June 13th, 2009

Six things to know if your Facebook username has been squatted

Posted by Denise Howell @ 8:34 am

Categories: Defamation, Identity, Live Web, Right of publicity, Social networking, Trademark

Tags: Facebook, Facebook Usernames, Squatting, Denise Howell

Here are some things to bear in mind about username squatting on Facebook.

1. I’m guessing Mike Arrington can get this fixed with a phone call or two. (via Dave Winer) If you’re not him…
2. You may have missed the fact there was, before username registration opened up, a form to complete for “preventing [your] trademarks from being registered as usernames.” That form is now closed, and links off instead to Facebook’s non-copyright IP Infringement Form. (Given its wording and stated purpose, I doubt it would have helped with non-trademark-registered individual names anyway.)
3. Facebook (like Twitter, etc.) is not ICANN, and the UDRP has no application to its vanity URLs. Facebook’s terms of service, however, mandate that users not “take any action on Facebook that infringes someone else’s rights or otherwise violates the law.”
4. Many jurisdictions, (including California where Facebook is headquartered), restrict or prohibit unauthorized use of a person’s “name, image, likeness or other unequivocal aspects of one’s identity.”
5. It’s not “squatting” if someone else happens to share an individual’s name and was able to register it or a variation.
6. All that said, it seems one’s first recourse as the victim of a username squatter is the aforementioned non-copyright IP Infringement Form.

I’d be interested in hearing about people’s experiences with this — whether it turns out to be streamlined and effective or frustrating and a pain. Let me know and I’ll update.

Previously: Chris Pirillo is socialsquatted; does the law care?

October 8th, 2008

Mail Goggles: an idea that goes well beyond drunk emails

Posted by Denise Howell @ 10:43 am

Categories: Blogging, Compliance, Copyright, Defamation, Lawsuits, Live Web, Trust, Voice

Tags: Google Gmail, E-mail, Blogging, Cloud Computing, Internet, Online Communications, Jon Perlow, Denise Howell

There’s a new GMail Labs app: Mail Goggles, by GMail engineer Jon Perlow:

When you enable Mail Goggles, it will check that you’re really sure you want to send that late night Friday email. And what better way to check than by making you solve a few simple math problems after you click send to verify you’re in the right state of mind? … Hopefully Mail Goggles will prevent many of you out there from sending messages you wish you hadn’t. Like that late night memo — I mean mission statement — to the entire firm.

Jon’s idea is lighthearted and fun, but when you look past the humor and consider it more broadly it’s quite brilliant. The current climate of panic is not confined to the financial markets. Corporate legal departments are bombarded with articles and concerns about online corporate communications, liability and more liability. The tug-of-war between PR/communications professionals and in-house legal continues to escalate as it becomes idiotic (if not impossible) for companies to remain on the sidelines of the Live Web. How do you train people to address the IP, defamation, and other legal concerns involved in free-flowing Web dialogue? Must every blog post and wall entry be vetted by a team of lawyers?

Expanding on Jon Perlow’s Mail Goggles idea sounds like a great solution. I like the notion of a straightforward and unburdensome series of questions as precursor to "publish." Instead of math problems, people could be asked to briefly confirm they’ve cleared rights on images, protected confidential information, and complied with policies on the quality of discourse and information provided. If uncertain on any of those fronts, they could be reminded what to do next. While a cookie-cutter approach couldn’t possibly address every legal nuance and pitfall, it could at least act as a sort of triage, speeding innocuous items out the door and letting the moderation/review process hone in on more complicated situations.

 Loading ...

May 24th, 2008

Section 230 to Twitter and others: Delete away

Posted by Denise Howell @ 12:15 am

Categories: Defamation, Live Web, Social networking, User generated content

Tags: Immunity, Twitter, Section 230, Denise Howell

Community and content management don’t void a site’s immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Participation in an unlawful act does.

I was thus taken aback by the legal analysis included in Wired’s/Betsy Schiffman’s post about Ariel Waldman and Twitter (Twitterer takes on Twitter Harassment Policy):

John Dozier Jr., a managing partner at Dozier Internet Law, says Twitter may have risked its immunity under the Communications Decency Act the moment it “edited” or altered content on the site. (An “edit” could include any sort of alteration, such as promotional placement or displacement on the site.)

