Tag: VenJuris

  • Kesha v. Sony – Cautionary Contract Tale

    Microphone by Photo Cindy from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    Microphone by Photo Cindy from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    Last week, a New York Court refused to nullify the contract between recording artist Kesha and Sony, despite Kesha’s allegations that she was drugged and raped in 2006 by her producer, Luke Gottwald (a.k.a. Dr. Luke). Gottwald has not been charged with this crime. Kesha admitted she’s afraid of Gottwald, but she said if she doesn’t work with him (even though Sony offered to give her another producer), she’s worried Sony won’t promote her music properly. If everything Kesha said is true, she is trapped in a situation where she has to risk her personal safety for professional success.

    Why Sony Won
    The reason Sony won this case appears to be basic contract law – the verbiage of the contract wouldn’t allow for the change. When it comes to creating a contract, it’s a relatively low bar to clear to have a legally binding contract. And if the parties want to change the provisions later, they may only be able to do so under limited circumstances, such as by mutual agreement. If the contract is valid and the other side is not open to making changes, you’re stuck with the verbiage and the commitments of the original agreement. I suspect that’s what happened in this situation; Kesha signed 6-album deal, and her allegations that her producer raped her isn’t sufficient to force Sony to change the terms or release her from the contract entirely.

    Personally, I believe Kesha. It’s rare for a person to lie about being sexually assaulted. However, the law doesn’t have this luxury. The court can only make decisions based on what the parties can prove, so without a conviction or a confession, the court can’t determine if her allegations is sufficient to release her from this contract.

    Ke$ha by Becky Sullivan from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    Ke$ha by Becky Sullivan from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    Turn Back the Clock
    Given that hindsight is 20/20, what might Kesha have done differently when negotiating her contract with Sony? I am not sure it was wise for either party to commit themselves to a 6-album deal. Perhaps it would have been better for the artist to only commit to 2 albums and then renegotiate. Given Kesha’s young age when she signed with Sony, perhaps she, and other young artists, should have provisions geared towards their personal safety such as cameras that record all meetings and security or at least a personal representative all times that she’s working as well as provisions that address physical and emotional abuse. I also wonder if it wouldn’t have been prudent for both sides to have a provision that required regular drug testing to help prevent artists from getting into trouble and from being taken advantage of by people who should be protecting them.

    What Could Kesha do Now?
    Since a Kesha appears to be legally obligated to work with Sony and her alleged rapist, what should she do now to protect herself? Her safety should be the top priority. In regards to Gottwald, Kesha should never be alone with him. She should have security at her side at all times when he’s present. Gottwald should not be permitted to be within 10 feet of her, be able to contact her directly by phone or using any electronic means, or for any reason except as professionally necessary. I’m also not opposed to Kesha being legally armed (pepper spray, stun gun, etc.) if that makes her feel safer for the duration of her contract.

    Contracts are a beautiful thing when they are written properly. However, we can see from this case how it can be a disaster when parties don’t plan for the worst-case scenarios. (I agree that it is an incredibly sad that artists have to consider the possibility that they will be physically harmed by their business partners, but this case shows that it is something that should be discussed at the negotiation table.) If you have a question about writing effective contracts, please contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn.

    I’m also going to revive my newsletter later this year. If you want access to my exclusive content, please subscribe.

  • How to Move a Business from California to Arizona

    Arizona - The Grand Canyon State Welcomes You by Peter Zillmann from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    Arizona – The Grand Canyon State Welcomes You by Peter Zillmann from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

     

    UPDATE (1/10/2023): The process for moving a corporation from California to Arizona has recently changed! Read about the new, easier, more cost-effective way to move your company to Arizona here.

    California is so weird. (I grew up there. I can say that from experience.) It’s a weird state with weird laws.

    I recently helped a client move their corporation from California to Arizona. Arizona law allows you to simply transfer your company from your old state to your new one with a Statement of Domestication, if the state you’re leaving permits this.

    California doesn’t.

    Instead of it being a simple process, moving a corporation from California to Arizona is much more complicated, expensive, and time consuming. The easiest way to do it was to form a new company in Arizona and merge it with the California company, where the Arizona company was the surviving entity.

    Here’s how it’s done:

    • Create a new entity in Arizona through the Arizona Corporation Commission and pay the corresponding filing fee.
    • Create and sign a Merger Agreement.
    • Submit the Statement of Merger to the Arizona Corporation Commission and request a Certified Copy of the Merger Certificate. Pay the corresponding filing fees.
    • Once you receive the Certified Copy of the Merger Certificate, send it to the California Corporation Commission with their required filing fee.

