In their recent Client Alert, colleague Catherine D. Meyer examines the prospects of a potential “Safe Harbor 2.0” being hammered out between the EU and United States regarding data transfer schemes.
Additional Source: With Safe Harbor now “Invalid,” Companies Must Change Data Practices
Stories of interest this week include discussions of “melt your brain” VR at YouTube; the resurrecting of deceased loved ones via social media history; transforming that key fob or piece of jewelry into a payment device; and more…
Brand companies have come to view user-generated content as often one of the most effective and authentic ways to advertise their products or services. This is known as “user-generated content marketing.” For example, with the ubiquitous selfie, brand companies have discovered a rich supply of user-generated content. Consider a consumer who takes a selfie wearing a favorite pair of jeans, posts the photo on Instagram, and then tags the photo with #brandname. The jean company sees and likes the photo, re-posting it on the company website. Legal issues? If the consumer or user was hoping to get attention from the brand for the photo and opinions shared online, not at all. This is how many digital influencers get their start. But if the user was not seeking such attention? Then, problems can arise.
Notwithstanding that the people involved are often surprised at their public exposure, it has become somewhat commonplace for individuals to be either caught on video by a smartphone or to have a social media website posting that demonstrates poor judgment go viral. All employers should consider having a social media response plan for just these sorts of incidents, in some cases to protect other employees and in many cases to protect the employer’s brand and reputation. Even then, employers must strike a fine balance in navigating their rights and responsibilities towards all affected by the sudden exposure.
We often espouse the value of comprehensive, up-to-date terms of service (TOS) that consistently reflect your current business. And for good reason! Plaintiffs’ attorneys will scrutinize your TOS before helping your users sue your business for “taking advantage” of them without their consent and knowledge. Wilford Raney’s attorneys did the same for Twitter’s TOS before bringing their class action lawsuit against the social media giant for allegedly invading Raney’s privacy (and the privacy of similarly situated individuals) by replacing user-provided hyperlinks with its own “t.co” short link in “private” direct messages.
With live-streaming apps Periscope and Meerkat becoming increasingly popular, the introduction of a “live” element in the social media game is creating unique business and legal concerns. While most of the videos streamed on Periscope or Meerkat merely allow users to create real-time videos to share with their followers or show snippets of everyday life (like a walk through the park or a birthday celebration), legal complications can arise when users give viewers a glimpse into highly anticipated and publicized live events.
Continuing the trend in recent years of injunctions becoming harder and harder to obtain, the Northern District of California denied a motion for a preliminary injunction where the defendant has allegedly copied the plaintiff’s video game source code. Despite finding a strong likelihood of success on the merits, the judge rejected the plaintiff’s bid for a preliminary injunction because there was insufficient evidence of irreparable harm to the plaintiff, and because the balance of equities tilted in the defendant’s favor.
The decision of Europe’s top court yesterday to confirm that the ruling that the Europe Union(EU)/U.S. Safe Harbor scheme, Commission Decision 2000/520, was invalid has major implications for any businesses transferring data from the EU to the United States.
Do you consider yourself famous? If the answer is no, then you have likely never been concerned with the invasion of your right of publicity. The right of publicity is the right of a person in his or her identity—name or likeness or any other indicia of identity. This right protects persons from the taking of an identity for commercial gain without proper remuneration. For example, a cereal manufacturer could not place a picture of a celebrity on the cereal box without consent by that celebrity (and a license to use the picture, if protected by copyright law). Using such a picture would necessarily create a false association between the product—the cereal—and the celebrity. Because the celebrity has value in his or her likeness, the right of publicity allows the celebrity to protect that identity (and not have it be devalued or taken advantage of by others for commercial gain).
Your social media content is not only susceptible to hacking; it’s also susceptible to disclosure requests from civil litigants (see our Sept. 14 blog post for more details) and even prosecutors without your consent if they have a warrant. According to a California appeals court, however, federal Internet privacy laws can stop social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram from disclosing your social media content—at least to criminal defendants during pretrial discovery.
