Internet – Page 2 – Social Media Legality

Can Social Media Be Regulated?

In 1996 Congress passed what is known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which provides immunity to website publishers for third-party content posted on their websites. The CDA holds that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This Act passed in 1996, was created in a different time and era, one that could hardly envision how fast the internet would grow in the coming years. In 1996, social media for instance consisted of a little-known social media website called Bolt, the idea of a global world wide web, was still very much in its infancy. The internet was still largely based on dial-up technology, and the government was looking to expand the reach of the internet. This Act is what laid the foundation for the explosion of Social Media, E-commerce, and a society that has grown tethered to the internet.

The advent of Smart-Phones in the late 2000s, coupled with the CDA, set the stage for a society that is constantly tethered to the internet and has allowed companies like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Amazon to carve out niches within our now globally integrated society. Facebook alone in the 2nd quarter of 2021 has averaged over 1.9 billion daily users.

Recent studs conducted by the Pew Research Center show that “[m]ore than eight in ten Americans get news from digital services”

While older members of society still rely on news media online, the younger generation, namely those 18-29 years of age, receive their news via social media.

The role Social Media plays in the lives of the younger generation needs to be recognized. Social Media has grown at a far greater rate than anyone could imagine. Currently, Social Media operates under its modus operandi, completely free of government interference due to its classification as a private entity, and its protection under Section 230.

Throughout the 20th century when Television News Media dominated the scenes, laws were put into effect to ensure that television and radio broadcasters would be monitored by both the courts and government regulatory commissions. For example, “[t]o maintain a license, stations are required to meet a number of criteria. The equal-time rule, for instance, states that registered candidates running for office must be given equal opportunities for airtime and advertisements at non-cable television and radio stations beginning forty-five days before a primary election and sixty days before a general election.”

What these laws and regulations were put in place for was to ensure that the public interest in broadcasting was protected. To give substance to the public interest standard, Congress has from time to time enacted requirements for what constitutes the public interest in broadcasting. But Congress also gave the FCC broad discretion to formulate and revise the meaning of broadcasters’ public interest obligations as circumstances changed.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority is constrained by the first amendment but acts as an intermediary that can intervene to correct perceived inadequacies in overall industry performance, but it cannot trample on the broad editorial discretion of licensees. The Supreme Court has continuously upheld the public trustee model of broadcast regulation as constitutional. The criticisms of regulating social media center on the notion that they are purely private entities that do not fall under the purviews of the government, and yet these same issues are what presented themselves in the precedent-setting case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969. In this case, the court held that “rights of the listeners to information should prevail over those of the broadcasters.” The Court’s holding centered on the public right to information over the rights of a broadcast company to choose what it will share, this is exactly what is at issue today when we look at companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat censuring political figures who post views that they feel may be inciteful of anger or violence.

In essence, what these organizations are doing is keeping information and views from the attention of the present-day viewer. The vessel for the information has changed, it is no longer found in television or radio but primarily through social media. Currently, television and broadcast media are restricted by Section 315(a) of the Communications Act and Section 73.1941 of the Commission’s rules which “require that if a station allows a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use its facilities (i.e., make a positive identifiable appearance on the air for at least four seconds), it must give equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to also use the station.” This is a restriction that is nowhere to be found for Social Media organizations.

This is not meant to argue for one side or the other but merely to point out that there is a political discourse being stifled by these social media entities, that have shrouded themselves in the veils of a private entity. However, what these companies fail to mention is just how political they truly are. For instance, Facebook proclaims itself to be an unbiased source for all parties, and yet what it fails to mention is that currently, Facebook employs one of the largest lobbyist groups in Washington D.C. Four Facebooks lobbyist have worked directly in the office of House Speaker Pelosi. Pelosi herself has a very direct connection to Facebook, she and her husband own between $550,000 to over $1,000,000 in Facebook stock. None of this is illegal, however, it raises the question of just how unbiased is Facebook.

If the largest source of news for the coming generation is not television, radio, or news publications themselves, but rather Social Media such as Facebook, then how much power should they be allowed to wield without there being some form of regulation? The question being presented here is not a new one, but rather the same question asked in 1969, simply phrased differently. How much information is a citizen entitled to, and at what point does access to that information outweigh the rights of the organization to exercise its editorial discretion? I believe that the answer to that question is the same now as it was in 1969 and that the government ought to take steps similar to those taken with radio and television. What this looks like is ensuring that through Social Media, that the public has access to a significant amount of information on public issues so that its members can make rational political decisions. At the end of that day that it was at stake, the public’s ability to make rational political decisions.

These large Social Media conglomerates such as Facebook and Twitter have long outgrown their place as a private entity, they have grown into a public medium that has tethered itself to the realities of billions of people. Certain aspects of it need to be regulated, mainly those that interfere with the Public Interest, there are ways to regulate this without interfering with the overall First Amendment right of Free Speech for all Americans. Where however Social Media blends being a private forum for all people to express their ideas under firmly stated “terms and conditions”, and being an entity that strays into the political field whether it be by censoring heads of state, or by hiring over $50,000,000 worth of lobbyist in Washington D.C, there need to be some regulations put into place that draw the line that ensures the public still maintains the ability to make rational political decisions. Rational decisions that are not influenced by anyone organization. The time to address this issue is now when there is still a middle ground on how people receive their news and formulate opinions.

Don’t Throw Out the Digital Baby with the Cyber Bathwater: The Rest of the Story

This article is in response to “Is Cyberbullying the Newest Form of Police Brutality?” which discussed law enforcement’s use of social media to apprehend people. The article provided a provocative topic, as seen by the number of comments.

I believe that discussion is healthy for society; people are entitled to their feelings and to express their beliefs. Each person has their own unique life experiences that provide a basis for their beliefs and perspectives on issues. I enjoy discussing a topic with someone because I learn about their experiences and new facts that broaden my knowledge. Developing new relationships and connections is so important. Relationships and new knowledge may change perspectives or at least add to understanding each other better. So, I ask readers to join the discussion.

My perspectives were shaped in many ways. I grew up hearing Paul Harvey’s radio broadcast “The Rest of the Story.” His radio segment provided more information on a topic than the brief news headline may have provided. He did not imply that the original story was inaccurate, just that other aspects were not covered. In his memory, I will attempt to do the same by providing you with more information on law enforcement’s use of social media.

