I Can’t Pre-Guarantee Your Case

February 21, 2019 by Leave a Comment
https://www.flickr.com/photos/157270154@N05/38470202756/
Photo by CreditDebitPro

I regularly receive emails from prospective clients who explain the gist of the situation they’re in followed by, “Do I have a case?” A variation of this email is the prospective client who sends me a small section of a contract they signed and a short summary of the situation they’re in and then they ask if I can help them obtain a specific outcome. Some prospects specifically say that they don’t want to hire me, not even for a consult, unless I say they have a case.

Here’s the Deal

I can’t give anyone a guarantee about the outcome of a legal matter based on an email. If the law were that easy, we wouldn’t need lawyers.

In any situation, I have to examine:

  • The parties involved,
  • Which law applies – statues and case law, and
  • What actually happened

before I can say whether you have a case.

I can’t give effective legal advice without all the pertinent information. I can’t evaluate a contract based on a single provision. I have to read the whole thing. To not do so would likely be unethical and potentially worthless to you.   

There is one caveat to this. If I’m talking with a person who wants my help, but it sounds like they need someone other than a lawyer, I’ll tell them that. Whenever I deal with someone who’s experiencing online harassment, I tell them that they may have a situation that should be handled by law enforcement. If they still want to meet with me, I warn them that this may still be my recommendation at the end of the hour.

I Don’t Want to Pay to be Told I Don’t Have a Case

I get that people don’t want to take the time or spend the money to meet with a lawyer to be told they don’t have a case. But if you want a lawyer to analyze your situation, part of what we do for a living is that analysis.

Maybe it would make sense to look at this situation using a medical doctor instead of a lawyer. I’ve never heard of anyone going to the doctor with the sniffles and saying they didn’t want an appointment unless the doctor said they could make the person better. That’s ridiculous.  Some illnesses don’t get better, and some are things like the cold virus that just has to run its course.

I don’t like telling my clients that they don’t have a case anymore than they don’t want to hear it, but sometimes that’s the case. The fact that you’re upset does not mean that you have been legally harmed. Until I actually look into the person’s matter, there’s nothing I can tell a prospective client except “Would you like to schedule a consultation?” or something to that effect.

Yes, I Charge People to Talk to Me

If you’ve ever called my office phone, you know my outgoing message says don’t leave me a voicemail, send me an email. I do this for a few reasons:

  1. Unless it’s an expected call, I rarely answer my phone. When I’m working on a client’s matter, I don’t want to be distracted or interrupted. I’ve also turned off the ringer on my office phone. I won’t notice the call coming in unless I happen to be looking at the screen and see it change to the incoming caller’s number.
  2. When you leave a voicemail on my phone, a little red flashy-flashy light goes off until I deal with the message. It annoys the crap out of me. (Pro tip: Don’t annoy your lawyer.) It forces me to divert my attention away from focusing on my client, deal with the message, and then take extra time to pick up where I left off on my client’s matter.
  3. If the call is from a prospective client, they usually want to tell me their whole story before asking for help. This is what the consultation is for, and no, I don’t do free consults.

Sometimes all a person needs is a consultation. I’m happy tell people how they can help themselves in a situation, and I have no problem providing recommendations that are mindful of the person’s budget.

A few years ago, someone called me and they were incredulous when I said that they had to pay to talk to me. Listening to, analyzing, and providing information and advice on a legal situation is what I went to law school to do. This is my profession. If you want to hear my perspective on your legal situation, you have to pay for that privilege. (There are lawyers who do give free consults. I am not one of them.)

 I wish there were more guarantees in the legal profession. Just this week, I reminded a colleague that our job is to present the best case for our client and advocate on their behalf, but the ultimate decision in the matter is left to another authority.

Thanks for reading this post. If you liked this post and want to know more about my work, please subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter where I share behind-the-scenes information and readers get exclusive access to me.

Filed Under: Nontraditional Lawyer Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Keep Your Clothes On, Kids!

