Category: Internet law

  • How To Use Event Photos for Marketing Purposes

    Notice Posted at the Arizona State Fair - October 27, 2013
    Notice Posted at the Arizona State Fair – October 27, 2013

    I get hits on this website every day from people who are searching for terms like “posting photos online without permission” and “privacy expectations in public filming.” I also get questions from people who want to know whether and how they can use the photos from their events to market their businesses.

    The general answer is you can use photos and videos you take at your events but you should put your guests on notice that you are doing this by posting a sign at the registration table for the event. If your event has tickets, you may also want to put this notice on there as well. If your guests do not want to be photographed or videotaped, they should not attend the event.

    There is no guarantee that your guests will notice the sign or read it, but if it’s a big event, you can’t be expected to get each guest’s verbal or written consent to possibly being on film. The best you can do is make the information readily available and in a place where they are likely to see it.

    I saw a photo/video notice recently at the Arizona State Fair. They had a few A-frame signs throughout the fairgrounds that contained this notice. (Sorry about the shadow.)

    1027131445

    I’m a dorky lawyer so I read the sign, but I’m sure the majority of the thousands of people who were there didn’t. However, by continuing to be at the fair, they consented to being photographed and videotaped. If anyone sees themselves on the fair’s website or promotional materials, there’s nothing they can do to stop it.

    From a business owner’s perspective, most people aren’t going to care if you use a photo of them from your event on your marketing materials. If a person is at your event, they probably like your company and it’s highly unlikely that an event photo will become the main image for a company. It will be a picture in a brochure or a supplemental photo on the company’s website. Most people would be flattered to be featured in this way. The notice is to protect businesses against the rare angry person.

    I also made a video about this topic. You can see it below or here.

    If you want to chat with me about this or any other topic, 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.

    Lights Camera Lawsuit

    There’s always a need for quality legal information for photographers. That’s why I created an online course called Lights Camera Lawsuit: The Legal Side of Professional Photography to address photographers’ most important questions. I want you to feel secure in your business, confident in the way you operate day-to-day, knowing that you’ve set yourself up to get paid what your worth without incident.

    For less than the cost of hiring a lawyer for two hours, the course contains nearly six hours of legal information you can immediately apply to your business!  

    Please subscribe for more information and to make sure you don’t miss out on any special offers or discounts.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , ,
    , , , , , , ,

  • Fantasy Football = Felony in Arizona

     

    Fantasy Draft by Chimpanz APe from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    Fantasy Draft by Chimpanz APe from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    Fantasy football is a Class 5 felony in Arizona. That’s right a felony.

    Yeah, I’m with you – What the fuck?!?!

    Fantasy football leagues are legal in 45 of the 50 states, but not Arizona. Arizona considers it a “game of chance,” therefore gambling, therefore illegal.

    Under federal law, fantasy sports are legal under the Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA) because each participant’s team is made up of players from multiple teams and the results “reflect the relative knowledge and skill of the participants and are determined predominantly by accumulated statistical results of the performance of individuals.” Making predictions based on your knowledge of the players’ past performances and making strategic decisions in managing your fantasy football team appears to be sufficient knowledge and skill to comply with the law.

    The other big rules are the prizes have to be determined in advance – they can’t be something like a percentage of the total money people paid into the league to play, and the winner cannot be chosen based on a score, point-spread, or any performance or performances of any single real-world team or any combination of such teams or solely based on one athlete’s performance in one event.

    So what’s wrong with Arizona? In Arizona, amusement gambling is not illegal. Here’s the state’s four-part definition of “amusement gambling.”

    (1) The player actively participates in the contest.
    (2) The outcome is not in the control to any material degree of any person other than the player.
    (3) The prizes are not offered as a lure to separate the player from their money.
    (4) Any of the following:

    (i) No benefit is given to the player other than an immediate and unrecorded right to replay which is not exchangeable for value.
    (ii) The gambling is an athletic event and no person other than the player derives a profit or chance of a profit from the money paid to gamble by the player.
    (iii) The gambling is an intellectual contest, the money paid to gamble is part of an established purchase price for a product, no increment has been added to the price in connection with the gambling event and no drawing or lottery is held to determine the winner.
    (iv) Skill and not chance is clearly the predominant factor in the game and the odds of winning the game based upon chance cannot be altered, no benefit for a single win is given to the player or players other than a merchandise prize which has a wholesale fair market value of less than $4 or coupons which are redeemable only at the place of play and only for a merchandise prize which has a fair market value of less than $4 and, regardless of the number of wins, no aggregate of coupons may be redeemed for a merchandise prize with a wholesale fair market value of greater than $35.