“Is Cyberbullying the Newest Form of Police Brutality?”

The article title served its purpose by grabbing our attention. Neither cyberbullying or police brutality are acceptable. Cyberbullying is typically envisioned as teenage bullying taking place over the internet. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that “Cyberbullying includes sending, posting, or sharing negative, harmful, false, or mean content about someone else. It can include sharing personal or private information about someone else causing embarrassment or humiliation”. Similarly, police brutality occurs when law enforcement (“LE”) officers use illegal and excessive force in a situation that is unreasonable, potentially resulting in a civil rights violation or a criminal prosecution.

While the article is accurate that 76% of the surveyed police departments use social media for crime-solving tips, the rest of the story is that more departments use social media for other purposes. 91% notified the public regarding safety concerns. 89% use the technology for community outreach and citizen engagement, 86% use it for public relations and reputation management. Broad restrictions should not be implemented, which would negate all the positive community interactions increasing transparency.

Transparency

In an era where the public is demanding more transparency from LE agencies across the country, how is the disclosure of the public’s information held by the government considered “Cyberbullying” or “Police Brutality”? Local, state, and federal governments are subject to Freedom of Information Act laws requiring agencies to provide information to the public on their websites or release documents within days of requests or face civil liability.

New Jersey Open Public Records

While the New Jersey Supreme Court has not decided if arrest photographs are public, the New Jersey Government Records Council (“GRC”) has decided in Melton v. City of Camden, GRC 2011-233 (2013) that arrest photographs are not public records under NJ Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) because of Governor Whitmer’s Executive Order 69 which exempts fingerprint cards, plates and photographs and similar criminal investigation records from public disclosure. It should be noted that GRC decisions are not precedential and therefore not binding on any court.

However, under OPRA, specifically 47:1A-3 Access to Records of Investigation in Progress, specific arrest information is public information and must be disclosed to the public within 24 hours of a request to include the:

Date, time, location, type of crime, and type of weapon,
Defendant’s name, age, residence, occupation, marital status, and similar background information.
Identity of the complaining party,
Text of any charges or indictment unless sealed,
Identity of the investigating and arresting officer and agency and the length of the investigation,
Time, location, and the arrest circumstances (resistance, pursuit, use of weapons),
Bail information.

For years, even before Melton, I believed that an arrestee’s photograph should not be released to the public. As a police chief, I refused numerous media requests for arrestee photographs protecting their rights and believing in innocence until proven guilty. Even though they have been arrested, the arrestee has not received due process in court.

New York’s Open Public Records

In New York under the Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”), Public Officers Law, Article 6, §89(2)(b)(viii) (General provisions relating to access to records; certain cases) The disclosure of LE arrest photographs would constitute an unwarranted invasion of an individual’s personal privacy unless the public release would serve a specific LE purpose and the disclosure is not prohibited by law.

California’s Open Public Records

Under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) a person has the statutory right to be provided or inspect public records, unless a record is exempt from disclosure. Arrest photographs are inclusive in arrest records along with other personal information, including the suspect’s full name, date of birth, sex, physical characteristics, occupation, time of arrest, charges, bail information, any outstanding warrants, and parole or probation holds.

Therefore under New York and California law, the blanket posting of arrest photographs is already prohibited.

Safety and Public Information

Recently in Ams. for Prosperity Found. V. Bonta, the compelled donor disclosure case, while invalidating the law on First Amendment grounds, Justice Alito’s concurring opinion briefly addressed the parties personal safety concerns that supporters were subjected to bomb threats, protests, stalking, and physical violence. He cited Doe v Reed which upheld disclosures containing home addresses under Washington’s Public Records Act despite the growing risks by anyone accessing the information with a computer.

Satisfied Warrant

I am not condoning Manhattan Beach Police Department’s error of posting information on a satisfied warrant along with a photograph on their “Wanted Wednesday” in 2020. However, the disclosed information may have been public information under CPRA then and even now. On July 23, 2021, Governor Newsom signed a law amending Section 13665 of the CPRA prohibiting LE agencies from posting photographs of an arrestee accused of a non-violent crime on social media unless:

The suspect is a fugitive or an imminent threat, and disseminating the arrestee’s image will assist in the apprehension.
There is an exigent circumstance and an urgent LE interest.
A judge orders the release or dissemination of the suspect’s image based on a finding that the release or dissemination is in furtherance of a legitimate LE interest.

The critical error was that the posting stated the warrant was active when it was not. A civil remedy exists and was used by the party to reach a settlement for damages. Additionally, it could be argued that the agency’s actions were not the proximate cause when vigilantes caused harm.

Scope of Influence

LE’s reliance on the public’s help did not start with social media or internet websites. The article pointed out that “Wanted Wednesday” had a mostly local following of 13,600. This raised the question if there is much of a difference between the famous “Wanted Posters” from the wild west or the “Top 10 Most Wanted” posters the Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) used to distribute to Post Offices, police stations and businesses to locate fugitives. It can be argued that this exposure was strictly localized. However, the weekly TV show America’s Most Wanted, made famous by John Walsh, aired from 1988 to 2013, highlighting fugitive cases nationally. The show claims it helped capture over 1000 criminals through their tip-line. However, national media publicity can be counter-productive by generating so many false leads that obscure credible leads.

The FBI website contains pages for Wanted People, Missing People, and Seeking Information on crimes. “CAPTURED” labels are added to photographs showing the results of the agency’s efforts. Local LE agencies should follow FBI practices. I would agree with the article that social media and websites should be updated; however, I don’t agree that the information must be removed because it is available elsewhere on the internet.

Time

Vernon Gebeth, the leading police homicide investigation instructor, believes time is an investigator’s worst enemy. Eighty-five percent of abducted children are killed within the first five hours. Almost all are killed within the first twenty-four hours. Time is also critical because, for each hour that passed, the distance a suspect’s vehicle can travel expands by seventy-five miles in either direction. In five hours, the area can become larger than 17,000 square miles. Like Amber Alerts, social media can be used to quickly transmit information to people across the country in time-sensitive cases.

Live-Streaming Drunk Driving Leads to an Arrest

When Whitney Beall, a Florida woman, used a live streaming app to show her drinking at a bar then getting into her vehicle. The public dialed 911, and a tech-savvy officer opened the app, determined her location, and pulled her over. She was arrested after failing a DWI sobriety test. After pleading guilty to driving under the influence, she was sentenced to 10 days of weekend work release, 150 hours of community service, probation, and a license suspension. In 2019 10,142 lives were lost to alcohol impaired driving crashes.