“If they’ve edited content based on their subjective perspective, they put their immunity at risk and virtually their entire online business, because then they’d be liable to defmation [sic] claims or anything else that a publisher would,” Dozier says.

What’s at stake in the Twitter-Waldman discussion, as I understand it, is not editing or alteration but removal: something squarely protected by Section 230. (To be clear, editing and alteration don’t per se void the immunity, either.) As Professor Eric Goldman (a Section 230 scholar and frequent analyst) put it in a recent, unrelated post:

47 USC 230. Many people operate under the outdated myth that a site must choose to be either a publisher or a passive conduit. Fortunately, the law facilitates heterogeneous approaches to UGC. Per 230, a [site owner] isn’t liable for third party content with limited exceptions. Ownership doesn’t matter; editing doesn’t matter, prescreening/policing doesn’t matter. …

Evan Williams and co. at Twitter haven’t been invoking Section 230 as a basis for their decision not to remove certain complaint-generating submissions or their author; let’s not start doing it for them.

(Image by carrotcreative, CC Attribution-2.0)

May 14th, 2008

A short, pointed list of 'wonderful policies'

Posted by Denise Howell @ 10:38 am

Categories: Blogging, Copyright, Live Web, User generated content, Voice

Tags: Boing Boing, policies, Denise Howell

In putting together a list of what I consider to be relatively clueful site policies, terms, and guidelines, I just stumbled on BoingBoing’s List of Wonderful Policies. And it is.

April 23rd, 2008

Upcoming panel on exploiting the social graph

Posted by Denise Howell @ 12:18 pm

Categories: Attention, Conferences, Identity, Licenses, Live Web, Privacy, Social networking, User generated content

Tags: Social Media, OnHollywood, Denise Howell

At a conference I attended last month on social media law (I have some interesting notes I’ll post soon), I was struck by how lawyers for social media giants such as Facebook, MySpace, Google, find speedy ways to accommodate powerful copyright holders on infringement issues. When it comes to concerns over exploitation of user data, however, their solution is to draft the most draconian terms of service imaginable (knowing no one pays real attention), consider themselves legally covered when user complaints crop up, and occasionally ratchet down the terms or otherwise execute a subtle course change when things begin to get ugly: as with Beacon, or Billy Bragg, or, presumably soon, Google Reader.

We’re going to further explore this topic in a panel I’ll moderate at OnHollywood on June 10th. What do you think about different approaches to managing user data? If none of the poll answers fit or you want to expand, please comment.

 Loading ...

February 18th, 2008

Lawrence Lessig, congresscritter nominee

Posted by Denise Howell @ 9:49 am

Categories: Copyright, DMCA, DRM, Free speech, Live Web, MGM v. Grokster, Net neutrality, Privacy, Social networking, Social news

Tags: Lawrence Lessig, John Palfrey, Congress, Facebook, Denise Howell

TWiL regular John Palfrey announced a great idea last week while we were recording the forthcoming episode: a Facebook group drafting Professor Lessig for a recently vacated Congressional seat. Says John, "It’s high time we had our first true Free Culture candidate for public office." The Facebook group is about to hit 2,000 members, and there’s an official Web site as well (get your badges here). Seems appropriate in an election season so unusually filled with promise for needed change.

For his part, Professor Lessig isn’t ruling anything out, telling Ars Technica, "At this point, I’m not really able to say anything. I’ve been kind of stunned by the push of many, and am away with my family this weekend to think things through." More from Ars Technica, TechCrunch, and Slashdot.

[Update, 2/20/08 6:51 a.m.] TWiL #12 went up yesterday.

[Update, 2/20/08 6:55 a.m.] Via Jonathan Zittrain, a new site from Professor Lessig, lessig08.org: "I have decided I want to give as much energy as I can to the Change Congress movement. I will decide in the next week or so whether it makes sense to advance that movement by running for Congress."

January 30th, 2008

Docstoc for law school (a.k.a. today's young whippersnappers don't know how good they have it!)

Posted by Denise Howell @ 10:38 am

Categories: Blogging, Collaboration, Licenses, Live Web, Social networking, Tags, User generated content

Tags: Law School, Docstoc, Jason Lawrence Nazar, Denise Howell

My goodness. Check out the impressive array of law school outlines and other law school and bar exam resources being amassed at Docstoc. Aside from being incredibly useful, my favorite thing about this service is its built in Creative Commons licensing. A perfect place to share form legal (and other) documents — as Marc Canter discussed wishing to do on a recent episode of The Gang.