February 14, 2019 by Leave a Comment
https://www.flickr.com/photos/120920526@N08/16053219327/
Dark Selfie by www.sebastian.rieger.photos from Flickr (Creative Commons License

I regularly get messages from teens or their parents that say the kid was chatting online with someone they don’t know in real life. The person convinces the child to show their genitals or masturbate for them using their web cam. The person then says that they captured the video and threaten to post it online or send it to the kid’s friends, family, and/or school. Sometimes the person demands money in exchange for not sharing the video with others.

The variation of this situation I regularly hear about is from teens who send nudes or partial nudes to someone online, and then the person threatens to post them online. In one email, the teen said the person threatened to post the images if the teen refused to continue sending nude images of herself.

Ugh!! What is wrong with these people who are preying on kids like this? Don’t coerce children into creating and sending child porn.

These situations usually involve 14, 15, and 16 year-old kids – of all genders. When they reach out to me, they are petrified. They’re afraid they’re going to be humiliated. They’re afraid they can’t ask for help from an adult in their life. They’re afraid of what they’re parents are going to say if they find out. They’re afraid they’re going to get into trouble.

I wanted to share a few thoughts so hopefully other teens don’t have to go through this situation.

You’re Not a Bad Person, Kid.

If you’re a kid in this situation, you’re not a bad person. You made a mistake, hopefully one you won’t have to repeat again.

Whenever you send a nude image of yourself, regardless of whether you’re sending it to a stranger on the internet or texting your romantic partner, there’s always a risk that the images could fall into the wrong hands. For the rest of your life, whenever you choose to send nude images of yourself, assume they’re going to be seen by your family and friends and/or end up online.

Ask for Help

No one should have to deal with this type of situation by themselves, especially a kid. Reach out to a trusted adult in your life – a parent, a friend’s parent, a teacher, a coach, even the police. You can always call the non-emergency number for your local police department to discuss your options, or ask a friend to do it for you.

It may be hard to know what the right thing to do is in your situation. You always have the option to wait and see if the person follows through on any threats they’ve made. If you tell them to leave you alone and they comply, that might be the end of it (though they now have nude images and/or video of you).

You also have the right to report the incident to law enforcement, request a restraining order from the court, or file a civil lawsuit depending on your circumstances.

Legal Implications – For Both Sides

Given that these are situations that may involve the creation and sending of child pornography, there are many potential legal implications, including some for you.

Depending on the rules of your state, by taking nude pictures of yourself or performing live on camera, you may have participated in the creation of child porn. The same law would apply to someone who voluntarily sends a nude image of themselves to their significant other. Some states have lower crimes for dealing with the situation where the person in the photo is also the creator.

The perpetrator, the bad actor, could be facing many of legal accusations:

  • Requesting nude images or performance by video: Solicitation
  • If two or more people are in cahoots to get nude images from kids: Conspiracy
  • Creating screenshots or captures from your performance: Creation of Child Pornography
  • Keeping the photos and video you provided: Possession of Child Pornography
  • Threatening to share the images with others: Revenge Porn
  • Demanding money to keep the person from sending the images with others: Blackmail/Extortion
  • Sending the photos and video to others or posting them online: Distribution of Child Pornography

There could be other legal implications in addition to these. As always, check your local laws for information pertinent to your specific situation.

Perpetrators Deserve to be Punished

People who prey on children like this deserve to face the consequences of their actions. If the person is outside the U.S. or if they created a fake account, it may be difficult to pursue the person. You always have to contact the police to file a report. Even if they can’t catch the perpetrator based on your case, the person may do it again to someone else, and the information you provide could help.

I regularly talk with kids who say they don’t want to report the situation to the police; they just want the person to stop. One way these perpetrators try to avoid punishment is by relying on the victim to be too afraid or ashamed to report them. Whether you report this person or not is your decision.

I was pleased recently when I saw that YouTuber Austin Jones pleaded guilty to child porn after he allegedly solicited explicit videos from 14 and 15 year-old girls using Facebook Messenger and Apple’s iMessage services.  He even alleged told them to send these videos to prove that they were his fans.

Eww! Eww eww eww! People like this are disgusting!

He’s scheduled to be sentenced this May and could face at least five years in prison.

Thanks for reading this post. If you liked this post and want to know more about my work, please subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter where I share behind-the-scenes information and readers get exclusive access to me.

