An Update On The Legal Implications Of User-Generated Content: Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, And Instagram

YouTube exploding : Opportunity for independent coverage of lawyers

By Kevin O'Keefe on August 18, 2014 in Social Media Principles

  

Rather than lawyers and law firms producing video coverage of themselves, YouTube represents an opportunity for lawyers to be included in independent video coverage conducted and produced by third parties.

YouTube’s growth is staggering.

• More than 1 billion unique users visit YouTube each month
• Over 6 billion hours of video are watched each month —that’s almost an hour for every person on Earth
• 100 hours of video are uploaded every minute
• YouTube is localized in 61 countries and across 61 languages
• YouTube reaches more US adults ages 18-34 than any cable network
• The number of people subscribing daily is up more than 3x since last year
• Mobile makes up almost 40% of YouTube’s global watch time, up from 6% only 2 years ago
• YouTube is available on hundreds of millions of device

http://kevin.lexblog.com/2014/08/18/youtube-lawyers-law-firms-independent-coverage/

Taking down Isis material from Twitter or YouTube not as clear cut as it seems

oogle et al happy to comply with law, but systems aren't set up to prevent those videos, hashtags and accounts getting online

• Charles Arthur, technology editor
•  
• The Guardian, Monday 23 June 2014 14.39 ED
• 
  Taking videos and other material offline has become a game of 'whack-a-mole', no sooner have they been removed from one part of a site they pop up at others. Photograph: YouTube/PA

It sounds simple enough: Google's subsidiary YouTube should take down videos from extremist groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis), and Twitter should block hashtags and accounts instigated by the same groups. In both cases such speech is an incitement to violence, and hence illegal under British law.

Having started as places for people to upload dating videos (YouTube) or let friends know what they are doing (Twitter), both networks have been thrown into the complex world of geopolitics, mixed with arguments over freedom of speech. The fact that Isis fighters and would-be jihadists are digital natives who have grown up with cameraphones and internetaccess means that social networks are the first, rather than the last, place they look to spread their message.

Google and Twitter are happy to comply with the law. Their problem, though, is that their systems are not set up to stop those videos, hashtags and accounts getting online – so taking them offline has become a game of "whack-a-mole", where no sooner have they been removed from one part of the site than they pop up at others. The latter is the outcome of the "Streisand effect", named after the US singer and actor Barbra Streisand who tried to suppress photographs of her beachfront home being posted on the internet. As a result, tonnes of websites posted the images.

http://goo.gl/P8VMyJ

TweetMe Please

5 Key Viral Marketing Tactics Proven to Work

Written by Matthew Yeoman - 0 Comments
Categories: Facebook, Viral, Viral Content, YouTube

The concept of viral marketing has taken up the time of modern marketers for around 10 years now.

This attention has been warranted from a marketers standpoint as some effective marketing has been done. It has also paid off from a consumer standpoint in that plenty of interesting content has gone into their ever hungry eyeballs.

But have you gone viral yet?

Read more at http://www.jeffbullas.com/2014/06/24/5-key-viral-marketing-tactics-proven-to-work/#soWv3RBYkw4BHlVq.99

YouTube Videos Selling Stolen Credit Cards, Group Says

By Chris Strohm  Jun 16, 2014 11:01 PM CT

A review of content on Google Inc. (GOOG)’s YouTube service turned up dozens of videos selling stolen credit card data, according to an Internet-safety research group trying to shed more light on an $18 billion illicit industry.

The group, called the Digital Citizens Alliance, accused YouTube of failing to block the videos while profiting from legitimate advertisements that run next to them. Doing a search for how to get valid 2014 credit card numbers yielded almost 16,000 results, according to a 13-page report released today.

http://goo.gl/eo1rz2

TweetMe Please

Image dawn.com

Black Youth Mob Beats White Kid on Bus – Posts It on YouTube (Video)

Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, May 1, 2014, 9:52 AM

Another viral video posted on YouTube appears to show the latest instance of black-on-white violence among high school students. The video shows a group of black teenage boys punching, knocking down, and kicking a white teenage boy on a school bus.