Bonus link: Are Cease-and-Desist Letters Subject to Copyright?

P.S. You know you’re becoming an elder-blogger when:

• you’re just as apt to think MSM refers to methylsulfonylmethane as mainstream media, and
• you’re just as apt to think Idoru is one of your dozens of daily nutritional supplements as a William Gibson novel.

P.P.S. Don’t get me started on the elder hottie thing; dragonlike, I might just aim a hot flash in your direction.

(Image of Docstoc’s CEO and Pepperdine law grad Jason Lawrence Nazar by Brian Solis, CC Attribution-2.0)

December 19th, 2007

Court tosses suit against Avvo, concluding algorithmic ratings are protected speech

Posted by Denise Howell @ 12:06 pm

Categories: Free speech, Lawsuits, Live Web, Search, User generated content

Tags: First Amendment, Avvo, Google Inc., Denise Howell

Lawyer rating start-up and nascent online community Avvo scored a big win yesterday when it convinced a Washington district court to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit filed last June. Avvo aggregates available attorney information, assigns subjective (and undisclosed) value to various factors, and comes up with a 1-10 rating. (Initially, Avvo rated every lawyer in its database. Shortly after its launch, and after the lawsuit was filed, Avvo responded to concerns about this practice and altered its approach.) Avvo’s ratings are thus generally analogous to Google’s PageRank: factors are weighted and a score is assigned. The lawyer-plaintiffs in the suit challenged the accuracy and validity of Avvo’s ratings and argued consumers would be misled by the flawed system. Avvo countered that the rating system yields no more than opinions entitled to absolute first amendment protection. The court agreed:

Avvo’s website contains numerous reminders that the Avvo rating system is subjective. The ratings are described as an “assessment” or “judgment,” two words that imply some sort of evaluative process. The underlying data is weighted based on Avvo’s subjective opinions regarding the relative importance of various attributes, such as experience, disciplinary proceedings, client evaluations, and self-promotion. How an attribute is scored and how it is weighed in comparison with other attributes is not disclosed, but a reasonable person would understand that two people looking at the same underlying data could come up with vastly different ratings depending on their subjective views of what is relevant and important. . . . Neither the nature of the information provided nor the language used on the website would lead a reasonable person to believe that the ratings are a statement of actual fact.

This is obviously good news for Avvo, and for any site that crunches variables to assign a rating. As Mike Gunderloy observed when the suit against Avvo was filed, this includes much of the Web 2.0 ecosystem. While Mike was concerned primarily about protections available to rating systems based on user (i.e. third party) feedback, it’s interesting to note that the court’s decision to dismiss the suit against Avvo was based solely on the First Amendment and not on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides limited liability protection for assertions made by third parties. Section 230 played no role here despite the fact at least some of Avvo’s ratings are based on third party assertions, specifically “peer endorsements.” The Avvo plaintiffs apparently “disavowed any claim based on content that Avvo obtained from a third party,” and there was thus no reason for the court to consider or discuss Avvo’s Section 230 defense. Thus, as with the KinderStart case against Google dismissed earlier this year, this court found that an algorithmically generated opinion can’t be “wrong,” “inaccurate,” or “invalid,” and failed to consider the potential (ultimately probable) role of Section 230 in limiting claims of this kind.

November 14th, 2007

Death 2.0

Posted by Denise Howell @ 1:39 pm

Categories: Advertising, Collaboration, Live Web, Social networking

Tags: Death, Denise Howell

The recent and unexpected passing of my grandmother (she was the only 98-year-old I’ve known who could, and did, blindside hundreds with her death) opened my eyes to the fact that death in 2007 has become an online, interactive experience. The mortuary partnered with MeM.com to provide an “Everlasting Memorial,” complete with a photo slideshow (which was displayed at the memorial service; this was in Silicon Valley, after all), still images, and guest book:

Customers have told us that one of the most cherished features of the Everlasting Memorial is the guest book section. This allows family and friends from around the world to send messages to share their thoughts and fond memories. To send a message, a loved one merely clicks on the “send message” button, and begins drafting their message. Once received, family approval is required prior to publishing to the web.

Of course, they upsell/make a number of “keepsakes” available to the bereaved.