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

How to Legally Use User-Generated Content

January 31, 2019 by Leave a Comment
https://www.flickr.com/photos/zoidberg72/16243539933
Selfie by dr_zoidberg from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Here’s a question I get from companies and their marketers: What are the legal dos and don’ts for using user-generated content? These are situations where a company wants to use a photo, video, or text created by one of their fans, usually from a site like Instagram, Facebook, or Trip Advisor. Many companies merely want to approach the person through the platform where they found the content they want to use and ask for permission to use it. While this strategy is convenient, it may not be in the company’s best interest.

Using Content Within a Platform

It’s easiest when a company wants to share someone’s post within the social media platform – e.g., sharing someone’s Instagram photo on the company’s Instagram. Many social media sites build this option into the platform where you don’t even have to ask for permission to share someone’s post on another’s account.  

Of course, I’m a risk-adverse lawyer so I tell my clients to review the terms of service first to see what happens just in case it turns out the person who created the post you shared didn’t have the right to do so and now you have to deal with the fallout. Depending on the circumstances, I might contact the person to ask the person if they took the photo (which would indicate if they’re likely the copyright holder), try to verify that the original poster is complying with the platform’s rules

Using Content Across Different Platforms

Here’s where it gets a little more complicated. These are the situations where you want to take content from someone’s post on one platform and share it on a different social media site, your website, or another third-party platform. For this situation, I recommend you have a contract drafted by a lawyer. You could have them create a template for you if curating user-generated content is part of your marketing plan.

If I were creating a contract template for obtaining permission to use content created by a user or fan, I’d likely include terms such as:

  • The user owns the IP in the content: either they created it or they have permission to use it
  • The user has authority to grant the company permission to use the content
  • The user grants the company a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sublicensable, paid-in-full, royalty-free license to the company to use the content for any purpose without needing the person’s consent or credit, including the creation of derivative works (or in the alternative, that the user grants the company a copyright assignment)
  • The user will reimburse the company’s legal fees and damages if it is accused of wrongdoing because the company used the user’s content

Such a contract would also include boilerplate verbiage, like a dispute resolution provision that states how the company and user will resolve disputes if one occurs.

Always Apply Reality

In any potential legal situation, be sure to apply reality. If a company wants to use a photo with two people in it, whoever posted the image may not be able to speak on behalf of the other person in the photo, and you may need release from identifiable people to avoid being accused of violating their right of publicity.

Additionally, it will likely take longer to get permission if you want to use images and other content across platforms. Be sure to build that into your timeline if your marketing plan involves using user-generated content.

There are also those who may question whether it’s worthwhile to have a lawyer create a contract for these circumstances. When there are no issues, a contract may seem superfluous; however, contracts are imperative in situations where there is a dispute and/or the parties forget the terms of their agreement. When you work with your lawyer to create you contract, make sure it has provisions that will apply to situations that are likely to occur as well as the worst-case scenarios.

If you liked this post and want to know more about my work, please subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter where I share behind-the-scenes information and readers get exclusive access to me.

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

GDPR: Full Disclosure Required

January 25, 2018 by Leave a Comment

«Via sicura» by Falk Lademann from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

If you’ve been following this blog, you know I’m all about preparing for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as it applies to content marketing. This rule applies to every company that sends commercial emails to anyone in the European Union. (If you don’t know where everyone on your list is located, assume at least one of them lives in the EU.) We’ve already talked about how, under this law, when you want to add a person to your email list, you must get their specific informed consent and you must be able to prove that you obtained their consent to be on your list.

The GDPR requires, when you obtain this consent, to provide the person (aka data subject) with the following information:

  • The identity and contact information of the controller of the data subject’s information or their representative;
  • The contact information for the data protection officer (if applicable);
  • Your purpose for processing the data subject’s information and legal basis for doing so;
  • The period of time the data will be stored;
  • The data subject’s right to request erasure or corrections of their data or to restrict the processing of their data;
  • The data subject’s right to withdraw their consent;
  • The data subject’s right to lodge a complaint with the supervisory authority; and
  • Whether the data subject giving their information fulfills a statutory or contractual obligation.

If you want to process the subject’s data for another purpose, you must tell the person in advance, and when a person’s data is processed for direct marketing purposes, the data subject has the right to object at any time.