    Fantasy Football Hell by Dave Parker from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    Fantasy Football Hell by Dave Parker from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    Based on this definition, you would think that fantasy sports are a type of amusement gambling, but no, Arizona is backwards and says that fantasy sports are based on chance, not skill, so all fantasy football leagues are illegal.

    I’ve never played fantasy football, but I did participate in the Deadliest Catch Fantasy Game this past season. Each week I picked my boat and assembled my crew to maximize my points predicting what was going to happen on the show that week. I will say my knowledge of the show, the crew members, and my training as a former mental health professional helped me predict what was going to happen each week. There was definitely skill involved. (And since I didn’t have to pay-to-play, it wasn’t gambling so don’t waste your time investigating me Arizona.)

    This appears to be a low-priority issue in Arizona because I have lots of friends who play fantasy football and none of them have been arrested or know of anyone who has been arrested for participating in a fantasy league. (But they get caught they could be facing at least 6 months in jail and up to a $150,000 fine.)

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , , , , , ,

  • The Legal Side of Revenge Porn

    Untitled by seanmcgrath from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    Untitled by seanmcgrath from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    One of the downsides of technology is most people have the ability to create intimate photos and videos with their smartphones which is now leading to an increase in “revenge porn.” For those of you who don’t know, revenge porn is created when a person takes the photos or videos from their prior romantic relationship and posts them on the internet to humiliate their ex-partner. I think posting revenge porn is juvenile and disrespectful, but there are also legal implications in these situations.

    Copyright Infringement
    If you take an intimate photo of yourself and send it to your partner, you own the copyright in that image and therefore have the exclusive right to copy and distribute it. If your ex posts it on a website or shares it with someone without your permission, they are likely committing copyright infringement.  If you find a “selfie” photo of yourself on the internet that was posted without your consent, you may be able to get it removed using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by sending a takedown notice.

    Cyberharassment
    Arizona has state laws against cyberharassment and against harassing someone via electronic communications, both of which are punishable by up to six months in jail and up to $2,500 fine. Other states have similar laws. If the person who posted the photos or videos did it with the intent to harass or harm you, the poster may have violated one or both of these laws.

    Invasion of Privacy and other Civil Violations
    Some people who are victims of a revenge porn situation are interested in a civil lawsuit. They may want to consult a lawyer to determine if the person who posted the pictures or videos likely violated your state’s laws related to invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress, and, if they’re making money off of you, the commercialization of your image. These are state law issues so you’d have to have a lawyer compare the facts of your case against your state’s laws.

    Challenges in these Cases
    One of the challenges in these cases is proving that your ex was the person who posted the photos or videos. The IP address will tell us from where they were posted so if they posted from home, that’s a good indicator that your ex did it. However, some people try to cover their tracks by using public Wi-Fi but there are other ways to gather evidence about the person who posted your intimate photos on the internet to discern their identity. There is always a chance that your ex isn’t the perpetrator but someone he/she shared your photos with (which could be another case against your ex)or a person who got access to your ex’s phone or computer without consent.

    Another challenge in these cases is for people pursuing a civil lawsuit, you may win the case by you might not be able to collect if the defendant doesn’t have any money. The defendant doesn’t have any money, you might have a hard time finding a lawyer who will take your case unless you pay for your legal fees.

    If you want to watch me jump on my soapbox about revenge porn, I made a video about it earlier this year.

    If you are in a revenge porn situation, talk with the police and a lawyer who can discuss all your options. If you want more information about what you can/can’t post on the internet, please check out my book, The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed.