The San Jose Mercury News, where we ran the obituary, partners with Legacy.com, a similar service. Nicer guestbook format; no slide show. This memorial isn’t everlasting though, until some family member or other benefactor comes along to sponsor the (considerable) hosting fees.

Thus does the Live Web creep into all aspects of life and death. Even while the family is thinking of other, hopefully more profound things, these online communities of mourning — moderated to control, I suppose, disparagement and spam — spring into being at the hands of those on the business side of the death.

While I’m struck by the Web’s increasing role in building communities around death, I’m equally struck by the willingness of the related enterprises to fleece the unsophisticated public. The “keepsake” prices, e.g., around $70 for a hardbound book, are quite high. (Compare QOOP’s hardbound photobooks starting at $29.99.) Consider too the daily charge to run an obituary in the Mercury News:

• $9.75 per 31 character line, plus
• $117 per day to include a photo.

Assuming you’re also charged for the spaces in your 31 character lines, that’s roughly $850 per day for a 400 word obituary w/ picture. This brief blog post, also with picture (one I enjoyed, and hope you do too), is about that length already. It’s clear obituaries are cash cows for the newspaper industry. What’s not clear is how long people who can get the same information out to a larger audience for free or basically free online will continue writing those checks. One of my favorite Steve Jobs-isms, about the challenges they faced at the beginning of the personal computer era, seems particularly apropos here: “People couldn’t type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.”

Bonus links: Shelley Powers, Death 2.0; Matt Marshall/VentureBeat on ‘Respectance’.

(Image by welovethedark, CC Attribution-2.0)

October 8th, 2007

In the trenches with Live Web law at EFF's Bootcamp

Posted by Denise Howell @ 10:56 am

Categories: Blogging, Collaboration, Compliance, Copyright, DMCA, Defamation, Free speech, Lawsuits, Licenses, Live Web, MGM v. Grokster, Mashups, Podcasting, Social networking, Social news, Syndication, User generated content, Video

Tags: Electronic Frontier Foundation, Web 2.0, Fred von Lohmann, Bootcamp, Fenwick & West, Denise Howell

If you’re doing business on the Live Web, get thee this Wednesday, October 10, to EFF’s Bootcamp, “a one-day session for Web 2.0 workers on user generated content:”

Does your interactive company have to contend with the maze of laws dealing with user privacy and publishing user content? Want to do the right thing by the online community that gives your business value, and still fulfill your legal obligations?

EFF is hosting a one-day session for Web 2.0 workers who handle issues arising from users and user-generated content. From DMCA to CDA to ECPA, the law surrounding internet content can be confusing, especially for the folks who have to decide on the fly whether to let something stay up or take it down, or whether to give their customer’s name to the FBI agent on the phone. Let us help.

This is an incredible and cheap (between $100 - $200) opportunity to learn how to spot and avoid trouble from the best of the best in this field: EFF’s staff attorneys. (If the registration fee is still too rich for your blood, then apply for one of the 20 available Google-sponsored scholarships, explained here.)

I am hard pressed to conceive of a Web-based communication platform, community, or business model that doesn’t need this kind of overview. For nine examples of why, check out Rafe Needleman’s 9 fun ways Web 2.0 startups can commit legal suicide, gleaned from an interview with Fred von Lohmann in conjunction with the upcoming event:

Von Lohmann’s two big takeaways: First, be sure you know when you’re stepping into a danger zone. Music? Financial data? Private information? Kids? Don’t let yourself think you’re more clever than another industry’s legal machine. Second, realize that no matter how hard you try to stay clean, ‘You’re probably doing something wrong already. For the most part it doesn’t matter, but something just might.’

For yet more examples of the legal minefields Web businesses must daily navigate, you might want to eavesdrop on Fred von Lohmann’s IP and Innovation Policy class at Stanford by way of its blog. Bring your Aleve; plenty of brain teasers there.

Bootcamp starts at 9:00 a.m. Wednesday at Fenwick & West in Mountain View. (Brilliant move by the firm, hosting this. I’m sure plenty of Fenwick’s existing clients are thrilled for the opportunity, and once EFF’s staff has had the chance to terrify educate all the non-client attendees, the stampede to sign the firm’s retainer letter will leave some wondering how they wound up in Pamplona.)

(Image by A. www.viajar24h.com, CC Attribution-2.0)