    The total process took a little over a month – and we expedited the Arizona filings – and the client spent over $300 in filing fees between the two states. Had they been able to file a Statement of Domestication, the Arizona filing fee would have been only $100 ($135 if expedited it).

    Dealing with the California Corporation Commission wasn’t the easiest adventure. If I ever have a question and need a crystal clear answer from the Arizona Corporation Commission, I can go down there and talk to the clerk. I don’t have that luxury with California. One day it was impossible to get anyone at the California Corporation Commission on the phone and I ended up using their online contact form to get a call back 2-3 days later. That was a frustration that I’m glad I got to handle instead of my client.

    Moving a company from one state to another can be confusing and stressful – especially when you’re trying to sort out which process you have to use and which forms and filing fees you need to submit to each state. It’s not something I recommend doing by yourself. If you have a question about starting a company in or moving a company to Arizona, please contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn.

  • Model Release for TFP Photo Shoots

    Photo by Joseph Abbruscato, Used with Permission
    Photo by Joseph Abbruscato, Used with Permission

    Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of participating in an open photo shoot at a junkyard in Wittmann, Arizona. Dozens of photographers and models converged on this location to shoot around all day in and on the various broken down vehicles and other surroundings. It was a great event to meet other of photographers and models, and to work with the unique aspects of this setting.

    As we entered the junkyard, there were 2 large neon green handwritten poster boards that reminded us that we were entering at our own risk, cameras were in use, and that our picture may be taken without our knowledge. Additionally, they said “If you do something stupid we know where to bury you” and “Don’t do anything you don’t want your mom to know about.”

    These signs were brilliant and hilarious, but incomplete given that this notice was the closest thing we had to a model release for this event. As a model, I knew what I was getting into; but as a lawyer, it made me cringe.

    Photo by Bob Johnson, Used with Permission
    Photo by Bob Johnson, Used with Permission

    What is TFP?
    This was a TFP photo shoot – Trade For Photos or Time For Pictures depending on your definition. As I understand it, this means it was an open and free event where models and photographers could meet, shoot, and without any money changing hands. After the event, both sides will have had the experience, and the model will get images.

    This particular photo shoot was announced as a TFP photo shoot on Facebook without any additional documentation. Without a written contract to the contrary, the photographers are the copyright holder’s to every image they created that day. The models have no copyright rights to the work, not even a license to use the images in their portfolio unless they get that permission from the photographer. Since the models didn’t sign a model release, the photographers can’t sell any of the images they created without risking violating the models’ right to publicity.

    Writing a Simple Model Release
    An effective model release does not have to be long, complicated, or filled with legalese. It can be a simple contract that everyone has to sign prior to entering the shoot that lays out the ground rules for the event. The model release should clearly state what rights the models give the photographers and with the photographers give the models in return – such as a license to use any image from the shoot in their portfolio or online with an attribution.

    The release for this particular event probably should have included a liability waiver given that we were climbing in and on broken down vehicles and surrounded by broken glass and gagged metal. We all should have been required to sign off that we were responsible for our own actions and wouldn’t go after the owners of the junkyard or anybody present in the event that we fell or got tetanus.

    I wrote a simple one-page model release for a swimming pool photo shoot last summer that every model and photographer had to sign with their contact information. This put everybody on the same page from the beginning of the event, including the acknowledgment of the “No Jerks” rule, and since everyone provided their contact information, it was easy for models and photographer to connect after the event.

    The next time I see an invitation for an open TFP photo shoot, perhaps I should offer to write a simple release for the event, especially if I’m going to be a model there. If you have a question about copyright, model releases, or photography rights, please contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn.

    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.

    At $497, the course contains nearly six hours of legal information you can immediately apply to your business. That’s less than what I charge for two hours of legal work for clients!  

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

  • Arizona Reviving its Revenge Porn Law

    Figure and Form by The Narratographer from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    Figure and Form by The Narratographer
    from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    Arizona lawmakers are trying to bring back the revenge porn law.

    The Arizona House of Representatives unanimously passed HB2001 last week. This bill would make it a crime to share “revenge porn” without the person’s permission. The previous revenge porn law was suspended when the court ruled that the verbiage of the law was overly broad. This new version has been tailored to better address the problematic behavior. If this bill becomes a law, it will be

    [U]nlawful for a person to intentionally disclose an image of another person who is identifiable from the image itself or from information displayed in connection with the image if all the following apply:
    1. The person in the image is depicted in a state of nudity or is engaged in specific sexual activities.
    2. The depicted person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Evidence that a person has sent an image to another person using an electronic device does not, on its own, remove the person’s reasonable expectation of privacy for that image.
    3. The image is disclosed with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce the depicted person.