The victims’s uncle found the video and spread the news on Facebook.

This is a video of my nephew Alec being beaten by a group of teens on his bus ride home from school yesterday. He was able to get off the bus at the next stop, 14 miles from his home. He went to the Magnolia Fire Hall and called the police.

The bus driver failed to intervene AT ALL. She didn’t stop the bus while the beating occurred. She didn’t call the police and file a report. She didn’t inform the administration that the beating occurred. Apparently, the bus driver called the school and stated that Alec left the bus early for no reason, according to the administrator that called my brother yesterday. http://goo.gl/A8qTNN

Please TweetMe

Socially Aware - Volume 5, Issue 2 - April 2014

Socially Aware - Volume 5, Issue 2 - April 2014

Koss Corporation v. Max Sound Corporation - Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Lanham Act

KOSS CORPORATION v. MAX SOUND CORPORATION
Case No. 12-CV-00854
United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
April 28, 2013

Plaintiff Koss Corporation sued defendant Max Sound Corporation for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., and Wisconsin common law. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) or, alternatively, for an order transferring venue to the Central District of California pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3).

At the time plaintiff brought this suit, defendant was using the slogan "Hearing is Believing" to promote its software on its website at maxsound.com and on social media websites including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

While defendant may have been using its website to promote its software, it was not asking anyone for anything and so was not engaging in solicitation. Therefore, plaintiff does not establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction under § 801.05(4)(a). Cf. Marvel Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Koba Internet Sales, LLC, No. 11-C-961, 2012 WL 2466772, *4 (E.D. Wis. June 27, 2012) (finding jurisdiction under § 801.05(4)(a) where defendant had sold several thousand dollars worth of goods in Wisconsin.

Even if the requirements of § 801.05(4)(a) were met, the Court concluded that exercising jurisdiction would violate due process. Due process requires that a defendant have "certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Int'l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)).

Plaintiff contended that this requirement is met based on the "express aiming test" announced in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), which authorizes a court to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant committed an intentional act expressly aimed at the forum state with the knowledge that the effects of the act would be felt in that state. Tamburo, 601 F.3d at 703.

The Court concluded that it cannot constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant. Thus, they need not consider defendant's alternative motion to transfer venue.

THEREFORE, IT WAS ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Docket #12) is GRANTED, and defendant's alternative motion to transfer venue (Docket #12) is DENIED AS MOOT.

The Case was ordered DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5915418258870932309&q=Facebook&hl=en&as_sdt=4,112,127,268,269,270,271,272,314,315,331,332,333,334,335,377,378&as_ylo=2013, last visited 10/08/2013

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS v. ANGELA FULMER - Drug Sales, Drug Web Site

Social Media provides a ready market for drug pushers. Social Media gives these criminals a way to conceal their actions and ensure that law enforcement is kept at bay. This case provides an excellent example of this 21st century phenomena.

In THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS v. ANGELA FULMER, No. 4-12-0747, February 25, 2013, Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District. Appellant, Jesse R. Gilsdorf, was counsel for a defendant charged with unlawful delivery of a controlled substance when the State's Attorney, before the preliminary hearing on that charge, gave Gilsdorf a video depicting his client, among others, interacting with undercover law enforcement officers at the time of the alleged offense. Gilsdorf later posted the video on at least two social media websites. The trial court found that Gilsdorf had violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 415(c) (eff. Oct. 1, 1971) by his actions and, as a sanction, ordered Gilsdorf to remove the video from the websites.

Gilsdorf appealed, arguing that under the particular circumstances of this case, the trial court erred by finding he violated Rule 415(c). The Court disagree and affired.

BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On Febebruary 17, 2011, the State charged defendant, Angela D. Fulmer, by information with the Class 2 felony of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/401(d) (West 2010)), alleging that on or about June 14, 2010, she knowingly delivered to a confidential source less than 50 grams of a substance containing hydrocodone, a Schedule II controlled substance. On February 28, 2011, Gilsdorf entered his appearance on defendant's behalf, and the trial court scheduled a preliminary hearing for March 29, 2011.

¶ 7 On April 20, 2011, the State filed a motion for sanctions for noncompliance with Rule 415(c). That rule reads as follows:

"(c) Custody of Materials. Any materials furnished to an attorney pursuant to these rules shall remain in his exclusive custody and be used only for the purposes of conducting his side of the case, and shall be subject to other such terms and conditions as the court may provide." Ill. S. Ct. R. 415(c) (eff. Oct. 1, 1971).

The State's motion alleged that on or about April 11, 2011, the contents of the video previously tendered to Gilsdorf appeared for public viewing on the Internet website YouTube, as well as on defendant's Facebook page, under a file headed, "cops and task force planting drugs." The State's motion also alleged that the only person having custody of a copy of the video who could have caused its dissemination was Gilsdorf.

¶ 8 In May 2011, the trial court conducted a hearing on the State's motion at which, in response to the court's question asking how the video got on YouTube, Gilsdorf responded, "I caused it to be placed there." Gilsdorf explained that he copied the video to a computer and uploaded that computer file to YouTube. He acknowledged that the video also appears on his Facebook page, which states the following:

"Hey, one and all, want to see cops and their snitch planting drugs? This is the cop's video showing how their snitch brings drugs into a room, and after the victim leaves, putting [sic] the drugs in the middle of the table. Two parts because of space limits. Cops are the West Central Drug Task Force, Zack Orr, as seen in the video. Notice how the paperwork is all ready to be signed, even though they haven't even debriefed their snitch."

At the hearing, Gilsdorf was hardly apologetic for his actions, claiming that they were necessary because of improper conduct by the State's Attorney and police. He explained that, "simply put, [this] acts as a check on possible abuse by the prosecution."

¶ 10 At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Gilsdorf intentionally posted "the discovered material, the [video] on the Internet[, and his doing so] was a violation of [Rule] 415(c), that it was material furnished to the attorney pursuant to supreme court rules regarding discovery."

Gilsdorf complied with the court's directive to remove the video from the Internet, he filed two different pro se motions to reconsider in May and June 2011. Then, in March 2012, attorney Walker R. Filbert entered his appearance on behalf of Gilsdorf and filed a second amended motion to reconsider the sanction order.

¶ 12 In July 2012, the trial court conducted a hearing on these motions, at which Filbert explained that he was essentially asserting two different grounds for why the court should reconsider its sanction order.
The Court explained the controlling law.

Supreme Court Rules 411 and 415(c)

¶ 21 At the time of these proceedings, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 411 (eff. Mar. 1, 2001) read as follows:

"Rule 411. Applicability of Discovery Rules

These rules shall be applied in all criminal cases wherein the accused is charged with an offense for which, upon conviction, he might be imprisoned in the penitentiary. *** They shall become applicable following indictment or information and shall not be operative prior to or in the course of any preliminary hearing."

(The supreme court revised Rule 411 in December 2011 (Ill. S. Ct. R. 411 (eff. Dec. 9, 2011)) but those revisions do not affect our analysis in this case.)

¶ 22 Rule 415(c) reads as follows:

"Rule 415. Regulation of Discovery

* * *

(c) Custody of Materials. Any materials furnished to an attorney pursuant to these rules shall remain in his exclusive custody and be used only for the purposes of conducting his side of the case, and shall be subject to such other terms and conditions as the court may provide." Ill. S. Ct. R. 415(c) (eff. Oct. 1, 1971).

After analyzing these two different grounds the court upheld the sanction order and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4157635801059315243&q=THE+PEOPLE+OF+THE+STATE+OF+ILLINOIS+v.+ANGELA+FULMER&hl=en&as_sdt=2,14, last visited `0/04/2013