Family Advocating

Social media is not limited to LE. It also provides a platform for victim’s families to keep attention on their cases. The father of a seventeen-year-old created a series of Facebook Live videos about a 2011 murder resulting in the arrest of Charles Garron. He was to a fifty-year prison term.

Instagram Selfies with Drugs, Money and Stolen Guns

Police in Palm Beach County charged a nineteen-year-old man with 142 felony charges, including possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, while investigating burglaries and jewel thefts in senior citizen communities. An officer found his Instagram account with incriminating photographs. A search warrant was executed, seizing stolen firearms and $250,000 in stolen property from over forty burglaries.

Bank Robbery Selfies

Police received a tip and located a social media posting by John E. Mogan II of himself with wads of cash in 2015. He was charged with robbing an Ashville, Ohio bank. He pled guilty and was sentenced to three years in prison. According to news reports, Morgan previously served prison time for another bank robbery.

Food Post Becomes the Smoking Gun

LE used Instagram to identify an ID thief who posted photographs of his dinner at a high-end steakhouse with a confidential informant (“CI”). The man who claimed he had 700,000 stolen identities and provided the CI a flash drive of stolen identities. The agents linked the flash drive to a “Troy Maye,” who the CI identified from Maye’s profile photograph. Authorities executed a search warrant on his residence and located flash drives containing the personal identifying information of thousands of ID theft victims. Nathaniel Troy Maye, a 44-year-old New York resident, was sentenced to sixty-six months in federal prison after pleading guilty to aggravated identity theft.

Wanted Man Turns Himself in After Facebook Challenge With Donuts

A person started trolling Redford Township Police during a Facebook Live community update. It was determined that he was a 21-year-old wanted for a probation violation for leaving the scene of a DWI collision. When asked to turn himself in, he challenged the PD to get 1000 shares and he would bring in donuts. The PD took the challenge. It went viral and within an hour reached that mark acquiring over 4000 shares. He kept his word and appeared with a dozen donuts. He faced 39 days in jail and had other outstanding warrants.

The examples in this article were readily available on the internet and on multiple news websites, along with photographs.

Under state Freedom of Information Laws, the public has a statutory right to know what enforcement actions LE is taking. Likewise, the media exercises their First Amendment rights to information daily across the country when publishing news. Cyber journalists are entitled to the same information when publishing news on the internet and social media. Traditional news organizations have adapted to online news to keep a share of the news market. LE agencies now live stream agency press conferences to communicating directly with the communities they serve.

Therefore the positive use of social media by LE should not be thrown out like bathwater when legal remedies exist when damages are caused.

“And now you know…the rest of the story.”

Educational tools and data privacy

Advances in technology have forever changed education. More than ever, schools utilize online and interactive forums to enhance the learning process.

School social media pages are often used to communicate upcoming events and other news to large numbers of people who have an interest in organization while groups are designed to create communities of people. Students, parents and schools utilize social media to convey messages for widespread dissemination. The superintendent may want to give updates on the newest COVID restrictions, teachers communicate about the upcoming class trip and parents find a pedagogical group setting. Not to mention, Pace Law students generously share that updated syllabus before the night’s class.

In today’s world, being literate means more than just being able to read and write; we also need to know how to effectively navigate and find information online, operate a computer, use the digital medium for learning, manage online identity(s), communicate online, understand online social norms, and collaborate. Benefits of utilizing social media for educational use include creating a sense of community and promoting collaboration, enhancing communication, developing computer literacy and language skills, and incorporating student culture into the learning environment while allowing for a connection between persons abroad.

In turn, technology companies obtain a significant amount of personal information about the user, creating concerns in the educational realm about student safety and privacy which can, at times, fall under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), that was created to protect students’ personally identifiable information (PII) from unauthorized disclosure. Other rules and acts that attempt to protect educational records include Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, (COPPA) and Internet and Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA). FERPA does not require educational institutions to adopt specific security controls, posing a risk for student privacy. To complicate the matter of what student information should be protected, the school official exception of FERPA allows school districts to disclose PII to a third party provider serving a legitimate educational interest. However, FERPA may not be equipped to deal with modern data collection of student records and information to protect it when schools increasingly use third-party applications to provide valuable educational tools.

Online educational services collect a large amount of transactional data a/k/a “metadata” which refers to information about how long a particular student took to perform an online task, how many attempts the student made, and how long the student’s mouse hovered over an item, potentially indicating indecision. This can be a useful tool to educators but at what cost to students?

The potential exists for educational platforms to allow third-party data harvesting. Through contracts with educational institutions, Google provided a large range of products and services including Google Meet, Duo, Google Messaging, Gmail and the ability to share documents. A 2014 litigation case against Google included allegations that the company collected student emails and metadata to create secret user profiles for its advertising tools without consent. Similar to the facts when Facebook provided access to Cambridge Analytica.

In 2019 the FTC and Facebook settled on a $5 billion penalty for Facebook’s violations of previously issued FTC orders related to Facebook’s privacy practice.

When one visits a school’s Facebook page, the amount of time spent, and the “comments” and “likes” left, can become part of the data profile that Facebook has created for them. A school district page or group gives Facebook “another data point” on the users who visit it, said Doug Levin, the founder and president of EdTech Strategies, LLC, and some districts also have Facebook trackers on their district sites. Levin’s recent research report, “Tracking: EDU—Education Agency Website Security and Privacy Practices,” found that more than 25% of the 159 school websites he studied had embedded user tracking tools that reported information back to Facebook. These trackers can use information about users’ browsing history and other activity across the web—not just on Facebook—to target ads and most school district websites don’t disclose in their privacy policies that the data sharing is taking place. Sound familiar?

Cambridge Analytica, the political consulting firm, used data gathered in a personality quiz administered through Facebook to create voter profiles. Some 270,000 users downloaded the quiz app which then gave access to their profiles, and ultimately, access to their friends’ profiles and according to Facebook, affected 87 million users. Because of the information being inappropriately used surrounding the 2016 Presidential election scandal, Cambridge Analytica LLC recently filed in United States Bankruptcy Court.