    If this law passes, it will illegal to post your ex-partner’s naked selfie online or show it to a friend, even if your partner voluntarily shared the image with you. The requirement of intent is beneficial; it will protect artists, galleries, and bookstores from criminal prosecution if they inadvertently use a nude image without a model release.

    If this law passes, the penalties will be similar to other sexual crimes:

    I hope this law passes. Based on the number of questions I get about revenge porn, this is a problem that is not going away on its own. If it passes, I hope there will be campaigns to quickly educate people – in every age group. If you have a cell phone, you have the means to create explicit images and send revenge porn.  Comprehensive, age-appropriate education needs to be disseminated in homes, schools, community groups, and via social media, because ignorance of the law will not absolve you from the consequences.

    Stay educated about social media law – this list of revenge porn laws in the U.S. is regularly updated. If you have a question about revenge porn, internet law, or photography rights, please contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn.

  • Burning CDs = Copyright Risk

    CDs or DVDs by mlange_b from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    CDs or DVDs by mlange_b from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    For the last few weeks, I’ve received several questions about the legalities of burning entire albums from a friend’s CD collection and creating and giving mixed CDs to loved ones or as part of a corporate gift. These questions make me cringe.

    The U.S. Copyright Act allows you to make an archival copy of media you’ve legally obtained, in case something happens to the original. This is for personal use, not to be shared with others. It is perfectly legal to create a playlist or mix CD from your music collection for your personal use. If you allow friends to copy your CDs, that is likely an illegal copy (unless the music is so old that it’s in the public domain). By burning a copy of your CD, you are depriving the artist and their record label of the royalties they would have earned had your friend bought their own copy.

    To the person who asked me if they could make a mix CD of holiday music to send to clients and contacts, that really made me cringe. Not only would you likely be illegally copying and distributing music without a license, but you would also be informing your contacts through your actions that you either lack knowledge of copyright law, or you don’t respect it. Neither of those are a sentiment you want to have as part of your reputation.

    The exception to this situation is to get permission to make these CDs by obtaining licenses for each song. I work with an organization called Ignite Phoenix that puts on awesome shows that showcase speakers’ passions. At several events, we wanted to highlight the musical talent in the Phoenix area, so one of our organizers contacted local bands who agreed to have one of their songs featured on an Ignite Phoenix compilation CD that was handed out to every attendee.

    Remember, what you can legally do and what you may get away with are often different things. The only person who can come after you for infringement is the copyright holder. If they don’t know what you did or they don’t care, you won’t be sued for infringement. Although it is rare to hear about copyright infringement cases like this, they do happen. A woman in Minnesota was ordered to pay $1.9 million for illegally downloading 24 songs. The amount was later reduced to $220,000.

    The interaction between the Copyright Act and technology is often confusing, with many gray areas instead of black-and-white answers. If you have any questions about copyright and avoiding the risk of infringement, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn.

  • What’s the Answer to Revenge Porn?

    What The . . . ? by Reinis Traidas from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    What The . . . ? by Reinis Traidas from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    I’m frustrated.

    I regularly review the terms people search for and end up on this site. Almost every day people are asking questions about how they can determine if their intimate photos and videos have been posted online or what they should do if a current or ex-partner is threatening to post their intimate photos.

    Now, I have no issue with consenting adults creating photos or videos in the privacy of their bedroom or wherever they have sexy time. I have a huge issue when it comes to people acting irresponsibly with these media files. And the problem doesn’t appear to be getting better.

    My rule of thumb is people shouldn’t create intimate photos or videos unless they are certain that everyone involved is responsible and respectful enough not to share them with anyone. If you know you might be tempted to post these file or show them to your friends, don’t have them on your phone, delete them if you have them, or better yet – don’t create them.

    I suspect a lot of people feel embarrassed when they learn that their naked image is online or someone is threatening to post it, so they try to deal with it quietly. These bad actors get to be so abusive, in part, because they’re doing it in the shadows behind a computer screen. They rely on their victim silence. The best response may be to bring this person into the light. If you are a victim in this type of situation, call the police. You may be the victim of revenge porn, harassment, or extortion. You may also want to talk to a lawyer because you might have a civil case as well.

    Depending on your circumstances, your most effective course of action may be to turn to the court of public opinion by calling this bad actor out for their abusive and disrespectful deeds.