    You can connect with me on Twitter, Google+, 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.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    ,
    , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Should You Blog About Your Crimes?

    Crime Scene by Alan Cleaver from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    Crime Scene by Alan Cleaver from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    Recently I had an interesting conversation with my friend Joe Manna. He wanted to write a blog pot about his experience driving a Prius and he had concerns about disclosing the fact that he was speeding – not just a little over the limit, but driving over 100 mph.

    Luckily under the law the burden is on the prosecution to build a case against you. As far as we know, no one from law enforcement saw him speeding and we really don’t know which city/county he was in when this occurred, or even if he was in California or Arizona. Frankly all we have is his claim that he was speeding and anyone who’s ever heard a fishing story knows how much someone’s word can be taken at face value. As far as I know there’s no physical evidence of what actually happened.

    Joe’s question brought up a good point – be careful about what you post online and aware of what others post about you. If you disclose that you committed a crime and post videos or pictures from it, that could be evidence that could be used against you.

    Think about all the stories you’ve heard about burglars that were caught after they took pictures of themselves with their loot and high school pranksters who took pictures of themselves doing their senior prank or stealing their rival’s mascot.  They were busted in part due to their own stupidity.

    This is one of the risks we take in the flash mob world. After each event, we post the blog, photos, and video from the flash mob so people can enjoy our shenanigans. If we did anything illegal during the flash mob, we just admitted it and probably gave law enforcement the evidence they need to prosecute us.

    So does Joe have anything to worry about? Probably not. The worst thing he probably has to worry about is he’s put the police on notice that he speeds so maybe the cops in his neighborhood might pay a bit more attention to him when they see him out and about.

    Can you blog about your crimes? Of course! Should you? That’s a different question. Think hard about the potential consequences of the post before you tell the internet-accessible world about your wrongdoings. You never know where that information will end up and what those people will do with it.

    If you want more information on this topic, please check out my books The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed and Flash Mob Law: The Legal Side of Planning and Participating in Pillow Fights, No Pants Rides, and Other Shenanigans.

    You can connect with me on Twitter, Google+, 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.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Creepy New Facebook Terms of Service Coming

    Facebook’s Infection by Ksayer1 from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    When I got the notice that Facebook was updating its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and its Data Use Policy, I didn’t think much of it. If you want to use their service, you’re stuck with their terms of service. I just made a mental note to verify that my privacy changes hadn’t changed when they roll out the new policies go into effect. But then a friend told me about some of the changes that made me take a closer look.

    Facebook says, “Your privacy is very important to us.” That doesn’t mean they care about keeping your information private. That just means they’re telling you how they’re using it.

    Facebook previous terms of service put us on notice that they treat your name and profile picture like public information and they basically track all of your activities on the Facebook site and mobile app – this includes when others’ tag you in a photo, status update, at a location, or if someone adds you to a group.  And don’t think about creating a profile with fake information because that’s against the rules too. When you post a photo on Facebook, you give them a “non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use” it however they want. If you delete a photo, the license ends, unless it’s been shared with others and they haven’t deleted it.

    Facebook: The privacy saga continues by opensourceway from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    Facebook: The privacy saga continues by opensourceway from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    Now here’s something interesting, the old rules state you can’t tag anyone on Facebook without their consent. When’s the last time your friend asked for your permission to tag you? Facebook says tell your friends if you’re ok with them tagging you and if they refuse to respect your desire not to be tagged, then block them. (Blocking = no tagging for you)

    So what’s going to be changing with Facebook? Well, they’re going to add a facial recognition program that will scan people’s photos and suggest friends to tag by comparing the photos to others’ profile pictures and other photos where you’ve been tagged. Does that sound a little Big Brother to anyone else?

    I’m guessing this change is going to piss off a lot of people who know about it. I get hits on the law firm’s website every day from people who want to know if and how others can post pictures of them online or whether they can post pictures of others online. Every day.

    I wonder how many people are going to change their profile picture to a photo of their pet and disallow all other tagging to avoid Facebook suggesting friends tag them when others post pictures of them. I bet more people will talk about this idea more than will actually do it.