All users and administrators should be educated on what data is collected and how that data is used. Schools need to maintain awareness of current state, federal and other pertinent laws that affect data and online educational services. Parents and students need to be aware of which online educational services are being used. Transparency needs to go both ways and students have an obligation to ask and ultimately know what data is being collected and how that data is being used.

One education research organization, the National Education Policy Center, has deleted its Facebook page entirely—and is suggesting schools do the same until companies are subject to greater accountability and transparency. Is that really an option though, with how big the services have become? Is there a happy (and safe) medium between writing on slate boards and sharing everything? Can Facebook play nice in the sand box and follow FTC orders? Does their cost benefit analysis favor repeated violations?

Perhaps FERPA, and other similar acts, need to be updated to include online learning programs and protection from data breach situations as seen with Facebook, Google and Cambridge Analytica.

If I were to sue “Gossip Girl.”

If you grew up in New York and were a teenager in the early 2000s, you probably know the top-rated show “Gossip Girl.” “Gossip Girl” is the alias for an anonymous blogger who creates chaos by making public the very intimate and personal lives of upper-class high school students. The show is very scandalous due to the nature of these teenagers’ activities, but what stands out is the influence gossip girl had on these young teenagers. And it makes one think, what could I do if Gossip Girl came after me?

Anonymity

When bringing a claim for internet defamation against an anonymous blogger, the trickiest part is getting over the anonymity. In Cohen v. Google, Inc., 887 N.Y.S.2d 424 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009), a New York state trial court granted plaintiff, model Liskula Cohen, pre-suit discovery from Google to reveal the identity of the anonymous publisher of the “Skanks in NYC” blog. Cohen alleged that the blog author defamed her by calling her a “skank” and a “ho” and posting photographs of her in provocative positions with sexually suggestive captions, all creating the false impression that she is sexually promiscuous. The court analyzed the discovery request under New York CPLR § 3102(c), which allows for discovery “to aid in bringing an action.” The court ruled that, under CPLR § 3102(c), a party seeking pre-action discovery must make a prima facie showing a meritorious cause of action before obtaining the identity of an anonymous defendant. The court acknowledges the First Amendment issues at stake, and citing Dendrite; the court opined that New York law’s requirement of a prima facie showing appears to address the constitutional concerns raised in the context of this case. The court held that Cohen adequately made this prima facie showing defamation, finding that the “skank” and “ho” statements, along with the sexually suggestive photographs and captions, conveyed a factual assertion that Cohen was sexually promiscuous, rather than an expression of protected opinion.

In Cohen, the court decided that Kiskula Cohen was entitled to the pre-suit discovery under CPLR § 3102(c). To legally obtain “Gossip Girl’s” true identity under this statute, we would have to prove that the statement posted on her blog against us is on its face defamatory and not simply an expression of protected opinion.

Defamation

Now that we may have uncovered our anonymous blogger, “Gossip Girl,” aka Dan Humphrey now we may dive into the defamation issue. There are two types of defamation: 1) Libel is the written form of defamation, and 2) Slander is the oral form of defamation. Because Gossip Girl’s choice of media is a written blog, our case would fall under Libel. But does our claim meet the legal elements of defamation?

In New York, there are four elements that the alleged defamation must meet:

A false statement;
Published to a third-party without privilege or authorization;
With fault amounting to at least negligence;
That caused special harm or ‘defamation per se.’

Dillon v. City of New York, 261 AD2d 34, 38, 704 NYS2d1 (1999)

Furthermore, our defamation claim for the plaintiff must “set forth the particular words allegedly constituting defamation and it must also allege time when, place where, and the manner in which the false statement was made, and specific to whom it was made.” Epifani v. Johnson, 65 A.D.3d 224, 233, 882 N.Y.S.2d 234 (2d Dept. 2009). The court simply means that we must provide details such as: what specific words were used? What were the terms used? Was the plaintiff labeled a “how” or “skank” like in Cohen, or did they simply call you “ugly”? When? The time said words were spoken, written, or published. Where? The place where they were spoken, written, or published (platform). How? The manner in which they were spoken, written, or published. Lastly Whom? The party or source to whom the statement was made to.

The plaintiff’s status determines the level of burden of proof in defamation lawsuits in N.Y. Is the plaintiff considered a “public” figure or a “private” citizen? To determine this status New York State courts use the “vortex notion.” This term simply means that a person who would generally qualify as a “private” citizen is considered a “public” figure if they draw public attention to themselves, like jumping right into a tornado vortex. Defamation for a “public” figure has a higher preponderance of evidence in defamation lawsuits. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice (reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement). For defamation of a “private” citizen, the plaintiff the N.Y. court apply a negligence standard of fault for the defendant unless the statements were related to a matter of legitimate public concern.

When the plaintiff is a private figure, and the allegedly defamatory statements relate to a matter of legitimate public concern, they must prove that the defendant acted “in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties.” Chapeau v. Utica Observer-Dispatch, 28 N.Y.S.2d 196, 199 (N.Y. 1975) This standard focuses on the objective evaluation of the defendant’s actions rather than looking at the defendant’s state of mind at the time of publication.

If the statements Gossip Girl published are so inherently apparent, we may explore defamation per se. There are four elements to defamation per se in New York:

Statement charging a plaintiff with a serious crime.
Statements that tend to injure another in his or her trade, business, or profession
Statements imputing a loathsome disease on a plaintiff, &
Statements imputing unchastity on a woman

Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429, 435, 605 NE2d 344, 590 NYS2d 857 (1992). If the statements meet these elements, the court may find that the statements were inherently injurious that the damages to the plaintiff’s person are presumed. Another option to consider is defamation per quod which requires the plaintiff to provide extrinsic and supporting evidence to prove the defamatory nature of the alleged statement(s) in question that is not inherently apparent.

Privileges and Defenses

After concluding that Gossip Girl defamed the plaintiff, we must ensure that the defamatory statement is not protected under any privileges. New York courts recognize several privileges and defenses in the context of defamation actions, including the fair report privilege (a defamation lawsuit cannot be sustained against any person making a “fair and true report of any judicial proceeding, legislative proceeding or other official proceeding.”) N.Y.Civ.Rights §74, the opinion and fair comment privileges, substantial truth (the maker cannot be held liable for saying things that are actually true), and the wire service defense. There is also Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which may protect media platforms or publishers if a third party, not acting under their direction, posts something on their blog or website that is defamatory. Suppose a statement is privileged or defense applies. In that case, the maker of that statement may be immune from any lawsuit arising from those privileged statements.

