How to Avoid Being the Next Social Media Horror Story

May 28, 2014 by Leave a Comment
Be A Social Media Super Hero for your Company - "Super Heros" by 5chw4r7z from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Be A Social Media Super Hero for your Company – “Super Heros” by 5chw4r7z from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

I had the pleasure of presenting Social Media Horror Stories (and How to Avoid the Same Fate) at the Arizona Technology Council Lunch and Learn this week.  For those of you who weren’t there, I got to tell the stories of major missteps companies and individuals have committed with their social media activities and how to avoid the same mistakes. In every situation, the problems could have been avoided or mitigated with proper education, forethought, and applying common sense.

This is my recommended follow-up plan for attendees:

Register Your Trademarks
To avoid problems with your competition, register the name of your company, products, blog, logo, and/or tagline with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Without registration, the law only protects your right to use your trademarks in your established geographic market (which can be challenging to discern when your business is 100% online). You don’t want to find yourself in the Burger King situation where your market is limited or the Turner Barr situation where your business is essentially shut down because someone else registered your mark.

Before you launch your next company, product, or marketing campaign, be sure to check the Trademark Office’s database to make sure that someone else doesn’t already have the exclusive rights to use your desired trademark.

Check Your Contracts
If you outsource any of your content creation or marketing activities, review your contracts carefully. Look for information about who owns the social media accounts and any content created on your behalf. Also look for provisions that address potential problems and whether you will be indemnified if you’re sued or get in trouble because of something a third party did on your behalf.

Remember that website terms of service are also contracts. Make sure you understand the implications of using a social media platform or web-based service. Your site may also have terms of service that manage your relationships with your users. Make sure they’ve been written to suit your needs.

Be Careful About Copyrights
When a person owns a copyright in text or an image, they have the exclusive right to control where they work is copied, distributed, and displayed. If you want to use their work, you often need to obtain permission or risk being accused of copyright infringement.  I frequently see people pulling images from search engine results without considering the artist’s rights. Many people think they can use whatever they want as long as they give an attribution and link back to the original, and that’s just not true. If you’re looking for images for your site, consider using Creative Commons. I always use images that come with the license that allows me to modify and commercialize the artist’s work.

When it comes to your own copyrights, decide in advance how you want to react when someone steals your work and plan accordingly.

Check Your Social Media Policy
I’m an advocate for the idea that companies should generally leave their employees alone when they’re on their own time, including what they do on social media. However, I’m also a huge proponent of the idea that every company needs a social media policy. Employees need to understand what their dos and don’ts are when it comes to their personal profiles and blogs, and employers need to understand that their social media policy needs to comply with the National Labor Relations Act. If your policy prohibits employees from saying anything damaging about the company online, it’s likely illegal and if you fire someone for violating an illegal policy, you could easily face tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and damages. This is an area of law that is still developing, so please have  lawyer help you write your policy so it complies with the law.

Review Your Crisis Response Plan
For most companies, the question isn’t if it will face a crisis, but when. Every company should have plans in place for dealing with expected problems, including pre-writing content for the media and social media, so what when an problem occurs, everyone knows what their role and the protocol that everyone will be following. When you’re having your planning sessions, it’s a good idea to have your legal counsel present to assist from a legal perspective.

If you want a resource for you or your staff regarding the legalities of social media, please check out my book, The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed. If you’re interested in guerilla marketing, my book on Flash Mob Law will be available on Amazon in June 2014.

If you want to talk more about social media law, you can connected with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Filed Under: Business Law, Featured Post, Intellectual Property, Internet law, Legalities of Blogging Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Arizona’s New Revenge Porn Law

May 13, 2014 by 4 Comments
8/52 My Shadow by Scarleth Marie from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

8/52 My Shadow by Scarleth Marie from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Governor Brewer recently signed HB 2515, which made “revenge porn” a felony in Arizona. The official name for this law will be Unlawful Distribution of Private Images and it will be added to the Arizona criminal code as Arizona Revised Statute § 13-1425.

This new law, “Prohibits a person from intentionally disclosing, displaying, distributing, publishing, advertising or offering a photograph, videotape, film or digital recording of a person in a state of nudity or engaged in specific sexual activities if the person knows or should have known that the depicted person has not consented to the disclosure.” It also amends the domestic violence law (A.R.S. § 13-3601) by stating that revenge porn can be a type of domestic violence.