    And I don’t think this is a change but more of a clarification. The new rules say, “[Y]ou permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture with your content or information, without any compensation to you.”  It’s their site and their rules, and they probably don’t care if you don’t like it.

    If you don’t like these changes, you can bitch about it but accept it or delete your account. Unlike deactivating your account, this completely removes it from Facebook.

    If you want more 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. If you need information or advice about a situation involving your Facebook, please contact a social media attorney in your community.

    You can connect with me on Twitter, Google+, 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.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • New & Improved – The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed

    LSB - option 3In case you haven’t heard the news, the revision of my ebook The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed, is out and available in the Kindle Store!  (For those of you who don’t have a Kindle, there are free Kindle apps that will let you download and read it on your phone, tablet, and even your desktop computer.)

    I love blogging. I love that every week I get to stand on my digital soapbox and pontificate about anything I want. (Don’t you just love the word “pontificate?”) Early on in my writing career a journalist friend told me that a journalist’s job is to “Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” That has become my motto as well. I love that I get to write things that other people are thinking but maybe don’t have the guts to say themselves. I find it validating when people do that for me and I’m happy to pay it forward for others.

    ruthcover smallerOf course when you’re an outspoken blogger and a law student (now a lawyer), you start asking a lot of questions about what you can say without getting into trouble. That led to me to writing a blog series about the legal side of blogging, taking a class on cyberspace law where I wrote a paper on the topic, and eventually this book. When you have a blog, you have an obligation to know how far you can push the envelope without crossing the line. And then when people get pissed at you because of a post, there’s often nothing they can do about it because you’ve done nothing wrong.  The law rarely gives you any type of recourse just because someone made you sad.

    I wasn’t planning on writing a revision of my ebook so soon, but a conversation with the Copyright Office earlier this year forced my hand.  Apparently the word “published” had different meaning to normal rational people and the Copyright Office so I had to revise my chapter on copyright registration and I’m even more convinced that the Copyright Act needs a complete overhaul because it makes no sense when it comes to a lot of material that is only released on the internet.

    Since I was doing revisions, I also added a section about anti-SLAPP laws too. SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation. This is the type of counterclaim you can file when someone files a lawsuit against you because of your blog in an effort to shut you up. We don’t like it when people sue people just because they don’t like what they have to say but what they’re saying is not illegal.

    I hope you enjoy The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed and recommend it to all your friends who are active on social media. I wrote this book with bloggers in mind but the lessons apply equally well to all types of social media.

    You can connect with me on Twitter, Google+, 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.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • News Reporter Shea Allen Fired because of her Personal Blog

    TV Camera on the grass by Simon Yeo (smjbk) from Flickr
    TV Camera on the grass by Simon Yeo (smjbk) from Flickr

    Shea Allen was a TV reporter in Alabama who has a personal blog. She was fired after she released a post of “No Apologies: Confessions of a Red Headed Reporter” where she, among other things, admitted she is “frightened of old people,” has “taken naps in the news car,” and that she’ll stop recording if you ramble and she deems you unnecessary for her story but let you think otherwise. You can check of her post for the full list. I’m not sure what to think of her statement that her best sources have secret crushes on her.

    Shea’s boss was not impressed and fired her because the post did “irreparable harm to the station’s image.” She did an interview about the situation with Keith Yaskin from The Flip Side Communications and shared her thoughts about what happened here.

    Shea doesn’t think that she should have been fired since the alleged inappropriate post appeared on her site where she’s sharing her personal views, and not representing the TV station and because she offered to take the post down once she became aware of her employer’s objections to it.

    The First Amendment protects Shea’s right to free expression; however the fact that her statements were not illegal is not enough to keep her boss from firing her, at least if she was an at-will employee. At-will employees can be fired for any legal reason, including the fact that your boss doesn’t like what you posted on your personal blog as long as what you wrote about isn’t protected (i.e., your gender, race, religion, disability, etc.)

    Keith hit me up for an off-the-cuff response interview and here’s what I had to say about bloggers like Shea being fired because of their blogs here.