At the first reading of these requirements, my first thought was that the signage at conferences where vendors collect business cards would have to become much more complicated to comply with GDPR. I thought about how this firm will comply with these requirements. People voluntarily add themselves to my email, so I don’t know where they live. I will be adding double opt-in consent for my email list, and I believe the most effective way to comply with these requirements is to include this information in the confirmatory email.

You can hear more about these requirements here:

We have to comply with these rules by May 25, 2018 when this new rule goes into effect.

If you want more information about GDPR, please watch this site and my YouTube channel because I’m creating a substantial amount of content on this topic. You can also send me an email (Note: I can’t give advice to non-clients). I use my mailing list to I share my thoughts about being a lawyer/entrepreneur, updates about projects I’m working on, upcoming speaking engagements, and I may provide information about products, services, and discounts. Please add yourself if you’re interested.

You can also connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, or LinkedIn.

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

Preparing for GDPR: Are You Ready?

January 4, 2018 by 2 Comments

Europe Privacy Law GDPR from Smeders Internet

This year, I’m putting considerable energy into understanding and complying with the GDPR.

What is the GDPR?

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a European law that goes into effect on May 25, 2018.

It impacts any professional commercial activities regarding natural persons residing in the EU, so that includes process personal information about natural person who lives in the EU, or sending commercial emails to any natural person who lives in the EU. Commercial emails include the offer of goods or services, even if you’re not doing it in exchange for money.

The purpose of this new law is to protect natural persons’ personal data, and it includes provisions about obtaining data subjects’ consent and using adequate security to protect their information. Failure to comply could result in millions of dollars in fines.

Who is Exempt from GDPR?

The GDPR does not apply to anyone who stores or uses person’s data for personal use – like if you maintain a personal database of contacts, and some of them happen to be people who live in the EU.

It also doesn’t apply to anonymous persons or dead people.

Complying with the GDPR

I have read the GDPR from cover to cover (260 pages). A significant amount of my work in early 2018 will be related to GDPR compliance – starting with my own company

My rule for my email list is people add themselves. It’s disrespectful when companies add you to their email list without consent, so I don’t do it. As a result, I have no idea where most of my subscribers are located. I have assume at least one of them is a person who resides in the EU, therefore the GDPR applies.

For the next few weeks, I’m going to be breaking down this law into it’s requirements and applying them to my business so I can, in turn, educate and help other companies modify their policies and practices before the law goes into effect on May 25, 2018.

This is not a law that companies can easily comply by adding a new paragraph to their terms of service. It will change their tactics and approach to content marketing.

If you want more information about GDPR, please watch this site and my YouTube channel because I’m creating a substantial amount of content on this topic. You can also send me an email (Note: I can’t give advice to non-clients). I use my mailing list to I share my thoughts about being a lawyer/entrepreneur, updates about projects I’m working on, upcoming speaking engagements, and I may provide information about products, services, and discounts. Please add yourself if you’re interested.

You can also connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, or LinkedIn.

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

Anthony Weiner Sentenced to 21 Months for Sexting: Processing My Thoughts

September 28, 2017 by 1 Comment

Chainlink Prison Fence by Jobs For Felons Hub from Flickr

This week, former Congressman Anthony Weiner was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison for “transferring obscene material,” aka sexting, with a 15 year-old. He’ll also have 3 years of supervision after he’s released, including internet monitoring, and will have to register as a sex offender.

According to reports, here’s what we know about this case:

  • He knew he was talking to a 15 year-old using various social media platforms.
  • He sent the teen nude pictures of himself.
  • He asked her to sexually perform for him on Skype.

Clearly his behavior was criminally and morally wrong.

Anthony Weiner
112th Congress
from Wikipedia

I’ve been mulling over this situation for the past few days, wondering if the punishment fits the crime. I asked friends who are teachers or the parents of tweens and teens for their reactions. Some said 21 months was too lenient, some said too harsh, and others agreed it was appropriate based on the available information.

I’ve watched plenty of episodes of To Catch A Predator where men engaged in similar online behavior with people they thought were teens, and then showed up at a house to meet them before being arrested. At the end of the program, they reported the sentences of these perpetrators, and often they were sentenced to less than 12 months in prison. Some only got probation. It makes me wonder whether Weiner’s sentenced was based solely on his interactions with this minor or his history of sexting.