If you are arrested for violating this law, you will be charged with a Class 5 Felony (punishable by at least 6 months’ imprisonment and up to $150,000 fine), unless the person in the image or videos is recognizable, then you’ll be charged with a Class 4 Felony (punishable by at least 1 year in jail and up to $150,000 fine). When I first saw these punishments, I thought they were overly harsh, but then I noted that these are the same penalties for people who are found guilty of voyeurism in Arizona.

This law goes into effect on July 24, 2014. Arizona law enforcement has until then to develop their policies regarding how these crimes will be investigated and train their staff. Arizona already has a law against cyberharassment, so I suspect the policy for the new law will be similar to the procedures they have in place for this.

These are some of my thoughts about this new law:

  • I suspect the distribution of revenge porn applies to sending images or videos from person-to-person via text or email as well as widespread postings on websites. I can easily see a group of high school kids being accused of violating this law for passing around a naked selfie of one of their classmates that the victim meant for only their significant other to see. It could also be a felony just to show the image to one person.
  • Did you notice that the law applies to “offering” an image or video? I think that means you could be guilty even if you just offer to share someone else’s naked photo without the person’s consent, even if the potential recipient declines. These situations would probably be hard to prove unless the conversation was recorded or documented via text messages or email.

I’m curious to see how this law will impact existing revenge porn. If someone posted a photo of you on a revenge porn site this month and it’s still up when the law goes into effect in July, can the victim turn the alleged perpetrator in at that time with the claim that by staying on the internet, the crime is ongoing? Or will the victim have to wait until someone posts or sends the photo/video again after the law goes into effect to file a claim?

My rule of thumb is, “Think before you post.” Once an image or a message is sent, you can never fully take it back. Even if you have a revenge porn claim and the person is justly prosecuted, that image of you is still out there and you have no control over who’s seen it and it’s hard to chase down every place it might be posted to try to get it removed.

(Note: This video was made in March 2013, before the revenge porn law was passed, and not every state has a specific law about revenge porn.)

If you think you’ve been a victim of cyberharassment or revenge porn, please contact your local law enforcement agency.

If you want to learn more about revenge porn, please check out my book The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed. It has an entire chapter dedicated to invasion of privacy. You can connected with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Filed Under: Cyberbullying & Cyberharassment, Internet law Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

New Developments in the Blogger-Media Debate

April 24, 2014 by Leave a Comment
Kelli Johnson Orioles Media Pass by Keith Allison from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Kelli Johnson Orioles Media Pass by Keith Allison from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

The debate over whether bloggers are journalists or members of the media continues. This has been an issue since the inception of blogging and it’s probably going to be an ongoing issue and here’s why – most laws that apply to journalists (like the shield laws) are state-level laws. They’re generally similar but it comes down to how each law was written to determine whether bloggers are journalists in a specific situation. And unless a state revises its laws to specifically address whether bloggers can be journalists, we have to wait until there’s a problem and the blogger who claims to be protected the same as a journalist challenges a situation where they’ve been denied that right.

So far, the courts in California and New Hampshire have said that bloggers can be journalists under those states’ shield laws and the courts in Oregon and Illinois have said that they’re not based on how those states’ laws are worded and the specifics of those cases. I believe that bloggers should be treated the same as journalists under the law when the bloggers are engaged in the same activities. With so many publications becoming only available in digital formats and many legit respected niche blogs being created, it would be foolish to try to categorize as a journalist or a blogger when in essence it’s their activities that matter more than name of the outlet where their work appears.

Here are some recent developments in the blogger/journalist debate:

Florida
Florida’s defamation law says you must give a media outlet five days’ notice before filing a defamation lawsuit against them. Florida businessman Christopher Comins sued blogger Matthew Frederick VanVoorhis for defamation and lost because VanVoorhis successfully argued that blogs are part of the media and therefore the case had to be thrown out because Comins failed to give him five days’ notice about the lawsuit.

I was impressed by how well the court articulated the role of bloggers in news reporting and public commentary: “The impact of blogs has been so great that even terms traditionally well defined and understood in journalism are changing as journalists increasingly employ the tools and techniques of bloggers – and vice versa.”

I was also pleased to see that the court added that not all blogs and bloggers are protected under the law in question. I think that would be overreaching. You can read the full case here. Thanks for posting it Techdirt.

U.S. Senate
SCOTUSblog is generally regarded as a go-to place for news from the U.S. Supreme Court. They’re the main blog I follow via Twitter for updates on rulings. (Did I mention they’ve won a Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media?) Lyle Denniston writes for SCOTUSblog and had a press pass for the Senate Press Gallery. Historically the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes those credentials. However, they said they’d have to review their credentialing policy when he tried to use it at the Supreme Court. (SCOTUSblog writers can get in to Supreme Court proceedings by requesting a public seat.)

