We’re adding to the educational content of the Legal Risk site by presenting questions to and seeking answers from national media law experts. Participants include Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz LLP, Eric P. Robinson of the Media Law Resource Center, George Freeman of the New York Times, and the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard’s Berkman Center. Geanne Rosenberg, of CUNY Journalism and Baruch College, will formulate some of the questions. Other questions come directly from citizen journalists, bloggers and social network users. Read what we have on this page.
(We are no longer accepting questions for this blog.)
Disclaimer: This module is based on laws in the United States. Please note that even within the United States, laws from jurisdiction to jurisdiction vary considerably and laws and their interpretation are subject to change. Information is offered for educational purposes. Do not rely on this module or any of its related content or communications as a substitute for the advice of a qualified attorney. No attorney-client relationship is intended or created by communications pertaining to this site or its related content, interactive features, blogs or e-mail.
Facebook and Legal Risk
Question:
If I am considering using information from someone’s Facebook profile in my next article or blog post, are there any legal landmines that I need to avoid?
Response:
By Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz
(Posted on June 19, 2009)
There may be, depending upon the circumstances. Relying on a Facebook profile as a source of information may create a number of legal risks, typically – although not exclusively – concerning the profile owner’s privacy and intellectual property rights.
To illustrate these types of risks, imagine this: There is a blogger who writes about everything there is to know about the State University football team. She loves being the first to know – and post – the inside scoop. Her newest idea is to Facebook friend some of the guys on the team to see if she can find anything in their profiles to include in her blog.
Book Reviews and Legal Risk
Question:
What are the legal issues involved with book reviews? Can a reviewer be sued? What are the defenses?
Response:
By Geanne Rosenberg
(Posted on May 25, 2009)
The primary areas of legal risk for book reviewers are in libel and, to a much lesser extent, copyright law. See, Rule 1 and the related defamation materials. See, Rule 6 on copyright concerns.
In the United States, there are very powerful protections against libel claims. For example, opinion is protected. So if you were to say that you really disliked a book, you found it extremely boring, and you’d prefer to spend your time in a dental chair, no problem. The biggest concern would be the possibility of false statements of fact being included in a review. For example, if you were to state that you think the author is an alcoholic and must have been intoxicated at least half the time she was writing, or that the author, in writing about child abuse, reveals an understanding that can only come with being the perpetrator of horrible abuses, and those things are untrue and provably false, that’s legally risky. Also, if the book includes libelous statements about someone and you repeat those statements in your review, you can be legally vulnerable. So, if the author writes that his ex-spouse engaged in criminal activity and you repeat that without first verifying the truth of the statements and it turns out the purported facts you’re repeating are false, you can be at risk.
Bottom line: Opinions are fine, but assertions of fact that might be damaging to someone’s reputation should be verified. Truth, after all, is a complete defense to any defamation claim.
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and the Children’s Internet Protection Act
Question:
What are the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and the Children’s Internet Protection Act and how might they relate to the work of bloggers, citizen journalists, educational organizations and other online publishers whose subjects, audience and/or participants may include children? What bright line rules and best practices can help ensure compliance?
Response:
By Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz
(Posted on March 19, 2009)
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6508; 16 C.F.R. Part 312, is designed to place parents in control of personal information collected from young children. The statute applies to commercial Web sites that either are directed to children or knowingly collect personal information from pre-teens. Under the law, such Web sites must post privacy policies and obtain parental consent before collecting personal information from children under the age of 13.
Video Links and Copyright Concerns
Question:
When using video in connection with blogs, is providing a link to video that may be protected by copyright permissible, or is that unclear, and are there any parameters or useful rules of thumb for bloggers and citizen journalists?
Response:
By Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz:
(Posted on January 10, 2009.)
Copyright protection applies to all manner of expression once that expression is captured in a tangible form from which others (with their own senses or with the aid of a device) can perceive the work. Thus, in addition to written, pictorial, musical or artistic works, among others, copyright applies to videos or other audiovisual works. Moreover, copyright applies not only to creative works, but to factual works such as news clips and video of actual events. Thus, anytime a blogger or citizen journalist wishes to use video that was not created by them, they should consider whether, under the principles of copyright law, the use is permissible.
Proposed Federal Shield Law’s Potential Impact on Citizen Journalists
Question:
Is the proposed federal shield law dead? If it is ultimately passed, would it be helpful or hurtful to bloggers and citizen journalists?
Response:
By Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz:
(Posted on November 5, 2008.)
No, efforts to pass a federal shield law are not dead, but they will likely have to wait until next year and the new Administration to move forward. It is unclear whether it would help or hurt bloggers and citizen journalists.
When discussing the proposed shield law, it is important to recognize that there are two versions of the law under consideration by the Congress, the House bill (H.R. 2102) and the Senate bill (S. 2035), and that the two bills differ in a number of ways.
How Privacy Laws Pertain to Information Available on the Internet
Question:
A legal claim that private facts have been wrongfully published generally requires that the facts at issue were not previously public. Does that mean that if truthful personal information about a private person, such as financial or medical data or an ancient shoplifting arrest is posted in some obscure location on the Internet, perhaps within a database or deep inside a social networking site, that anyone can republish it without worrying about a private facts claim? In other words, once truthful information has been publicly accessible online, is it fair game for re-publication by a blogger or citizen journalist or anyone else?
Response:
By Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz:
(Posted on September 20, 2008)
Historically, truthful information that is not kept private has been fair game for republication, even when the information is about a private (i.e., non-famous) person. Technology has altered the legal landscape somewhat, however. Both the pervasive nature of the Internet and technological glitches resulting in accidental disclosure of information have led courts to alter this general rule in some circumstances where sensitive personal information, like medical or financial information, is at stake. As a result, there is no easy, clear answer to the hypothetical question posed above. A general understanding of the law governing the disclosure of private facts should, however, assist a citizen journalist in assessing the risk presented by republishing a given piece of information found on the Internet.
Guide To Takedown Notices And The DMCA’s Safe Harbor
Question:
What is a DMCA takedown notice and what should a blogger or Web site producer do if he/she receives one?
Response:
By Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz
(Posted on June 26, 2008)
A DMCA “takedown notice” is formal notification that content posted on a Web site, blog, or other online forum is in violation of copyright law. Receipt of such a notice by a “service provider”, such as a Web site operator, blogger, online forum, or other Internet-based host for third-party content, necessitates a prompt response. Some basic first steps when a DMCA takedown notice arrives:
- Evaluate the takedown notice and related content;
- Depending upon the outcome of that evaluation, remove or temporarily disable access to the content at issue;
- Notify the original poster of the complaint.