It’s been sad to watch a charismatic up-and-coming Congressman destroy his professional life, his reputation, and his marriage because of his sexual compulsivity. The judge even acknowledged that Weiner has a disease. His past impropriety involved sexting with other consenting adults – not illegal, but not appropriate given his then-political position and being in a seemingly non-open marriage. Part of me wonders how his past behavior (where no criminal laws were broken) factored into the sentence.

Likewise, I wonder if Weiner’s position as a public figure played a role in his sentence. The judge reportedly sentenced him to 21 months in part to serve as a general deterrence. While I respect that one of the purposes of criminal punishment is to deter others from acting in similar ways, I question whether Weiner was punished for the law(s) he broke or to make an example out of him. The law says he could have received a sentence up to 10 years, and 21 months was within the range of jail time requested by the prosecution, so I’m not saying the judge or the prosecutor acted outside the scope of their position, but I still wonder how the judge came to her decision.

Of course, Judge Cote was there for the entire trial process, and I’m watching from the sidelines. I’m in no way questioning her judgment.

This whole situation has also reminded me of how little I expect a person to be rehabilitated while incarcerated. I’d rather see people convicted of committing crimes, in part due to an addiction, be sentenced to a long-term treatment facility followed by jail time with ongoing counseling.

The other thing this crime reminded me of is how important it is for parents to monitor what their kids are doing when they’re online. It’s not just an issue of where they go, what apps they’re using, what they say, and what pictures they’re taking, but also who is trying to communicate with their kids.

Regarding Anthony Weiner and his victim, I have no answers. I don’t know what the appropriate punishment should be for adults who are caught sexting with teens, or whether Weiner’s sentence was too harsh or too lenient. I hope I’m not the only person who was inspired to step back and consider what is the correct legal and social response to these criminal acts.

I’m constantly doing work related to internet law, so if you want to keep up with what I’m doing or if you need help, you can contact me directly or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, or LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my email list. (Please note: If you suspect you’re the victim of an internet crime, I will refer you to law enforcement.)

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

Staying Out of Trouble on Facebook Live

April 4, 2017 by Leave a Comment

Selfie by Reyes Blanch from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Facebook Live is one of the more recent developments in live video streaming on the internet. When used properly, it’s a lot of fun to get a real-time glimpse into someone’s life or a breaking news situation. It has value, but it also has its place.

The Same Rules Apply
Legally speaking, the rules that apply to Facebook Live are the same rules that apply to live video apps. In 2015, I wrote a post about the legal dos and don’ts of Periscope. Those same rules apply to Facebook Live.

The challenge with live video . . . is it’s live. You can’t edit a live performance, so if you do something inappropriate or illegal, assume someone saw it, recorded it, and you may have to face consequences for it later. If you’re not jumping on Facebook Live to show a newsworthy event in real-time, I recommend you take a minute or two before you go live to think about the scope of want to talk about, what topics or language are out-of-bounds, and when you’ll know to stop the recording. This is especially true if you’re distraught or experiencing extreme emotions. If you’re especially upset, it may be better to wait a few hours until you’ve calmed down or record your thoughts without being live.

Playing Music on Facebook Live
A friend asked about the legalities of playing music during a Facebook Live broadcast. The rules that apply to radio stations, retail stores, and cover bands apply to a person who is live streaming. If the music is not in the public domain, the copyright holder has the right to control where their music is copied and played. Facebook Live is likely a public performance, so even if you own a copy of the song for personal enjoyment, you can’t play it publicly without a license. In these situations, the only person who can come after you for infringement is the copyright holder. If they don’t know or don’t care about what you’re doing, you may never get in trouble. (Of course there is an exception for someone who uses Facebook Live to give commentary or criticism of the music – that may be protected by fair use.)

Think Before You Post
As always, think before you post/broadcast yourself. Once you put something out there, you can never fully take it back. What seemed like a good idea in the moment may be tomorrow’s regret, with long-lasting implications. Last summer we saw the disturbing Facebook Live video of a Georgia mother beating her 16 year-old daughter. The woman wasn’t charged with assault, but I wonder what will happen the next time she applies for a new job and the news stories (with video) from this incident dominate the results when prospective employers search for her name.