Denniston was recently informed that his press pass for the Senate Press Gallery would not be renewed. Attorney Tom Goldstein, founder of SCOTUSblog, said he intends to appeal the decision, and if it’s denied, he’s going to file a lawsuit.

I hope SCOTUSblog doesn’t have to litigate this issue but I’m glad they’re willing to. When I first read this story, my reaction was they were being denied a press pass because someone at the Senate or the Supreme Court doesn’t like them and is trying to use semantics to keep them out. This is going to be a fun situation to watch and an issue worth keeping an eye on in general.

If you want to know more about blogger rights, I strongly recommend two of my books:

If you want to talk more about this topic, feel free to connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. Please subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter and visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Hat tip to Kevin O’Keefe.

Filed Under: Internet law, Legalities of Blogging Tagged With: , , , , , ,

What was up with General Mills’ Legal Terms?

April 21, 2014 by 2 Comments
General Mills Kids Breakfast Cereals by Mike Mozart from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

General Mills Kids Breakfast Cereals by Mike Mozart from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

I got lots of messages last week when it came out that General Mills’ legal terms said that if you downloaded their coupons, connected with them on social media, entered a contest, or purchased any of their products that you agreed to resolve all disputes with the company through binding arbitration or informal negotiation via email.

And everybody lost their minds.

I can understand requiring arbitration for disputes related to contests. I write terms of service for websites all the time and I also include a dispute resolution where my client specifies where, how, and using which state’s law problems will be resolved. I would never tell a client to write their terms in a way that dictates how they’re going to resolve problems that are not related to a website.

I think it’s ridiculous that they’d even try to tell consumers that making a purchase forces them to resolve disputes in arbitration unless those provisions are available on the packaging and in print that might make a consumer take notice. I’ve never thought to examine a cereal box for contract terms.

Thankfully General Mills saw the light and reversed its decision and voided the offensive terms this past Saturday. In a blog post, General Mills spokesperson Kirstie Foster wrote, “No one is precluded from suing us by purchasing our products at a store, and no one is precluded from suing us when they ‘like’ one of our Facebook pages.”

General Mills still supports arbitration for resolving disputes and I understand why. It can be a faster and more cost-effective way to resolve problems. However, some disputes are better left to litigation where there is the option to pursue a class-action lawsuit when the situation warrants it.

We agree to contract terms all the time. Every time we click the “I agree” button for an online service or to create an account on a social media platform, we are agreeing to the terms of the contract (even if we don’t read the terms). The next time you go to a concert or a professional sporting event, flip over your ticket and read the fine print on the back. That’s a contract. I have no problem with these contracts as long as they make sense for the situation and don’t overreach into scenarios where it would be unreasonable for the terms to extend.

My Neighborhood Whataburger

My Neighborhood Whataburger

For example, I recently heard that there was a sign at a Whataburger restaurant that put consumers on notice that by eating in the restaurant, they agreed to resolve all disputes related to their dining experience via arbitration. I tried to confirm this but I didn’t see such a sign in my neighborhood Whataburger. I visited their website and didn’t see such a provision; however, I was perturbed to see terms and conditions that said:

By giving us permission to use your post or tweet, you agree that we may, at our discretion, use your real or social media user name and the content of your post or tweet (including all accompanying images) on our website to promote our company, products and services for such time period as we wish. You give us the right to edit your post or tweet for brevity, clarity and the like and to modify any image in any manner we deem necessary to use it on our website. You will not have the advance right to review or approve what we post on our website….You will not receive any compensation for granting us the above rights. We agree that you may withdraw the permission you have given us at any time by sending us an email at customerrelations@wbhq.com.

Whataburger’s Facebook page says they can use anything you post on their page but I didn’t see any similar verbiage on their Twitter profile. I think they’re trying to set themselves up so they can use anything you post about the company on social media, including editing it which I’m not too keen about the verbiage they used.

This is a topic that is worth watching to see what becomes the norm in social media marketing. I f you want to talk more about terms of service or social media law, connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. Please subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter and visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Filed Under: Business Law, Internet law Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

U.S. Copyright Office is Raising its Filing Fees on May 1, 2014

April 15, 2014 by Leave a Comment
Burning Nature by Vinoth Chandar from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Burning Nature by Vinoth Chandar from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Last week, the U.S. Copyright Office announced that it is raising its fees to register your work. Effective May 1, 2014, the cost to register a single work or a collection of works using their online system will go up from $35.00 to $55.00 per application. For those of you who are old school and prefer to register your work by mail, the fee will go up from $65 to $85.