Statute of Limitations

A New York plaintiff must start an action within one (1) year of the date the defamatory material was published or communicated to a third-party CPLR § 15 Sub 3. New York has also adopted a law directed explicitly to internet posts. The “single publication,” a party that causes the mass publication of defamatory content, may only be sued once for its initial publication of that content. For example, suppose a blog publishes a defamatory article that is circulated to thousands of people. In the case above, the blog may only be sued once. The Statute of Limitations begins to run at the time of first publication. “Republication” of the allegedly defamatory content will restart the statute of limitations. A republication occurs when “a separate aggregate publication from the original, on a different occasion, which is not merely a ‘delayed circulation of the original edition.'” Firth v. State, 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (N.Y. 2002). Courts examine whether the republication was intended to and actually reached new audiences. Altering the allegedly defamatory content and moving web content to a different web address may trigger republication.

Damages

Damages to defamation claims are proportionate to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. If a plaintiff is awarded damages, it may be in the form of compensatory, nominal, or punitive damages. There are two types of compensatory damages 1) special damages and 2) general damages. Special damages are based on economic harm and must have a specific amount identified. General damages are challenging to assess. The jury has the discretion to determine the award amount after weighing all the facts. Nominal damages are small monetary sums awarded to vindicate the plaintiff’s name. Punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant and are meant to deter the defendant from repeating defamatory conduct.

When Gossip Girl first aired, the idea of a blog holding cultural relevance was not yet mainstream. Gossip Girl’s unchecked power kept many characters from living their lives freely and without scrutiny. After Gossip Girl aired, an anonymous blog, “Socialite Rank,” emerged. It damaged the reputation of the targeted victim, Olivia Palermo, who eventually dropped the suit she had started against the blog. The blog “Skanks in NYC” painted a false image of who Kiskula Cohen was and caused her to lose potential jobs. In the series finale, after the identity of Gossip Girl is revealed, the characters laugh. Still, one of the characters exclaimed, “why do you all think that this is funny? Gossip Girl ruined our lives!” Defamation can ruin lives. As technology advances, the law should as well. New York has adopted its defamation laws that were in place to ensure that person cannot hide behind anonymity to ruin another person’s life.

Do you feel protected against online defamation?

XOXO

How Defamation and Minor Protection Laws Ultimately Shaped the Internet

Kyiv, Ukraine – September 5, 2019: A paper cubes collection with printed logos of world-famous social networks and online messengers, such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Telegram and others.

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was originally enacted with the intention of shielding minors from indecent and obscene online material. Despite its origins, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is now commonly used as a broad legal safeguard for social media platforms to shield themselves from legal liability for content posted on their sites by third parties. Interestingly, the reasoning behind this safeguard arises both from defamation common law, and constitutional free speech laws. As the internet has grown, however, this legal safeguard has gained increasing criticism. However, is this legislation actually undesirable? Many would disagree as section 230 contains “the 26 words that created the internet.”

Origin of the Communications Decency Act

The CDA was introduced and enacted as an attempt to shield minors from obscene or indecent content online. Although parts of the Act were later struck down for first amendment free speech violations, the Court left section 230 intact. The creation of section 230 was influenced by two landmark court decisions of defamation lawsuits.

The first case was in 1991, and involved an Internet site that hosted around 150 online forums. A claim was brought against the internet provider when a columnist of one of the online forums posted a defamatory comment about his competitor. The competitor sued the online distributor for the published defamation. The courts categorized the internet service provider as a distributor because they did not review any content of the forums before the content was posted to the site. As a distributor, there was no legal liability, and the case was dismissed.

Distributor Liability

Distributor Liability refers to the limited legal consequences that a distributor is exposed to for defamation. A common example of a distributor, is a bookstore or library. The theory behind distributor liability is that it would be impossible for distributors to moderate and censor every piece of content that they disperse because of the sheer volume, and the impossibility of knowing whether something is false or not.

The second case that influenced the creation of section 230, was Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co., in which the court used publisher liability theory to find the internet provider liable for the third party defamatory postings published on its site. The court deemed the website a publisher because they moderated and deleted certain posts, regardless of the fact that there were far too many postings a day to regulate each one.

Publisher Liability

Under common law principles, a person who publishes a third-party’s defamatory statement bears the same legal responsibility as the creator of that statement. This liability is often referred to as “publisher liability,” and is based in theory that a publisher has the knowledge, opportunity, and ability to exercise control over the publication. For example, a newspaper publisher could face legal consequences for the content located within it. The court’s decision was significant because it meant that if a website attempted to moderate certain posts, it would be held liable for all posts.

Section 230’s Creation

In response to the Stratton-Oakmond case, and the ambiguous court decisions regarding internet services provider’s liability, members of Congress introduced an amendment to the CDA that later became Section 230. The Amendment was specifically introduced and passed with the goal of encouraging the development of unregulated, free speech online by relieving internet providers from any liability for their content.

Text of the Act- Subsection (c)(1)

“No Provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Section 230 further provides that…

“No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.”

The language above removes legal consequences arising from content posted on their forum. Courts have interpreted this subsection as providing broad immunity to online platforms from suits over content of third parties. Because of this, section 230 has become the principal legal safeguard from lawsuits over sites content.

The Good

Section 230 can be viewed as being one of the most important pieces of legislation that protects free speech online. One of the unique aspects of this legislation is that it essentially extends free speech protection, applying it to private, non-governmental companies.
Without CDA 230, the internet would be a very different place. This section influenced some of the internet’s most distinctive characteristics. The internet promotes free speech and offers the ability for worldwide connectivity.
The CDA 230 does not fully eliminate liability or court remedies for victims of online defamation. Rather, it makes only the creator themselves liable for their speech, instead of the speaker and the publisher.

The Bad

Because of the legal protections section 230 provides, social media networks have less of an incentive to regulate false or deceptive posts. Deceptive online posts can have an enormous impact on society. False posts have the ability to alter election results, or lead to dangerous misinformation campaigns, like the QAnon conspiracy theory, and the anti-vaccination movement.
Section 230 is twenty-five years old, and has not been updated to match the internet’s extensive growth.
Big Tech companies have been left largely unregulated regarding their online marketplaces.