These are my rules of thumb when it comes to posting anything on the internet:

  1. Don’t post anything online that you wouldn’t put on the front page of the newspaper.
  2. Assume everything you post will be seen by four people: your best friend, your worst enemy, your boss, and your mother. If you don’t want to one of those people to see what you’re thinking about posting, don’t say it.

The laws that apply to the internet is an area of law that is constantly developing as cases are decided and new statutes are added to the rule book. If you want additional information about the legalities of social media, please check out my book The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed. You can also contact me directly or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, or LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

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

Private Online Groups May Not Be Private

March 21, 2017 by 8 Comments

Child’s Playhouse, Bayreuth, Germany by Dave Shafer from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

I was contacted by person who claimed to be a member of a private Facebook group. She asked if she had any options for recourse when another group member used statements from her post in another article online. This group member also used a pixelated version of the person’s Facebook profile picture. According to the person, she wasn’t recognizable in the altered image, but she feared people could figure it out if they compared to her profile picture to the pixelated one.

No Expectation of Privacy in Online Posts
To anyone in this type of situation, I’m sorry to dash your hopes for vindication, but in most situations, there is no expectation of privacy in what you post on the internet – especially on social media, regardless of the privacy settings. It’s too easy for someone to create a screenshot, save, and/or share a post. Moreover, you never know who is looking over a user’s shoulder or with whom they’ll share their screen when they’re viewing your post that is meant for their eyes only.

This is true even when an online group is labeled as “private” or “closed.”  In many private or closed Facebook group, other members can invite outsiders to join or a new person can join if their request to be added is approved by one member of the group. Even though a private group is meant for a limited audience, post with care. You never know where a post will end up. This is why one of my rules of thumb for the internet is “Don’t post anything online that you wouldn’t put on the front page of the newspaper.”

If You Want Real Privacy
If you want to have a private conversation, keep it offline with your closest confidants or someone with who you have a confidential relationship (e.g. doctor, lawyer, therapist, priest). In a professional setting, have a written non-disclosure agreement(NDA) where everyone is contractually obligated to maintained your confidences.

Even I use NDAs. I have certain people, where when we sit down for a drink, we start the conversation by saying, “Standing NDA” and we know nothing said between us will be shared with outsiders.

The Internet is Not a Place for Privacy
If there are times when you want to speak online while maintaining a level of privacy, you can reduce the risk of being connected to a statement by using an online alter ego. If you go this route, be prepared to be unmasked and live with the consequences at any time. You may use an IP address or post something that will give away your true identity.

If you want a resource regarding the legal dos and don’ts about the internet, including additional information about online privacy, please check out The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed. If you need legal help regarding internet privacy, you can contact me directly or a social media lawyer in your community. I post about these issues on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

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

Lawsuit Filed to Unmask Anonymous Penis Sender

January 3, 2017 by 2 Comments

Don’t Mess with Texas by Jamie from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Last week, Melody Lenox filed a lawsuit in Dallas County, Texas for a court order to determine who sent her a penis-shaped gummy candies via Dicks By Mail.

At first, this sounded like an extreme reaction. If someone spent $15 to send me candy via mail with a note that says “Eat a Bag of Dicks,” I’d probably laugh, and then eat them – because gummy candies are delicious. However, learning about the larger context of the situation, Lenox’s reaction seems reasonable.

The Bigger Story
Lenox is the head of human resources at Axxess Technology Solutions, a position that requires her to be the bearer of bad news to some employees. Prior to this unsolicited dick package, she allegedly had her car keyed and was the target of fake posts on Craigslist. She asserts that these acts are related.

In this context, pursuing a harassment lawsuit against the sender of these candies (assuming the same person(s) are committing these acts), makes sense. Ongoing acts like this are unacceptable.

What I suspect is happening in this case is Lenox filed a lawsuit against John Doe and then requested a court order to get the purchase information from Dicks By Mail. (Many companies have privacy policies that state they’ll protect your information unless they are required to provide it in response to a court order.) While it’s easy to key a car or post a fake Craigslist post anonymously, sending candy by mail requires a credit card, which will eventually lead to a real person – the suspected harasser.

