Tag: law

• Copyright Infringement on Pinterest

  

  There’s a strong possibility you’re committing copyright infringement on your Pinterest board.

  For the sake of full disclosure, I’m not on Pinterest. I don’t need another internet addiction. From what I hear, everyone who’s on it, loves it. Essentially, Pinterest lets you create “boards” where you share pictures of things you like. As you visit various websites, you “pin” things that you like, and add them to our Pinterest boards. Then people who visit Pinterest can see your boards and everything you like.

  So Where Does Copyright Come Into Play?
  Copyright protection is extended to any original work of authorship that is fixed in a tangible medium. You don’t have to register it with the U.S. Copyright Office to get this protection. When you have a copyright in a picture or other work, you have the exclusive right to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and to make derivative works based on your work.

  If you take a picture, you have the exclusive right to decide where it will be displayed, including on which websites. When someone pins your picture and adds it to their Pinterest board, they likely made a copy of it without your permission. That’s a violation of the Copyright Act.

  What About Fair Use?
  The Fair Use provision of the Copyright Act allows you to copy a work for the purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, or research. Pinning something on your board probably doesn’t qualify as any of these things.

  Is Pinning Someone’s Work Ever Ok?
  Absolutely! You can pin someone’s work without worrying about being sued if they’ve given you permission to do it. Look for works that come with a Creative Commons license. You may be required to give an attribution to the author when you pin their work. If a work doesn’t have a license, you could always ask the author for their permission to pin their work.

  Should I Be Worried about Pinterests Terms & Conditions?
  Probably. Have you read them? A woman who is a lawyer and a photographer recently deleted her Pinterest boards after reading them. According to her, Pinterest users agree to some strongly worded terms.  If you are a Pinterest user, you’ve agreed

  • You own or have permission to use everything you pin on Pinterest;
  • That nothing you pin violates or infringes on any third party’s copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property or rights to publicity or privacy;
  • You will defend, indemnify, and hold Cold Brew Labs (Pinterest’s creators) harmless against all claims, damages, and expenses (including legal expenses) related to your use of the site or violations of the site’s terms and conditions; and
  • You accept all the risks related to using the Pinterest site “to the maximum extent permitted by law.”

  So, if you and Pinterest get sued for copyright infringement for something you pinned on your board and you lose, you’re required to pay your and Pinterest’s legal fees and the fine assigned by the court. The fine for willful copyright infringement can be up to $150,000. (Hat tip to Cold Brew Labs’ legal counsel on drafting such great terms and conditions!)

  What Do I Do If My Copyright’s Being Infringed on Pinterest?
  You have three main options when your copyright is being infringed on Pinterest:

  1. Nothing.  If you don’t have a problem with it, do nothing. I think a lot of people select this option because Pinterest exposes their work to a larger audience.
  2. Sue for copyright infringement. This can be a long expensive process, but it’s your best chance for a financial gain.
  3. Send a DMCA takedown notice. If all you want is for your work to be removed from someone’s board, send a Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notice to Cold Brew Labs’ statutory agent. The Copyright Act tells you what information you have to include in the notice, or you can find a local attorney to do it for you.  Once Cold Brew Labs gets the notice, they’re required to remove the work that allegedly infringes your copyright.

  From what I know of Pinterest, I suspect copyright infringement is occurring on most Pinterest boards. You have to decide for yourself how much risk you’re willing to take. If you need help assessing the legal risk related to your Pinterest boards, contact a copyright attorney in your area.

  UPDATE (3/26/2012): Pinterest announced its new terms of service will become effective on April 6th. They allegedly make it easier to report copyright infringement.

  March 1, 2012

  •

  Ruth Carter

  •

  Intellectual Property, Photography & the Law

  Copyright, Copyright Act, Copyright violations, Creative Commons, creative commons license, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DMCA, DMCA takedown notice, Fair Use, law, Pinterest, Ruth Carter, United State Copyright Act

• Courts Split on Shield Laws

  

  There is an ongoing debate in the state courts about whether bloggers can be protected by the “shield laws.” These are the laws that state that a reporter does not have to reveal the identity of an anonymous news source. The purpose of these laws is to encourage the dissemination of information.

