadcasting rights. Even though member teams/schools are individual entities, Congress has carved out an exemption for this industry.
Why can't Congress carve out the same type of exemption for news organizations and/or social media and/or entertainment entities that would enable them to pool their resources? If professional sports leagues and NCAA member schools enjoy this type of special exemption why can't the news and/or the social media/entertainment industry also receive a special exemption under the law?
The bottom line is that content creation is not free and imaginative business methods must be utilized that may require new laws or a rethinking of some of our current laws. I believe now is the time for the business, legal, and political community to come together to draft a plan that accounts for this change in how people view, price, and protect intellectual property. To learn more about these issues you may contact me www.shearlaw.com
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Love or hate Apple, the company created an easy to use device, the iPod and set an unofficial price point of $.99 for each entertainment segment that is downloaded. In 2007, Radiohead provided fans the opportunity to pay whatever a fan wanted for the right to download their songs. Recently, Linkin Park was a driving force behind another pay what you want effort for non-profit Music For Relief that supports the Haiti relief effort. This business model may work in some cases, but the free rider dilema where too many people don't want to pay a fair price for a product or service is still a challenge that social media content providers must confront.
Amazon recently tried to replicate Apple's business model and industry position in the book business with their price point of $9.99 per Kindle download. However, major publishing house, Macmillian has refused to accept Amazon's price point and a legal dispute may be in the works.
As an active user of social media, I am fully aware of the cost of content creation and usage. Most social media websites are financially supported by advertising. Some have paywalls that offer a teaser before requiring a user to pay and others are fully subscription based. In the pornography industry, there are group subscriptions where belonging to one site automatically enables you to access other sites with your subscription or provides a reduced rate for membership.
The newspaper industry is on life support and it appears that Senator Cardin's proposal to allow newspapers to become non-profits has not been embraced by the marketplace. In contrast, Rupert Murdoch has been preaching about charging for his newspaper's content. As a Wall Street Journal subscriber, I believe the paper is one of only a couple of news organizations in the world that offers content that its users are willing to pay a subscription premium for. However, if I was offered a flat fee to access premium content for 25 of my most visited social media websites, I may be willing to pay for it if it was priced correctly. This subscription model would be based on the way cable companies offer premium channels on top of their basic packages.
There may be antitrust issues if a group of the most popular news organizations/social media content providers formed an entity and began offering their content in a pooled subscription. The Sports Broadcasting Act enables professional and collegiate sports leagues to package and sell pooled broadcasting rights. Even though member teams/schools are individual entities, Congress has carved out an exemption for this industry.
Why can't Congress carve out the same type of exemption for news organizations and/or social media and/or entertainment entities that would enable them to pool their resources? If professional sports leagues and NCAA member schools enjoy this type of special exemption why can't the news and/or the social media/entertainment industry also receive a special exemption under the law?
The bottom line is that content creation is not free and imaginative business methods must be utilized that may require new laws or a rethinking of some of our current laws. I believe now is the time for the business, legal, and political community to come together to draft a plan that accounts for this change in how people view, price, and protect intellectual property. To learn more about these issues you may contact me www.shearlaw.com
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The Legal Definition of a Twitter Follower
Twitter has become one of the most popular social media websites. In 2009, there were several highly publicized lawsuits that were based on what people have tweeted (communicated) through twitter. Until recently, to find out what has been tweeted by someone you needed to "follow" someone's twitter feed. However, search engines Google and Bing now incorporate twitter feeds in their search engine results. For those who are not familiar with Twitter, it is a form of communication limited to 140 characters and a twitter feed is analogous to the the old stock tickers on wall street.
In order to keep abreast of the information posted by a Twitter account holder another Twitter account holder needs to become a "follower" of the account holder he or she wants to follow. Becoming a "follower" of another's twitter feed only means that you now have the ability read that person's tweets. Unlike Facebook in which someone has to be accepted as a "friend" before being able to essentially follow that person's posts, Twitter does not have that same restriction.A Twitter account holder has the ability to delete unwanted followers or to protect his/her tweets from non-followers.
According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, the word "follower" is a noun and its top two definitions are:
1 a: one in the service of another : retainer
b: one that follows the opinions or teachings of another
c: one that imitates another
2 archaic : one that chases
I tried to unsuccessfully find a legal definition for "Twitter Follower" on Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary and several other online reference sources. The reason for creating a legal definition of a "Twitter Follower" is that the U.S. legal system may one day need the definition to determine possible attorney or witness conflicts of interest, alleged juror misconduct, jury tampering or connections between those involved in a legal matter.
c: one that imitates another
2 archaic : one that chases
I tried to unsuccessfully find a legal definition for "Twitter Follower" on Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary and several other online reference sources. The reason for creating a legal definition of a "Twitter Follower" is that the U.S. legal system may one day need the definition to determine possible attorney or witness conflicts of interest, alleged juror misconduct, jury tampering or connections between those involved in a legal matter.
"A person or entity who has a Twitter account who has gained access or the ability to follow or read another Twitter account holder's tweets."
Becoming a Twitter Follower of another Twitter account holder does not mean that the "Follower" or "Followee" have ever met or have any type of personal or professional relationship. For example, entertainer Ashton Kutcher has more than 4,430,000 twitter followers and he is following at least 300 other Twitter accounts. I am willing to guarantee that Mr. Kutcher does not know 99.99% of those who are following him.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)