    What about the statement that she was just being funny? I believe that was her intent; however blogging gives you a voice but not necessarily a voice tone. You can’t guarantee that what’s funny to you will be seen as such by others, especially when it’s your boss reading about things that you do at work that he/she may frown upon.

    I agree with Shea that her situation highlights a “gray area in social media.” It’s because of situations like this that every company needs a social media policy that provides clear dos and don’ts when possible but more importantly provides guidelines for employees when it comes to their online posts, whether they’re using the company’s social media accounts or their own. Companies should remind employees that their posts are permanent and that they should treat each post like a digital billboard that millions of people might see.

    I also think that Shea’s confused about the limits of the freedom of speech. It applies to everyone in the U.S., but it doesn’t protect you from all the consequences that may occur because of what you said.

    If you want more information on this topic, please check out my newly revised book, The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed.

    You can connect with me on Twitter, Google+, 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.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Value Your Rights this Independence Day

    American Flag by joewcampbell from Flickr
    American Flag by joewcampbell from Flickr

    Happy Independence Day! I hope you all enjoy your holiday with your loved ones. While you’re enjoying your barbecues and fireworks, please take a minute to reflect on the reason we have this holiday – our nation’s founding fathers were unhappy with their government and so they stood up for themselves.

    I’m so grateful that we live in a democracy that gives us the freedom of speech. Thanks to the social media platforms, online petitions, and blogging, it’s easier than ever to be heard. Now more than ever Joe Average has a voice that can reach millions.

    Of course the freedom of speech comes with the responsibility of accepting the consequences of our statements. If you have something to say, you better be ready and willing to own it in every arena and face the backlash (good and bad) that may result.  We don’t have the right to be forgotten and everything we say online is permanently saved on a server somewhere. So before you make a post or send a text, be ready to have it follow you around for the rest of your life. I constantly tell people my two rules of thumb.

    • Don’t post anything online that you wouldn’t put on the front page of the newspaper.
    • Assume everything you post will be seen by your best friend, worst enemy, boss, and mother. If you don’t want one of them to see something, don’t post it.

    Our democracy not only gives us the ability to voice our opinions, but it also gives us an obligation to do so when it comes to our leaders. They work for us and the good politicians respect the fact that they their job is to be of service, and it’s a temporary position. If there is an issue that you care about, please write, call, or tweet at your elected official. Go to their town hall meetings and coffee meet-ups. Your opinion matters and it does make a difference.

    I regularly contact my representatives and tell them how I want them to vote on bills. I question candidates about their platforms. Sometimes I tell them why I think their views are wrong or what it will take to get my vote. I’ve told my fair share of candidates who are pro-business by against same-sex marriage that they should support same-sex marriage, regardless of their views about homosexuality, because marriage is good for the economy. People spend a ton of money on weddings.

    And when your representatives vote in a way that reflects your views, thank them. They work for us and they need to be told when they’re doing a good job.

    Happy Fourth of July everyone! And a special thank you to everyone who has served and is currently serving in our military to keep us safe and free.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , , , , , ,

  • No Expectation of Privacy in Public

    Smile, creeps! by S.mirk from Flickr (photo from the World Naked Bike Ride)
    Smile, creeps! by S.mirk from Flickr (photo from the World Naked Bike Ride)

    You have no expectation of privacy in anything you do or say in public.

    It used to be that if you did or said something in public that you later regretted, you only had to worry about the people who saw you repeating it to others. Now that everyone carries a smartphone, you should act as if someone is taking photos and shooting video of you all the time and that the footage is going to end up all over the internet or on the front page of the newspaper.

    That means if you say something racist, belittle at server for making a simple mistake, go to a strip club, or get drunk and make an ass out of yourself, you better be prepared for someone to capture that moment with their phone and share it with everyone on the internet. Once it goes out there, you have no control over who will see it.

    Carter Law Firm's Postcards
    Carter Law Firm’s Postcards

    When I give talks about social media law I tell people to assume that everything they post online will be seen by their best friend, their worst enemy, their boss, and their mother. If they don’t want one of those people to see something, then they shouldn’t post it. Likewise you should assume that these people will see the footage of anything you do in public.