  Shield laws are enacted at the state level and are in place in 40 of the 50 States, including Arizona. If you’re a blogger who is sued and you want to use a shield law to protect your source, you usually have to rely on the shield law in the state where you’re being sued, which is not necessarily the state where you live.

  So far, the courts in California and New Hampshire ruled that bloggers are protected by their States’ shield laws and the courts in Oregon and Illinois ruled that bloggers are not protected by their States’ shield laws. The verbiage for each State’s shield law is different, and some laws may be worded so narrowly that a court could fairly say that the law cannot apply to bloggers. It is interesting to note that the judge in the Illinois case ruled that bloggers aren’t protected by the shield laws in Illinois or California, and this ruling came down after a California court held that bloggers are protected by the California shield law. We’ll see if the blogger in the Illinois case appeals that ruling.

  In general, if you are a blogger who engages in the same activities as a journalist, then you should be protected by the shield laws the same as a journalist. If a person knew of insider trading at a Fortune 500 Company and he gave interviews to the Wall Street Journal and a blogger with a verbal agreement that the writers would not reveal the source of the information, why should a shield law protect the writer from the Wall Street Journal and not the blogger just because the blogger self-publishes?

  The courts should not make blanket judgments about whether all bloggers are protected by a shield law. Instead they should make a case-by-case analysis to see if a particular qualifies for protection. Many of the shield laws require regular publication. Based on that requirement, a blogger who only publishes sporadically may not be protected by a shield law.

  Arizona has a shield law that states: “A person engaged in newspaper, radio, television or reportorial work, or connected with or employed by a newspaper, radio or television station, shall not be compelled to testify or disclose in a legal proceeding or trial or any proceeding whatever, or before any jury, inquisitorial body or commission, or before a committee of the legislature, or elsewhere, the source of information procured or obtained by him for publication in a newspaper or for broadcasting over a radio or television station with which he was associated or by which he is employed.” I could see a blogger arguing that their blog is reportorial work. The challenge would be convincing a judge or jury that the law should extend to electronic publications, and not just newspapers, TV, and radio.

  A court may accept an argument that you’ve made a commitment to protect the anonymity of your sources. There was a case in Maryland in 2009 where a judge did not force a website to reveal the identities of anonymous commenters unless the plaintiff provided evidence to support its claims first. If you have a policy on your blog that states you’ll protect contributors’ anonymity, a court consider that in deciding whether you have to disclose your information source.

  The debate over whether bloggers qualify as journalists is not going away anytime soon, and since this is a state law issue, we may remain in this situation where some states protect bloggers under the shield law and others do not. Given that bloggers are accessible everywhere, this issue is likely to get more complicated in the future.

  February 2, 2012

  •

  Ruth Carter

  •

  Legalities of Blogging

  Arizona, Blogging, California, Illinois, Internet Law, law, New Hampshire, Oregon, Ruth Carter, Shield Law

• Bloggers Beware: Lessons from the Crystal Cox Case

  

  This post was originally published on The Undeniable Ruth in December 2011. 

  Many of us got into blogging because we like having a proverbial soapbox we can jump on to share our thoughts with the universe. The recent Crystal Cox case has made me wonder how many bloggers know the legal risk they take when they share their views.

  For those of you who missed it, Crystal Cox is an “investigative blogger” in Montana who writes a blog called Bankruptcy Corruption. In one of her posts, she called Kevin Padrick, an attorney in Oregon, “a thug, a thief, and a liar.” Padrick sued Cox for defamation and won . . . $2.5 million!

  The interesting thing for bloggers to note is that Cox lives and writes in Montana but she was sued in Oregon and Oregon law applied to the case.

  If you write about other people, you open yourself up to the possibility of being sued for defamation or invasion of privacy. These cases are generally based on state laws. The good news is that there isn’t much variation between the laws. The bad news is that there are exceptions.

  The really bad news is that the person who claims to have been injured by your blog gets to sue you in the state where they were injured, which is usually their home state. And it’s their home state law that applies. So, if you’re a blogger in Mississippi, and you write about someone in Alaska, and they sue you for defamation, you have to go to Alaska to defend yourself and hire an attorney who can defend you in Alaska. (Another lesson from the Crystal Cox case: don’t be your own attorney!)