    Likewise, if your friend offers to show you the intimate photos or videos they created with their partner, forcefully decline. Tell your friend they’re a disrespectful dick for even considering sharing these. This person is a jerk who shouldn’t be dating anyone or engaging in any activities that might lead to procreation. The only exception to this advice is if your friend offers to hand you their phone to look at the images. The good buddy response would be to take their phone and delete the images – save them from themselves.

    In thinking about these situations, one of the reasons why I’m so frustrated is because I feel powerless to stop this misbehavior. The answer to this problem may lie in the way we teach tweens and tweens about using their phones. Just like we teach kids to say “please” and “thank you,” they need to be taught that it’s unacceptable to create and share content designed to humiliate and disrespect others.

    If you suspect that you are the victim of revenge porn threatened with revenge porn, please know that you don’t have to deal with this situation alone. Please call the police, your local domestic violence resource center, and/or a lawyer. If you have any questions about revenge porn or any other questions about social media harassment, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn.

  • YouTube Reinstated my Video

    Webtreats - 272 YouTube Icons Promo Pack by webtreats from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    Webtreats – 272 YouTube Icons Promo Pack by webtreats from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    Last month, YouTube pulled one of my videos within hours of it being released. My videos are typically uploaded in advanced and released early every Wednesday morning. That was the strangest message to wake up to.

    The weird thing was that the videos on this challenge are mostly Q&A for legal questions about business, intellectual property, and internet law. Occasionally, I talk about more risqué topics like revenge porn and legal issues related to posting or sharing intimate photos and videos, but this video was about publicity rights. (The question I received was poorly phrased. As written it sounded like he/she could have been asking about human trafficking, but I’m pretty sure they were asking about the right of publicity.)

    Since life is blog material, instead of posting the video that day, I posted about how YouTube pulled my video for allegedly violating their Community Guidelines. I do not know if someone reported my video as offensive or if an automatic process within YouTube detected suspicious verbiage and removed it automatically.

    Initially, I was going to let it go, thinking “Their site, their rules;” but a friend suggested I appeal the decision. (I wish I could remember who suggested this! Thank you!) I went into the firm’s YouTube channel and submitted an appeal with a short note explaining that the purpose of the video was a discussion of publicity rights, not an endorsement of human trafficking. About a day later, I received the following response:

    Thank you for submitting your video appeal to YouTube. After further review, we’ve determined that your video doesn’t violate our Community Guidelines. Your video has been reinstated and your account is in good standing.

    In case you missed it, here’s the video that led to this predicament:

    I’m glad this situation has a happy ending. The lesson I learned from all of this is that it’s worth it to appeal YouTube’s decision if you think a video was pulled in error. If you have any questions about a YouTube video or any other questions about social media law, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn.

  • YouTube Pulled My Video

    Leaked YouTube Video by C_osett from Flickr (Public Domain)
    Leaked YouTube Video by C_osett from Flickr (Public Domain)

    Carter Law Firm releases a new Question of the Day video on its YouTube channel every Wednesday. I record these videos in advance in batches and then schedule them to be released on a weekly basis. The questions and topics for this videos come from terms people search for and end up on my site, questions I receive via email, and recent events related to business law, social media law, and intellectual property.

    I schedule the videos to be published at 3am Arizona time so each new video is live by the time I get up on Wednesday morning. This past Wednesday, I awoke to a surprising email from YouTube:

    The YouTube community flagged one or more of your videos as inappropriate. After reviewing the content, we’ve determined that the videos violate our Community Guidelines. As a result, we removed the following videos from YouTube . . . .

    Wait…what?!? I do Q&A videos about legal questions. How did I violate their community standards?

    The video in question was entitled, “Posting Pictures of a Girl you Bought Online.” This was a phrase someone searched for an ended up on this site. I started this video by questioning whether the person was asking about the legalities of posting a photo that he/she had purchased and the image depicted contains another person (copyright and rights of publicity issues) or if the person had purchased another human being and wanted to know if he/she could post an image of the purchased person online (human trafficking issues). I assumed the person was asking about copyright and publicity rights and addressed those issues in a general sense.

    So why was the video pulled? Perhaps someone thought I made too light an issue of human trafficking (which I would never intentionally do). Whatever the reason, I sighed and thought “Their site. Their rules.” Whoever controls a forum decides what others can and can’t post on it. If they had an issue with my video, it was their prerogative to remove it. If you want to see it, I posted it on the Carter Law Firm Facebook page.

    If you have a website where others can post comments or other content, you get to set the rules regarding what is and is not allowed. As long as your rules aren’t illegal, you can write them however you want. Even this site has a terms of service.

    If you want more information about website terms of service, please check out my book The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed. If you want to chat with me about YouTube’s policies or terms or service in general, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn.