The Future of 230

While section 230 is still successfully used by social media platforms, concerns over the archaic legislation have mounted. Just recently, Justice Thomas, who is infamous for being a quiet Justice, wrote a concurring opinion articulating his view that the government should regulate content providers as common carriers, like utilities companies. What implications could that have on the internet? With the growing level of criticism surrounding section 230, will Congress will finally attempt to fix this legislation? If not, will the Supreme Court be left to tackle the problem themselves?

Is Cyberbullying the Newest Form of Police Brutality?

Police departments across the country are calling keyboard warriors into action to help them solve crimes…but at what cost?

In a survey of 539 police departments in the U.S., 76% of departments said that they used their social media accounts to solicit tips on crimes. Departments post “arrested” photos to celebrate arrests, surveillance footage for suspect identification, and some even post themed wanted posters, like the Harford County Sheriff’s Office.

The process for using social media as an investigative tool is dangerously simple and the consequences can be brutal. A detective thinks posting on social media might help an investigation, so the department posts a video or picture asking for information. The community, armed with full names, addresses, and other personal information, responds with some tips and a lot of judgmental, threatening, and bigoted comments. Most police departments have no policy for removing posts after information has been gathered or cases are closed, even if the highlighted person is found to be innocent. A majority of people who are arrested are not even convicted of a crime.

Law enforcement’s use of social media in this way threatens the presumption of innocence, creates a culture of public humiliation, and often results in a comment section of bigoted and threatening comments.

On February 26, 2020, the Manhattan Beach Police Department posted a mugshot of Matthew Jacques on their Facebook and Instagram pages for their “Wanted Wednesday” social media series. The pages have 4,500 and 13,600, mostly local, followers, respectively. The post equated Matthew to a fugitive and commenters responded publicly with information about where he worked. Matthew tried to call off work out of fear of a citizen’s arrest. The fear turned out to be warranted when two strangers came to find him at his workplace. Matthew eventually lost his job because he was too afraid to return to work.

You may be thinking this is not a big deal. This guy was probably wanted for something really bad and the police needed help. After all, the post said the police had a warrant. Think again.

There was no active warrant for Matthew at the time, his only (already resolved) warrant came from taking too long to schedule remedial classes for a 2017 DUI. Matthew was publicly humiliated by the local police department. The department even refused to remove the social media posts after being notified of the truth. The result?

Matthew filed a complaint against the department for defamation (as well as libel per se and false light invasion of privacy). Typically, defamation requires the plaintiff to show:

1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

Here, the department made a false statement – that there was a warrant. They published it on their social media, satisfying the second element. They did not check readily available public records that showed Matthew did not have a warrant. Finally, Matthew lived in fear and lost his job. Clearly, he was harmed.

The police department claimed their postings were protected by the California Constitution, governmental immunity, and the 1st Amendment. Fortunately, the court denied the department’s anti-SLAPP motion. Over a year after postings, the department took down the posting and settled the lawsuit with Matthew.

Some may think that Matthew’s case is an anomaly and that, usually, the negative attention is warranted and perhaps even socially beneficial because it further de-incentivizes criminal activity via humiliation and social stigma. However, most arrests don’t result in convictions, many of the police’s cyberbullying victims are likely innocent. Even if they are guilty, leaving these posts up can increase the barrier to societal re-entry, which can increase recidivism rates. A negative digital record can make finding jobs and housing more difficult. Many commenters assume the highlighted individual’s guilt and take to their keyboards to shame them.

Here’s one example of a post and comment section from the Toledo Police Department Facebook page:

Unless departments change their social media use policies, they will continue to face defamation lawsuits and continue to further the degradation of the presumption of innocence.

Police departments should discontinue the use of social media in the humiliating ways described above. At the very least, they should consider using this tactic only for violent, felonious crimes. Some departments have already changed their policies.

The San Francisco Police Department has stopped posting mugshots for criminal suspects on social media. According to Criminal Defense Attorney Mark Reichel, “The decision was made in consultation with the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office who argued that the practice of posting mugshots online had the potential to taint criminal trials and follow accused individuals long after any debt to society is paid.” For a discussion of some of the issues social media presents to maintaining a fair trial, see Social Media, Venue and the Right to a Fair Trial.

Do you think police departments should reconsider their social media policies?

Has Social Media Become the Most Addictive Drug We Have Ever Seen?

Before we get started, I want you to take a few minutes and answer the following questions to yourself:

Do you spend a lot of time thinking about social media or planning to use social media?
Do you feel urges to use social media more and more?
Do you use social media to forget about personal problems?
Do you often try to reduce the use of social media without success?
Do you become restless or troubled if unable to use social media?
Do you use social media so much that it has had a negative impact on your job or studies?

How did you answer these questions? If you answered yes to more than three of these questions then according to the Addiction Center you may have or be developing a Social Media Addiction. Research has shown that there is an undeniable link between social media use, negative mental health, and low self-esteem. Negative emotional reactions are not only produced due to the social pressure of sharing things with others but also the comparison of material things and lifestyles that these sites promote.
On Instagram and Facebook, users see curated content – advertisements and posts that are specifically designed to appeal to you based on your interests. Individuals today unlike any other time in history are seeing how other people live, and how their lifestyles differ significantly from their own. This sense of self-worth is what is being used to curate information, children at a young age are being taught that if you are not a millionaire then you are not successful, and they are creating barometers of success based on invisible benchmarks, this is leading to an increase in suicide and depression among young adults.

Social Media has become a stimulant whose effects mimic that of someone addicted to gambling, and recreational drugs. It has been shown that retweets, likes, and shares from these sites affect the dopamine part of the brain that becomes associated with reward. “[I]t’s estimated that people talk about themselves around 30 to 40% of the time; however, social media is all about showing off one’s life and accomplishments, so people talk about themselves a staggering 80% of the time. When a person posts a picture and gets positive social feedback, it stimulates the brain to release dopamine, which again rewards that behavior and perpetuates the social media habit.” “Chasing the high”, is a common theme among individuals with addictive personalities, and when you see people on Social Media posting every aspect of their lives, from the meal they ate to their weekend getaway, and everything in between, that is what your chasing, but the high is the satisfaction of other people liking your post. We have all been there you post a picture or a moment of great importance in your life, and the likes and reactions start pouring in, the reaction you garner from that love, differs significantly from the reaction you get when there is no reaction. A recent Harvard study showed that “the act of disclosing information about oneself activates the same part of the brain that is associated with the sensation of pleasure, the same pleasure that we get from eating food, getting money or having even had sex.” Our brains have become to associate self-disclosure with being a rewarding experience. Ask yourself when was the last time you posted something about a family or friend who died, why was this moment of sadness worth sharing with the world? Researchers in this Harvard Study found that “when people got to share their thoughts with a friend or family member, there was a larger amount of activity in the reward region of their brain, and less of a reward sensation when they were told their thoughts would be kept private.”