So if you have projects that you were planning on registering with the Copyright Office, now would be a really good time to get them done.  You only have to get your application in before May 1st; it may take the Copyright office until after May 1st to process it.

There is one piece of good news in the fee hike announcement. The U.S. Copyright made an exception for individuals who are registering single works that are not “works made for hire.” If you are a photographer, writer, or some other artist and you want to register you works individually, your filing fee will remain at $35 per application.

I had a question about this exception because I know many artists who create a lot of works that are not works made for hire, but they do it under an LLC for liability and tax purposes.  I called the Copyright Office and they confirmed that you only qualify for the $35 fee if you register as an individual person. If you register your work under your business name, you have to pay $55 per application, even if you are the only person in the business.

Heart in Pages by Vincent Lock from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Heart in Pages by Vincent Lock from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

The only things that are changing on May 1st are the Copyright Office’s fees. The rest of the copyright laws have remained the same.

To qualify for a copyright, you need an original work of authorship that is fixed in any tangible medium. When you have a copyright, you have the exclusive right to control where your work is copied, distributed, displayed, performed, and what derivative works can be made from it. You get these rights the moment your work is created, even if you never register it with the Copyright Office and even if you don’t put a copyright notice on your work – i.e. “© [Copyright Owner’s Name] [Year].”  If you register your work, your registration provides the presumption of ownership and validity of your copyright rights. If you ever want to sue for copyright infringement when someone steals your work, you must register your work with the U.S. Copyright Office first.

If you want to talk more about copyright, copyright registration, or intellectual property strategy, connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. If you post your original work online, I strongly recommend you check out the many chapters on copyrights in my books:

Please subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter and visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Filed Under: Business Law, Intellectual Property, Internet law, Legalities of Blogging Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Legal Issues if you Outsource your Blog Content

April 10, 2014 by 6 Comments

“Sam, Sam, the Gorilla Man” by Beth Rankin from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

I don’t believe in outsourcing my blog content, but I understand that some people do because they’re busy, or they’re afraid they’re not a good writer, or they’re not dedicated to maintaining their site. Whatever the reason, it happens. If you fall into this boat, there are some legal ramifications you need to be aware of and plan for.

Regardless of who you use to write your blog material, you should review every post before it goes up to ensure that the content is accurate, especially if you work in a field where misstatements can happen and readers could be harmed if they rely on your blog’s information.

Copyright
If you outsource your blog to a third party, your content creator owns the copyright in whatever they create for you unless you have a contract that states otherwise. Without this contract, they own everything and, at most, you have an implied license to use it on your site. If you want to repurpose a blog post, you have to get your writer’s permission; otherwise, you could commit copyright infringement by reusing the material from your own site.

Indemnification
When your writer creates a post, you often do not know what source material they used or where they got the images for each post. (Yes, every blog post needs an image.) There is always a risk that your writer will rip off someone else’s verbiage or image without your knowledge.

If you do not review each post before it is released on your site, there is a risk that your writer could post something defamatory or harmful to another person. The alleged victim in that case might sue you for damages because they were injured because of your website. To avoid this problem, you can protect yourself with an indemnification clause that holds the blogger responsible for the damage they cause or at least requires them to a pay your attorneys’ fees and/or damages assessed against you.

Clear Contracts
If you work with a third party content creator, you want a clear contract that explains all the pertinent aspects of your relationship – what they will create for you, deadlines, who is responsible for website problems, if they’re allowed to write similar content for others, how you’re going to resolve problems, who will own the copyright, and if the writer can use posts as work samples if they assign the copyright to you.

I love contracts. If the term “contract” is a turn-off for you, think of it as a relationship management document. All it is a document that lays out how your relationship is going to work. I made a video this week about how awesome contracts are.

When you work with third party content creators, not having a contract is not an option. If you want to chat more contracts for your content creators, connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also check out my books about the legalities of blogging:

Please subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter and visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Filed Under: Business Law, Featured Post, Intellectual Property, Internet law, Legalities of Blogging Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Arizona Fantasy Gaming Bill Fails

April 2, 2014 by 2 Comments
Fantasy Football League 1 Draft by Jay Thompson from Flickr

Fantasy Football League 1 Draft by Jay Thompson from Flickr

Arizona lawmakers have, once again, shown how lame they are. Earlier this year they approved the anti-gay SB 1062 which was thankfully vetoed by soon-to-be-former Governor Brewer. This time they killed SB 1468, which would have legalized fantasy sports.