  Let’s look at the shield law, one of the laws Cox tried to use to defend herself. This is the law journalists invoke to prevent a court from forcing them to reveal an information source. There isn’t one national shield law. There are 40 different state shield laws, and some states don’t have a shield law. Cox tried to use the shield law to defend herself; and in another state, her argument may have held water. But unfortunately for her, the Oregon shield law specifically states that you can’t use the law as a defense in a civil defamation case.

  Another challenge surrounding the legalities of blogging is that sometimes the laws are old, really old, as in the-internet-wasn’t-invented-when-the-law-was-written old. In a lot of these cases, the court has to decide how the laws apply to these new situations didn’t exist before we had the internet. You and the other side can propose your interpretation of the law, but there’s no guarantee that the court will accept your interpretation. And you might get really lucky and get a judge who barely knows how to turn on their computer and has no concept of what a blog is.

  Someday the laws will be updated to account for the internet and blogging practices. Even when that happens, we will still have to be conscientious of the fact that each state has its own laws, and that we run the risk of being sued in any of the 50 states depending on who and what we write about.

  January 25, 2012

  •

  Ruth Carter

  •

  Geek Law, Legalities of Blogging

  Blogging, Crystal Cox, Defamation, Internet Law, Invasion of Privacy, law, Personal Jurisdiction, Ruth Carter, Shield Law

• Flash Mobs Are Not Crimes

  

  This post was originally published on The Undeniable Ruth in August 2011. 

  It appears the term “flash mob” is being used inappropriately and its meaning is being overly broadened to include any group activity that is coordinated using social media. This year, there have been several robberies and assaults perpetrated by a group of people that appear (at least on the surface) to have been orchestrated via social media sites. The media has called them “flash mob crimes.” They make it sound like someone created a Facebook event that said, “Meet at Broadway and Main at 10pm. At exactly 10:03, we’re all going to run into the minimart, grab whatever we want, and run out.” That’s not a flash mob. That’s solicitation and possibly conspiracy. If the event actually occurs, it’s larceny and perhaps inciting a riot.

  A flash mob is defined as “a group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual and sometimes seemingly pointless act for a brief time, then disperse, often for the purposes of entertainment and/or satire.” Flash mobs have been occurring at least since the 1970’s. In recent years, they have been orchestrated via email and social media websites; however, that does not mean that every public group activity that is coordinated via social media is a flash mob.

  

  Flash mobs are generally light-hearted innocuous fun.  People who participate in flash mobs ride public transportation without their pants; they welcome back strangers at the airport; they have fake battles between heroes and villains; and they stand frozen in place for short periods of time. Some protests and promotional events are referred to as “flash mobs,” but technically they’re not. And any event that has a criminal intent is definitely not a flash mob.

  I give the media some leeway when it comes to coining terms; however, I was deeply disturbed when I saw a legal website refer to flash mobs as including criminal behavior. It suggests the writer did not do their research on this topic.

  I love flash mobs. I have been participating in them and organizing them since 2009. When Improv AZ organizes a flash mob, we do thorough research on the potential legal implications of our event. I have attended an event with pages of statutes in my back pocket to ensure that we’re acting within the confines of the law. We are diligent to inform our participants in advance of their do’s and don’ts. We may push the envelope, but we never intend to cross the line. Most of our encounters with police involve them smiling or laughing at us. At the 2010 No Pants Ride after party, a Tempe police car stopped near us and an officer yelled out, “We had a briefing about you!” And then he went about his merry way, knowing we were harmless. A bit odd and rather goofy, but harmless.

  Flash mobs are harmless, playful, and unexpected events. They are not criminal acts by design. Flash mobs and crimes are two completely different phenomena.  They do not exist on the same continuum.

  In other news, the flash mob community needs to send a big “thank you” to Mayor Jackson and the city of Cleveland. Mayor Jackson recently vetoed a proposed law that would have made it illegal to use social media to coordinate a flash mob.  Thank you for protecting our First Amendment rights!

  January 23, 2012

  •

  Ruth Carter

  •

  Featured Post, Flash Mob Law

  Cleveland, crime, criminal law, First Amendment, flash mob crimes, flash mobs, Improv AZ, Improv Everywhere, law, Lawyers.com, Mayor Frank Jackson, pranks, Ruth Carter, social media