    This rule also applies to situations where you’re in public and you don’t know that someone can see you. If you and your significant other decide to have sex in public – like at a park late at night or on the rooftop terrace of your apartment building – you’re chosing to have sex in plain view of the public. The fact that you didn’t think anyone was watching you does not give you an expectation of privacy.

    Some people may order you to stop filming them, including the police. If it’s a situation that is in plain view of the public, they don’t have the right to stop you. There may be issues if you’re stalking or harassing someone, but filming a person one time is unlikely to qualify. There is a law that says it’s illegal to refuse to follow a police officer’s order so in that situation you can decide to comply and go after them later for infringing on your rights or post the footage that you have with the story of them ordering you to stop filming. You could also risk getting arrested by refusing to comply and argue to the court that the officer didn’t have valid grounds for giving you that order.

    What about the wiretapping law? Arizona is a one party consent state where only one party to the conversation needs to consent to it being recorded. This prevents third parties from intercepting your phone calls or planting a bug near you to record your conversations. This law will protect you against someone spying on you, but if you’re speaking loudly enough for third parties to hear you, you have no expectation of privacy in your conversation.

    One right you do maintain is the right to commercialize your image. If someone takes a photo or video of you in public and is making money off of it, you might have a claim that they are commercializing your image without your consent.

    Because we live in a world where people are quick to record everything with their smartphones, think before you act. It’s best to be willing to own everything you do or say in public. That way if anyone ever confronts you with your past behavior in an attempt to humiliate you or tarnish your reputation, you can take the wind out of their sails by owning it. But you better be willing to own anything you do in every situation.

    For more information about privacy and the internet, please check out my book, The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed or my video on this topic.

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

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    ,
    , , , , , , ,

  • New Stance on Blog Copyright Registration

    Hey you! by QuinnDombrowski from Flickr
    Hey you! by QuinnDombrowski from Flickr

    Grrr . . . It seems like every time I call the Copyright Office with a question about blog copyrights, I have to change my stance on how and whether anyone should register their blog’s content. Mind you, when I wrote the Legal Side of Blogging last year, my research and ideas were approved by my cyberspace law professor and another internet/copyright attorney. We all got it wrong.

    I used to think that bloggers should register their new content every three months because the Copyright Act says you’re eligible for statutory damages in a copyright infringement lawsuit if you register your work within three months of publication or one month of learning of the infringement – whichever is first. In a previous call to the Copyright Office, the representative said it was permissible to register all your content as one work and that subsequent registrations would be derivative works of the prior ones.

    A few months ago I was informed that content that is only available online (including blog posts) doesn’t count as “publications,” so that rule about registering within three months of publication doesn’t apply. For unpublished content, you have to register you work prior to the infringement occurring to be eligible for statutory damages. If you wait until after your work has been stolen to register you work you can only collect actual damages, which will be low unless you or the person who stole your work has a financially successful site.

    I called the Copyright Office yesterday and was told that you can’t register posts that are released on different days as one work (though my experience is proof that you can) and you can’t register the same post as an individual work and as part of a larger work, (though I think there’s some wiggle room here).

    So here’s my new stance – registering your blog content is not worth it for most people. The exception to this rule is you might want to register your work if you think it will be stolen by someone who can afford to pay potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and attorneys’ fees. If you’re in this boat, or think you might be, you should submit your application to the Copyright Office before you release the post on your site to ensure that your application will be in before any infringement can occur.

    This is more proof of how behind the times the law is and that you can’t apply logic to copyright on the internet. I think it’s moronic that online content isn’t “published” when it’s released on the internet. I think this definition will change in the near future with so many publications switching from paper to being online only. As the law is written and applied the law seems unfair because it makes it harder for online writers to protect themselves.

    There is a special copyright registration for “serial works” but so far the Copyright Office says blogs, including those that are released on a strict schedule like other serial publications, do not qualify. I think this is wrong and needs to be challenged.

    For now, I’ve added a disclaimer to my ebook on Amazon that states that the copyright registration chapter is inaccurate and will be updated this summer. I hope to add the revised chapter to the book in the next month once it gets through legal review and editing.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,