Arizona is one of a handful of states where fantasy sports are illegal. Sometimes this means that Arizonans can’t participate in fantasy sports if they admit their true location or they’re allowed to play but they can’t accept prizes if they win – even if there’s no fee to play or the prize is as simple as a t-shirt.

Here’s what’s super lame – Under federal law, fantasy sports are legal!  Under the Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA) fantasy sports aren’t gambling because each participant’s team is made up of players from multiple teams and the results are based on the participant’s knowledge and skill. I can speak from my limited experience playing in the Deadliest Catch fantasy game that it definitely takes knowledge and skills. Unfortunately fantasy gaming is regulated at the state level so each state has the option to say that fantasy games are illegal.

Apparently SB 1468 was killed due to the influence of the Arizona Indian Gaming Association. They were afraid that legalizing fantasy games would negatively impact the tribal gaming compacts. I can understand that the tribal casinos want to have a monopoly on gambling in the state but I don’t see how fantasy sports would hurt them. I doubt that people will give up black jack and slot machines for a fantasy league. I think they’re afraid that people would start fantasy gaming businesses that could create competition for the casinos but I have serious doubts that people who love to hang out in casinos will give that up for fantasy gaming.

Technically fantasy gaming is a Class 5 felony in Arizona, and anyone convicted could face at least 6 months in jail and up to a $150,000 fine. As far as I know no one has been charged or convicted of violating this law and law enforcement isn’t concerned with pursuing these “criminals.” So it’s a law on paper, but in reality it’s just lame. Hopefully lawmakers will legalize fantasy games next session.

If you want to chat more about this issue, connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Filed Under: Internet law Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Can You Trademark & Copyright a Phrase?

March 31, 2014 by 5 Comments
What's not wrong with PIPA or SOPA? by opensourceway from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

What’s not wrong with PIPA or SOPA? by opensourceway from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

I saw this tweet come through my feed over the weekend.


It made me grin, and then my big dorky legal brain kicked in and had to analyze the possibilities.

Can You Trademark a Phrase?
It depends.

If a phrase is being used as a tagline or slogan for a company or product – think “M’m! M’m! Good!” for Campbell’s Soup or “Just Do It” for Nike – then yes, you can trademark it. If it’s just a phrase that’s not connected to a product or service, then it’s not trademarkable.

The purpose of the trademark is to differentiate similar products and services from each other so consumers know what they’re buying. When you register a trademark, you have to tell the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office what you’re claiming as your trademark (name, logo, slogan, etc.) and on what product or service you’re using it. A cool phrase without a product or service is just a phrase. It can’t be protected with a trademark.

Can You Copyright a Phrase?
Probably not.

The purpose of a copyright is to entice authors and artists to create works by giving them the exclusive right to control where their work is copied, distributed, displayed, performed, and what derivative works can be made from it. They have these rights the moment the original work is “fixed in any tangible medium.”  A phrase is often too short to be original so it doesn’t qualify for a copyright, even if it is fixed in a tangible medium like on paper or a digital file. If a person had a copyright in a phrase, they could stop others from using it in their work and it would create a big mess.

Think about Paris Hilton and “that’s hot.” She does have a trademark that phrase in conjunction with “multimedia entertainment services” and alcoholic beverages. She can stop you from using “that’s hot” as a slogan or product name in those industries, but she can’t stop you from saying “that’s hot” in general.

What about “Terminally Soulless Douche Canoe?”
“Terminally Soulless Douche Canoe” is an awesome phrase. You could use that as a company name, product name, or slogan if you want, but you have to be able to identify what industry that company or product is in. Unfortunately, even though I think it’s highly creative, it’s too short to get a copyright by itself. If it was part of a larger work – such as an essay, blog post, poem, book, or integrated into a work of art – the artist would likely have copyright protection for the larger work, but probably not for the phrase alone.

For more on the difference between trademark and copyright:

If you want to chat more about trademarks and copyrights, connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Filed Under: Intellectual Property, Internet law Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

New Book – The Legal Side of Blogging for Lawyers

March 13, 2014 by 2 Comments
The Legal Side of Blogging for Lawyers

The Legal Side of Blogging for Lawyers

Having a blog is still awesome. Getting in trouble because of your block isn’t. When you’re lawyer, staying out of trouble when you have a blog is a little more complicated.