Unmasking the Anonymous
Anytime you do something anonymously, be prepared to be unmasked. When you act anonymously online, there’s always a digital paper trail that shows the IP address of the internet connection used, the GPS location of your smartphone, the profile information of an anonymous website or social media profile, and in this case, the credit card information used for the transaction.

There have been plenty of situations where a person lost their job or found themselves in a lawsuit when their anonymous persona was unmasked. Using the internet is not an effective way to maintain your anonymity – unless you have mad skills in this area. (And if you have to question whether you have mad skills, you don’t.)

More about Dicks By Mail

Photo from Dicks By Mail

Dicks By Mail is a hilarious way to send a light-hearted sugar-filled message. The company does not endorse the use of their service to threaten or bully someone. If you receive Dicks By Mail it should only be for two reasons: “[S]omeone thinks you’re either a dick or wanted you to laugh!”

And they do caution people who come to the site with vindictive intent: If you are sending this with the intent to ruin someone’s day, then maybe it’s you who needs to eat a bag of dicks.”

In case you were wondering, yes, Dicks By Mail is a U.S.-based business, so if you want to stimulate the economy while telling your elected officials what you think of them, this may be a creative way to send a message (though, it may not be effective since they won’t know it came from a constituent).

The laws that apply to the internet are constantly evolving as the courts are encountering more internet-based problems. If you want to connect with me to keep up with my thoughts about social media law, you can contact me directly or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, or LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

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

What’s Up with YouTube Pulling Ads from Videos?

September 4, 2016 by 1 Comment

Speak No Evil by Robert Young from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Speak No Evil by Robert Young from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

In the last week, several people have posted that YouTube pulled the ads from their videos because their content wasn’t “advertiser-friendly.”

What’s Advertiser-Friendly Content?
According to YouTube policies, ads can only be run on content that’s all-ages appropriate. “It has little to no inappropriate or mature content in the video stream, thumbnail, or metadata (such as in the video title). If the video does contain inappropriate content, the context is usually newsworthy or comedic and the creator’s intent is to inform or entertain (not offend or shock).”

According to YouTube, you can’t run ads against content that contains the following:

  • Sexually suggestive content;
  • Violence
  • Profanity or vulgar language
  • Harassment
  • Promotion of drugs
  • Sensitive subjects – including, war, political conflicts, natural disasters, and tragedies

If a user repeatedly posts videos that violate this policy, YouTube may suspend monetization on your whole channel. This could be problematic for content creators who make a living in part from their YouTube channel(s).

Their Site, Their Rules
Reading the YouTube rules, it’s ok to create and post content that violates some of its advertiser-friendly guidelines, but not make money from it.

And don’t even think about trying to argue that YouTube is violating your First Amendment right to free speech. It’s their site so they make the rules. They’re not stopping you from creating and publishing content on your own forum, just setting the rules for their platform.

Compare this to a shopping mall. They control who can sell wares and what behavior is appropriate. If you break the rules – by screaming or walking a body bag through the food court (not that I’ve done that) – you can be asked to leave or even banned for a period of time. Likewise, if you scream obscenities on the street, the police might be called and you could get a ticket for disturbing the peace.

So, What’s Changed?
It appears that not much has changed on YouTube. The policy regarding advertiser-friendly content hasn’t changed, but rather how it’s enforced. Before, if a video violated this rule, they would merely turn off the monetization feature, and you may not notice the difference unless you checked your Video Manager. Now, YouTube is sending an email notice when they turn off monetization.

I went back and reviewed the law firm’s YouTube channel. I run ads on most videos, but I haven’t made a cent from YouTube. There’s only one video on which monetization was turned off. My other videos where I may occasionally swear and/or mention sexual content like “revenge porn” are still monetized. (Not that I expect to make money from my videos, but you never know.)

If you have an internet-based business that relies on another platform to make money, be sure you read the site’s terms of service before you design your business model around it. (Remember, there’s a good chance the site can change the rules at any time.) If you want to talk more about internet or social media law, you can contact me directly or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, or LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

Filed Under: Internet law Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Next Page »