  • No Easy Answers in Social Media Law

    Math Castle by Gabriel Molina from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    Math Castle by Gabriel Molina from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    Earlier this week I did an interview for Casual Fridays with Tyler Anderson about social media law. I had a great time talking about copyright, trademark, and the FTC rules that apply to social media and the internet in general.

    Whenever I do a Q&A on social media law, I tend to get the same types questions over and over again:

    • Can I use any image I find online if I give an attribution and a link to the original? What if I’m not making money off it?
    • I just want to use 10 seconds of a song. Is that ok?
    • If someone sends me a photo, I own it, right? I can do anything I want with it, right?
    • How much do I have to change someone else’s work to qualify for fair use?

    As I listened to Tyler’s questions, I realized that he and most social media marketers and entrepreneurs are looking for clear answers. They want things to be as black-and-white as possible, but unfortunately the law is filled with shades of gray, especially in emerging area of law where the technology is advancing faster than the law can keep up.

    The best a person can do is to be aware of the basics of copyright, trademark, contract, and privacy laws and assume that there are no easy answers to their questions, even when it seems simple. I also recommend that business owners meet with their lawyers once a year (just like you meet with your accountant) to review their business and standards of practice to make sure that your business is in compliance with the law.

    If you want more information about social media law, please check out my book The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed. If you want to chat with me, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn.

  • FTC & Promotions – Always Disclose Relationships

    My box of Mental Mojo - love this stuff! (Thanks to the owners for sending me free product!)
    My box of Mental Mojo – love this stuff! (Thanks to the owners for sending me free product!)

    My friends own a company called Mental Mojo – it’s a powder that contains caffeine and cognitive enhancers that you mix in water. I drink it when I’m tired – it helps me get my work done without making me jittery. (I love that it turns my water super nerd green, which reminds me of this infamous exchange between Data and Scotty on Star Trek: The Next Generation.)

    Because I talk about it so much online, I usually get my Mental Mojo for free (and they’ve invited me to the taste test for the new flavors). I’m not a paid spokesperson for this company, but I do get benefits from promoting the product. As such, every time I talk about drinking free product, I need to disclose my relationship with this company – not just because it shows transparency, but because the federal law requires it.

    FTC Rules about Promotions
    The Federal Trade Commission has strict rules about making “clear and conspicuous” disclosures when a person has a relationship with a company. These rules apply to spokespeople, online contest participants, product reviewers, and companies that use affiliate links on your site. When you are compensated for giving an opinion, you have to disclose your relationship.

    If you fail to disclose a relationship with a company, the FTC can fine you up to $11,000. And they can go after you or the company.

    Even in 140 Characters
    And don’t think for a second that tweets or other micro-form social media sites are exempt from this rule. At the very least, you have to include “#ad” on your post. It’s not enough to include a link to a site that includes the disclosure of your relationship.

    Truthfulness and Transparency
    Whenever you write a product review, whether it’s on a review site like Yelp, a product review blog post, or providing a quote for their website or LinkedIn profile, you must provide a truthful and accurate review of the product or service. Posting fake or embellished reviews (positive or negative) violates the FTC rules.

    I’ve written product reviews and I appreciate that my editors respect the FTC rules by asking us to describe the benefits and drawbacks of each product we try.

    Video Disclosures
    If you do reviews in video form – including unboxing videos – you need to disclose when you get free product and provide honest reviews. The FTC says it’s not enough to have the disclosure in the video notes. You have to say it or post verbiage to that effect at the beginning of your video and possibly repeat this information throughout the video depending on its length.

    This disclosure doesn’t have to be complex. It can be something like, “The guys at Mental Mojo sent me this free box of their product. Let’s try it out.” (If you are trying Mental Mojo for the first time, the flavor may be a bit strong. Until you get used to the taste, you may want to mix it with club soda instead of plain water. The carbonation helps take the edge off.)

    Final Thoughts
    Disclose disclose disclose. If you get a benefit from talking about a product or company online, disclose it. Whether it’s your employer, a client, or a company that sends you stuff for free – it should be crystal clear to anyone who sees your posts that you have a relationship with the company.

    If you work with spokespersons or campaign partners, make sure part of your relationship includes an educational component about their obligation to disclose your affiliation whenever they talk about you on any platform.

    I spoke about this topic earlier this year at Content Marketing World. Be sure to check out the follow-up article about this panel by Northeast Ohio Media Group.

    If you want more information about this topic, please check out 6 Things to Know About FTC Disclosures When Working with Influencers or my book The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed. If you want to chat with me about a specific question related to the FTC rules and promotions, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn.