Businesses, Know thy Facebook Admin

10 Thursday Feb 2011

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Bloggers, Intellectual Property, Social Media

Tags

The new Facebook Pages (which I personally think are a nice upgrade) just made the workplace social media equation a little more complicated. Pages now act and feel like personal profiles and your organization’s Page can now post updates directly on other Pages’ Walls. The upgrade could be great for B2B networking, but it also enhances legal risks to Page admins and their organizations.

New Page Example: After logging in and upgrading the Page, I switched my Facebook access over to control of the Vonnegut Library (just click “Use Facebook as Page” under “Account” and it gives you a full list of the pages you admin).

Then I went to Nuvo‘s wall and posted a message. (Thanks Nuvo!) Rather than posting as Kenan Farrell, I’m now able to post as the Vonnegut Library. For comparison, I also posted an update on Nuvo’s wall the “ol’-fashion” way, by tagging Nuvo in a status update.

While controlling a Page, the Notifications will be your Page’s notifications rather than personal notifications. The Friend tab will be all the folks who’ve “Liked” your Page.

You can see on the right in the image above, under the list of Admins, “Use Facebook as Kenan.” Facebook has made it extremely easy to switch back and forth between personal and business identities.

This upgrade goes a long way toward allowing businesses* to communicate independently of a particular individual’s identity. No longer restricted to their own Walls, Pages can go forth throughout Facebook and spread their unique message. Pages now allow organizations to more directly have a unified, branded voice in Facebook politics:

My caution to businesses…know your Page admins. Don’t give your company’s bullhorn to someone with whom you’ve had no discussion about communication strategy. Make sure they understand what is and isn’t appropriate to be saying on behalf of the company. Make sure they understand proper usage of trademarks, both yours and those of 3rd parties.

Admins must be increasingly mindful of which account they are posting from, especially since it is now so easy to switch back and forth between personal and business accounts (or switch to another unrelated Page account. I manage 8 accounts myself…what might be appropriate for one Page may not be from another). Defamation, privacy and securities lawsuits await the casual admin who makes personal comments from a business Page. FTC and unfair competition lawsuits await those who make business comments from a personal account (e.g. false testimonials, unsolicited endorsements).

Related note: be sure to have a CEO, owner or some other key employee listed as an Admin. With all the recent news about companies losing their domain names to wayward IT staff, you want to be sure you have a stake in your organization’s Facebook Page.

What do you think of the new Facebook Pages? A business communications boon or a legal minefield?

(*I use the term “business” broadly above. Read it to include most anybody who has a Page they’re using to promote a product or service.)

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Truth Publishing Company Inc. v. Kristopher C. Campbell

17 Monday Jan 2011

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Bloggers, Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Christopher A. Nuechterlein, Copyright Infringement, Jon E. DeGuilio

Truth Publishing Company Inc. v. Kristopher C. Campbell

Plaintiff operates a daily newspaper called THE ELKHART TRUTH in Elkhart, Indiana. Defendant publishes a periodical called I.C.U. (Indiana Criminals Uncovered) MUG SHOTS. I.C.U. MUG SHOTS apparently copies news stories relating to crime and arrests directly from Plaintiff’s paper and sells the reprints for $1.50 a copy in Elkhart.

I can see why The Elkhart Truth would get tired of sending out its reporters to dig up info only to have another local paper photocopy their stories and republish. But, on some levels, isn’t Defendant doing a public service by helping spread information about criminals? Defendant certainly considered the copyright issues, as he included the following disclaimer:

“The information provided by Indiana Criminal Uncovered (ICU) Mugshots is of public record in accordance with Indiana Code 5-14-3-5. The information relates only to arrest, bookings, and preliminary charges. It does not address guilty pleas, convictions, or criminal sentences. All persons in this publication are innocent until provent guilty”

Whether the disclaimer can protect him will be determined by this lawsuit.

Defendant is running the old-school equivalent of a criminal law blog, which of course requires a little money for printing and distribution. Defendant is correct that mug shots and arrest records are public information. However, it appeared that Defendant copied the articles directly and distributed the reprints in the same geographic market, Elkhart.

While it’s likely that some people may not buy the Truth if they can get crime news from Defendant, there is apparently a wholly separate market of people who want crime stories but not the rest of the news content contained in a regular issue of the Truth. If so, Defendant may be able to continue to serve this audience, but will probably want to do more of his own fact-finding and reporting.

Court Case Number: 3:11-cv-00017-JD-CAN
File Date: Thursday, January 13, 2011
Plaintiff: Truth Publishing Company Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Steven M. Badger of Bose McKinney & Evans LLP
Defendant: Kristopher C. Campbell
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jon E. DeGuilio
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein

View this document on Scribd

Superhero Law Debated on New Blog

21 Tuesday Dec 2010

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Bloggers, Copyright, Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property, Just for Fun, Trademark, What I'm Reading

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Superhero

There’s a fun new blog, Law and the Multiverse, that applies real world law to comic book scenarios. In their words:

If there’s one thing comic book nerds like doing it’s over-thinking the smallest details. Here we turn our attention to the hypothetical legal ramifications of comic book tropes, characters, and powers. Just a few examples: Are mutants a protected class? Who foots the bill when a hero damages property while fighting a villain? What happens legally when a character comes back from the dead?

The blog touches on many different areas of law, including intellectual property. Here is an excerpt:

In the real world comic book characters and their likenesses have been made into toys, video games, movies, television shows, lunchboxes, bed sheets, and innumerable other things. All of these secondary uses are mediated through intellectual property rights, particularly copyright and trademark rights. But if Superman were a real person, how might the situation be different? Could just anyone slap his image or iconic S shield on a lunchbox? What about uses that suggest that Superman endorses a product or service? (“Try Metropolis Brewery Beer, the choice of the Man of Steel!”) Or worse, what about revealing a superhero’s secret identity?

Their latest post explores a favorite topic of the Indiana Intellectual Property Blog, privacy rights:

From a superhero’s point of view, the main issues here are intrusion into his or her secret identity and secret headquarters, if applicable. The latter case is squarely within the scope of the tort (physical intrusion into a home or office is a classic example of the tort), so let’s focus on the issue of secret identity. In particular, does a superhero’s secret identity fall under the scope of the second element? And when we say “reasonable person” do we mean a reasonable regular person or a reasonable superhero, or does it matter?

The answer to the first question is probably yes. Courts have held that the right to privacy includes psychological & emotional solitude and the intrusion can occur in a public place. See, e.g., Phillips v. Smalley Maintenance Svcs, Inc., 435 So.2d 705, 711 (Ala. 1983) (holding “one’s emotional sanctum is certainly due the same expectations of privacy as one’s physical environment.” and “the ‘wrongful intrusion’ privacy violation can occur in a public place, when the matter intruded upon is of a sufficiently personal nature”). As the definition states, the intrusion need not be directly physical and can include demands and threats. Phillips, 435 So.2d at 711.

For the full post and to explore other areas of law, visit Law and the Multiverse. One of the blog authors is a recent grad of Notre Dame Law School. I’m looking forward to reading the future posts on copyright and trademark.

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Category Archives: Bloggers

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Truth Publishing Company Inc. v. Kristopher C. Campbell

Truth Publishing Company Inc. v. Kristopher C. Campbell

Superhero Law Debated on New Blog