“The social nature of our brains is biologically based,” said lead researcher Matthew Lieberman, Ph.D., a UCLA professor of psychology and psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences. This in itself helps you to understand where Social Media has gone to, it has evolved into a system that takes advantage of our biological makeup, “although Facebook might not have been designed with the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex in mind, the social network is very much in sync with how our brains are wired.” There is a reason when your mind is idling the first thing it wants to do is to check Social Media, Liberman one of the founders of the study of social cognitive neuroscience explains that “When I want to take a break from work, the brain network that comes on is the same network we use when we’re looking through our Facebook timeline and seeing what our friends are up to. . . That’s what our brain wants to do, especially when we take a break from work that requires other brain networks.”

This is a very real issue, that has very real consequences. The suicide rate for children and teens is rising. According to a September 2020 report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the suicide rate for pediatric patients rose 57.4% from 2007 to 2018. It is the second-largest cause of death in children, falling short only of accidents. Teens in the U.S. who spend more than 3 hours a day on social media may be at a heightened risk for mental health issues, according to a 2019 study in JAMA Psychiatry. The study, which was adjusted for previous mental health diagnoses, concludes that while adolescents using social media more intensively have an increased risk of internalizing problems or reporting mental health concerns, more research is needed on “whether setting limits on daily social media use, increasing media literacy, and redesigning social media platforms are effective means of reducing the burden of mental health problems in this population.” Social Media has become a coping mechanism for some to deal with their stress, loneliness, or depression. We have all come into contact with someone who posts their entire life on social media, and more often than not we might brush it off, even make a crude joke, but in fact, this is someone who is hurting and looking for help in a place that does not offer any solitude.

I write about this to emphasize a very real, and dangerous issue that is growing worse every single day. For far too long Social Media have hidden behind a shield of immunity.

Section 230, a provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that shields social media companies from liability for content posted by their users and allows them to remove lawful but objectionable posts. Section 230 states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (47 U.S.C. § 230)

In 1996 when this Law was introduced and passed, the internet was still in its infancy, and no one at that time could have ever envisioned how big it would become. At this point, Social Media Corporations operate in an almost Omnipotent capacity. Creating their governing boards, and moderators to filter out negative information. However, while the focus is often on the information being put out by the users what gets ignored is how that same information gets directed to the consumer. You see Facebook, Snap Chat, Twitter, even YouTube, rely on the consumer commonly known as “influencers” to direct posts, and information to the consumer also known as the “User”, to direct advertisement and product placement. To accomplish their goals which at the end of the day is the same as anyone Corporation to create a profit, information is directed at a person that will keep their attention. At this point, there are little to no regulations, on how information is directed at an individual. For instance, the FCC has rules in place that “limits the number of time broadcasters, cable operators, and satellite providers can devote to advertisements during children’s programs.” however, there are no such rules when dealing with children, there is only one such case in which the FTC has levied any fines for directed content at Children. Yet this suit was based more on the notion that Google through their subsidiary YouTube “illegally collected personal information from children without their parents’ consent.” When dealing with an advertisement for children Google itself sets the parameters.

Social Media has grown too large for itself and has far outgrown its place as a private entity that cannot be regulated. The FCC was created in 1934 to replace the outdated Federal Radio Commission an outdated entity. Therefore, just as it was recognized in 1934 that technology calls for change, today we need to call on Congress to regulate Social Media, it is not too farfetched to say that our Children and our Children’s futures depend on this.

In my next blog, I will post how regulation on Social Media could look and explain in more detail how Social Media has grown too big for itself.

Five not so smart “smart phone” uses: How using your smart phone can lead to criminal conviction

Yes, your mother always told you “everyone is doing it” is not an excuse and nowhere is that this more true than with smart phone use. Just ask the hundreds of students in Canon City Colorado who could face child pornography charges for housing sexts on their phones. Or Owen Labrie, the high school student at St. Paul School convicted last month for luring an underage minor through the Internet.

Truth is, lots of smart phone activity that you may think is o.k. can actually lead you down a path that ends with you having to check the dreaded “yes” box when asked on a college or job application, “have you ever been convicted of a crime?”

Here are five not so smart “smart phone” uses and their legal consequences.

1. Sending a sext to an underage friend can require you to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life.

Forwarding a picture of your nude or semi-nude self is child pornography, if, that is, you take the picture before you are eighteen years old. And regardless of your age, receiving one of those pictures or forwarding them, is also child pornography and can lead to conviction, jail time and a requirement that you register as a sex offender. Just Ask Phillip Alpert. The 18 year-old forwarded a nude selfie that his 16 year-old girlfriend had sent him. His decision resulted in 72 criminal charges and conviction as a registered sex offender. Alpert, who by all accounts is a good kid who made a bad decision, is, for the next 25 years, prohibited from living near a school, working with children and using the internet freely.

2. Catfishing can land you in jail.

Catfishing isn’t just a show on MTV. Catfishing, the practice of impersonating someone to lure another to fall in love, is a crime in some states. California, New York, Texas and Washington are among the states that have criminalized online impersonation. In fact, last year, a New Jersey teen created a fictitious Facebook profile and used it to entice a classmate into an online relationship. The teen, Andriy Mykhaylivsky, lead his classmate to believe that the fake girl had been kidnapped, prompting his duped “buddy” to call the U.S. Embassy and file a missing persons report. As a result of catfishing, Mykhaylivsky was convicted of making false statements to a U.S. official and sentenced to six months in jail and $500.00.

3. Consensual sex with an underage minor met through a dating app is statutory rape, even if the minor lied about her age in her profile.