I became interested in the legalities of blogging when I started my personal blog, The Undeniable Ruth, in 2010. I have a lot of friends who are outspoken online and I wanted to know how far we could push the envelope before one of us crossed the line. That became a blog series, which inspired a paper for my Cyberspace Law class, and became the basis of my first book, The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed. I tried to write as a blogger for other bloggers – in English instead of legalese. I tried to give as many straight answers as possible in an arena where the law hasn’t kept up with technology.

When I signed on to write The Legal Side of Blogging for Lawyers, I wanted to address all the common legal questions any blogger would have and also address some issues that are specific to the legal profession.  I added sections about the type of disclaimer every legal blogger should have on their site and under what circumstances lawyers can blog about their own cases. Lawyers also have to be mindful of their state’s ethical rules about lawyer advertising. This shouldn’t be that big of an issue because if your blog constitute advertising, you’re probably doing it wrong.  The book also includes practical advice on how to respond to people who leave comments on your site that ask for legal advice – despite the fact that your disclaimer clearly states that anyone in that situation should schedule a consult with a lawyer in their community.

I also added three appendices that list the state and federal laws that apply to blogging, online resources related to the legalities of blogging, and a list of recommended books about blogging and social media marketing.

One of my favorite parts of this book is the afterward written by anonymous legal blogger The Namby Pamby – a man who has personally experience blogging about his cases with the added burden of keeping his identity a secret. His blog is hilarious, and I loved hearing his take on my work.

After the book came out, I had the pleasure of talking about the book on the JD Blogger Podcast. Host John Skiba said that he liked the book can be used as a resource for lawyers with cases that are related to the internet because it’s filled with citations to the applicable cases and laws.

If you want your own copy, The Legal Side of Blogging for Lawyers is available through the American Bar Association.

If you want to chat more about the legalities of blogging, you can connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Filed Under: Internet law, Legalities of Blogging, News Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Be Leery of Free Image Sites: You May Inadvertently Commit Copyright Infringement

February 27, 2014 by 2 Comments
Palm Sunset by Lawrence Rayner from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Palm Sunset by Lawrence Rayner from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

I cringe every time I hear people says they use Google Images to find pictures for their websites because I know most of them are using anything they find in the search results without adjusting the settings to only show images that give them permission to use them. And I love it when people, especially entrepreneurs, use Creative Commons, seek out other sources for free images, or purchase a license to use images from iStock. Unfortunately, there are times when business owners think they are doing everything right, and they don’t realize they’re not until they’re threatened with legal action.

I have heard about a few situations over the years when someone has stolen images from a photographer and made their work available for free without the artist’s permission. Sometimes the person who steals the original image cuts off the photographer’s watermark or signature before posting them online. These photo thieves may post these images on their own site as free images or wallpaper. You might download this work and use it on your site, thinking that you are acting within the limits of the law.

When the photographer realizes that their work has been stolen, they’ll probably be angry – and they might send letters than demand payment or threaten legal action to every site where their work has appeared without their permission. And rightfully so – as the copyright holder, they have exclusive right to control where their work is copied and distributed. The fact that you didn’t know that you were doing anything wrong will not absolve you. If you’ve used an image where the watermark or other copyright notice was removed, they could accuse you of committing copyright infringement (punishable by up to $150K in statutory damages per violation) and removing the copyright management information to facilitate the infringement (punishable by up to an additional $25K per violation).

So what do you do if you receive one of these demand letters? Contact a copyright lawyer immediately. You want to verify that the claim is legitimate and strategically plan your response. If the claim is legit, the artist likely wants you to pay their licensing fee and/or stop using their image. It’s probably best to let your lawyer respond on your behalf but if you choose to respond to the letter yourself, it’s a good idea to have your lawyer at least review your response before you send it to make sure that it’s thoughtful and reasonable.

What should you do to avoid this type of problem in the first place? Be leery of free wallpaper sites. I have more faith in images I find through Creative Commons – though it is possible that someone could steal another’s image and make it available with a Creative Commons license. You can always run the image you want to run the image through the Google Image search engine to see where else it is being used online. That may help you determine if the image might be stolen. If there ever is an image that you want to use on your site and you’re unsure if you have permission to use it, explicitly ask the artist for their permission.

If you want to learn more about copyright issues on the internet, please check out my book The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed. It has several chapters dedicated to copyright. You can connected with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Filed Under: Business Law, Intellectual Property, Internet law, Legalities of Blogging, Photography & the Law Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,
« Previous Page
Next Page »