Last year, Zach Anderson communicated with a young woman on Hotornot.com who despite being 14 at the time, listed herself as 17 years old on her profile, and who, by all accounts, looked that age. Hotornot prohibited 13-17 year olds from accessing the “adults only” sections of the website, so it was reasonable for Anderson to think the girl with whom he was communicating was really 17. After some online flirting the two met up and Anderson engaged in consensual sex with the girl. Police subsequently arrested a cooperative Anderson and he was charged fourth-degree criminal sexual assault for which he pled guilty and spent 90 days in jail. As Anderson learned, a misunderstanding as to the minor’s age is no defense to the crime, even if the minor is the one who caused the misunderstanding. Anderson’s experience is becoming increasingly common, and some estimate that 25% of those convicted of engaging in sex with a minor have experienced a similar circumstance.

4. Luring a minor over the internet is a crime, even if both parties are minors.

Although initially conceived to stop child predators, courts are using the crime of luring a minor over the internet to punish teenage contemporaries. The crime is defined as expressing interest over the internet to meet a person for sexual purposes. When Owen Labrie, a senior at St. Paul School prep school, sent a 15 year old girl a “senior salute” — a spring semester tradition in which a senior boy sends a younger girl an email to solicit a romantic encounter, he was charged with the and convicted of the crime. In other words, texting someone under 17 about a hook-up could result in a jail sentence.

5. Posting on Anonymous Apps is not really anonymous

Since its inception in 2013, police on several colleges and universities have arrested Yik Yakers for posting threating comments on the app. Last week, police arrested Connor Stottlemyre, a 19 year old student at Northwest Missouri State for posting a terrorist message in response to the racial unrest at the University of Missouri. A 21 year old Virginia Tech student pled guilty to harassment by computer after using Yik Yak to post “Another 4.16 moment is going to happen tomorrow. Just a warning,” a reference to the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech. In both instances the police were able to access the IP address of the poster and through that information, track him down. Although Yik Yak is anonymous it maintains a private log of the IP addresses along with the user’s GPS coordinates and the time and place of posting. If police present Yik Yak, or any other app with a legally valid search warrant, the app is required to turn the information over for investigation, an investigation which often leads to arrest.

Best to use smart phones smartly

A Response to “Blurred Lines and the Right to Privacy”

In “Blurred Lines and the Right to Privacy”, Huffington Post writer Debbie Hines urges people to emotionally connect more with issues of online privacy violation. Ms. Hines boldly claims that the only way she believes action against online privacy violations will be taken is when we feel as emotionally violated in regards to online privacy as we would if someone were to break into our own homes—and she certainly seems to think we should, given that she states that “our online personal data by far out values any possessions in our homes.” She also invokes the Civil Rights movement as another example of a situation where serious action will only be taken when the public becomes emotionally involved. The author’s central inquiry is in regards to what will be the emotional stimulus that will ultimately move us in the direction to take action and protect against online privacy violations?

While I agree that online privacy is important in respect to information that is on the internet without your knowledge and consent, I have to disagree with the general tone of Ms. Hines article. To equate the emotional violation that is online privacy invasions to that of a person’s home being ransacked by burglars is slightly outrageous to me. Though I do not doubt that at least an equivalent amount of both financial and emotional harm could be achieved through both kinds of violations, the way we have been taught to view the internet makes this an incongruous comparison. The internet is premised on the notion of open access to information; it is a forum that we all utilize when seeking out any imaginable type of information. While it’s clear that the author is not referring to limiting this laissez-faire informational exchange, her opinions on such privacy violations seem to negate the general premise, purpose, and intent of the internet.

Furthermore, the expectation of privacy issue needs to be addressed. In our society, we are taught to view our activity on the internet through a distrustful lense. We are continually warned of the pitfalls that come from simply ignoring the privacy settings on social media accounts, let alone the far more damaging threats of identity theft, both in regards to our personal, professional, and financial lives. While I do believe that it would be nice to feel a sense of security on the internet, I just do not think that the public’s expectation of privacy on the internet is particularly high, nor should it be; and it is certainly not near the level of privacy expectation one would have in one’s own home. To feel as secure on the internet would be dangerously naïve, particularly in light of some of the egregious and highly publicized internet privacy violations that the author refers to.

So while I am in no way belittling Ms. Hines proposition, I think that until the internet is a truly safe place, it would be more prudent and practical to instead focus on taking defensive measures to protect ourselves and our online information.

Is Electronic Vicarious Copyright Infringement a Redundancy?

Vicarous copyright infringement, at least where the Internet is concerned, is nothing more than a redundant tort. A case filed in December 2013 in Maryland District Court illustrates the proposition nicely. National Photo Group, LLC v. Volunteerus, LLC, plaintiff, National Photo Group (NPG) a photojournalism service, brought a cause of action against Volunteerus for posting NPG pictures without authorization on Bubblws.com, a Volunteerus owned website.

According to the complaint, Volunteerus committed direct, contributory and copyright infringement when it “without permission or control, …improperly and illegally copied, reproduced, distributed, adopted and/or publicly displayed works copyrighted by [NPG].” According to the facts, NPG prints were made accessible to anyone on the Internet through its publication on the bubblews.com website.

The elements necessary to prove Internet copyright infringement are fairly well settled and a review of the Supreme Court case, MGM Studios v. Grockster, Ltd. provides a nice primer. The issue for me in National Photo Group is not so much one of whether there was infringement but rather why the tort of vicarious copyright infringement is relevant in the Internet age. In order to prevail under a theory of vicarious infringement, NPG must demonstrate that a third party appropriated the NPG photographs through the Bubblew.com website and that Bubblew.com was “in a position of control” to authorize the use of an infringing work. According to the Gockster Court, a defendant exercises control over a direct infringer when he has both a legal right to stop or limit the directly infringing conduct, as well as the practical ability to do so.

But given both the presumptive nature of and the ease with which anyone can download, print or even email pictures from the Internet it seems the only way to “control” vicarious copyrighters is by not providing these third parties access to the pictures in the first place. Stated more clearly, vicarious copyright infringement can only occur if the primary copyrighter illegally and impermissibly publishes the photographs on its own sites. And isn’t the original publication direct copyright infringement. If so, it seems that vicarious copyright infringement can only occur if defendants engage in direct copyright infringement. In an age of reposts, retweets, and regrams, it is pretty much a fortiori that directly copyright infringement will always lead to vicarious copyright infringement. Consequently, do we really need both torts?

Tag: Internet

If I were to sue “Gossip Girl.”

Subscribe By Email