Posts Tagged ‘Facebook’

Employers must look at the wider context in Facebook disciplinaries

Wednesday, November 21st, 2012

In Smith v Trafford Housing Trust, Mr Smith brought a successful breach of contract claim following his demotion for posting personal opinions about gay marriage on Facebook.

In the wider context, given the timing of the post and moderate words used, no reasonable reader would conclude that the opinions were those of the Trust or think worse of the Trust for employing Smith. Interestingly, the Court considered the degree to which the Trust’s other policies limited their employees’ actions outside working hours, and how far they could infringe on an employee’s rights of expression and belief. For example, the Trust could not prohibit Mr Smith from preaching in church.

Employers should review their disciplinary and social media policies to ensure that the prohibitions they contain are consistent. Where disciplinary action is taken based on social media activity, employers must ensure they look at the posting in context, as this may change its very tone and nature. Smith could also have brought claims for unfair dismissal and, arguably, religious discrimination, but could not afford to do so.

Posted by Rachel Billen, who specialises in employment tribunal claims and related civil claims, including unfair dismissal and discrimination. She also deals with internal procedures and the drafting of contracts, policies and other documentation.

Rachel Billen

Rachel Billen
01392 288367
rachel.billen@brownejacobson.com

Cyber-bullying results in suicide

Thursday, October 18th, 2012

It’s an increasingly problematic issue for schools, recently highlighted by the suicide of a 15 year old girl from Canada.

Both pupils and staff have been victims of cyber-bullying through videos of teachers on YouTube, taunts on Facebook and nasty, anonymous texts and emails. Schools have a duty to protect pupils and staff from cyberbullying, often through engaging parents and educating pupils on awareness, effects, repercussions and management of cyber-bullying through assemblies and briefings on the appropriate use of technology. But schools can go further.

Recent legislation and Department for Education guidance have given schools the power to search, seize and in some cases destroy a pupil’s data. There are concerns the use of these powers will sometimes be disproportionate and could be abused. However, if schools’ behaviour policies are appropriately drafted and regularly reviewed and careful consideration is taken in choosing to exercise these powers then they could be a valuable addition to schools’ efforts to prevent similar tragedies from happening in the UK.

Posted by Hayley Roberts, who specialises in education law advice to schools and academies, including advice on teaching schools, collaboration models and partnership structures, school companies, and a wide range of pastoral issues.

Hayley  Roberts

Hayley Roberts
0121 237 3994
hroberts@brownejacobson.com

Patent rights for social media

Monday, March 5th, 2012

Yahoo!, in a recent meeting with Facebook, has demanded licensing fees for the use of 10-20 of their patents over technologies including advertising, newsfeed privacy controls, social networking and messaging and website personalisation.

Following the recent patent wars in the smartphone and tablet sectors, should their demands not be met by Facebook, veteran Yahoo! would be the first social media entity to pursue major legal action in this area.

Is Yahoo trying to assert itself to regain market standing? Or has the move been triggered by the greatly anticipated public offering of Facebook, estimated to be worth $100 billion?

Either way, other patent holders in the social networking sphere will surely be encouraged to walk through the door that Yahoo! has opened, and the awaited Facebook response is likely to influence future patent actions in social media – watch this space.

Posted by Declan Cushley, who specialises in intellectual property dispute resolution involving infringement and validity of patents, trade marks, designs and copyright, as well as reputation management and domain name disputes.

Declan Cushley

Declan Cushley
0121 237 3993
dcushley@brownejacobson.com

High Court rules that legal claims can be served via Facebook

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012

In the first case of its kind in the High Court, a judge has granted permission for proceedings to be served by Facebook.

The case concerns a claim against a former employee of a firm of brokers alleged to have overcharged commission to clients. Proceedings were served at his last known address but not knowing if he still lived there, permission was also sought to do so via Facebook. The court heard evidence that the employee was known to access his Facebook account and so granted permission for service by this alternative method.

The Court has power under CPR Part 6 to grant permission to serve within the jurisdiction by an alternative method “where there is good reason” (PD6.15).

This will undoubtedly open the doors to similar applications being made to serve proceedings via social networks on missing defendants at all levels of the courts. It begs the question however, how do you enforce against someone who exists only in the virtual world?

Posted by Steven Conway, specialising in: defence of claims on behalf ofinsurers, local and public authorities, in particular employers’ and public liability claims.

Steven Conway

Steven Conway
020 7337 1037
sconway@brownejacobson.com

Facebook admits privacy mistakes following US punishment

Wednesday, November 30th, 2011

In yet another development in the debate on Facebook privacy settings, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced the imposition of various privacy requirements upon the company over the next 20 years.

The initial complaint to the FTC mainly related to changes Facebook made in 2009 that allowed public access to content on pages that users believed were private or inaccessible. The new imposed measures require the company to inform users as to how their data is shared, to obtain express consent to override their privacy settings, and to conduct an independent privacy audit every two years

Mark Zuckerburg, the founder of Facebook, yesterday acknowledged that the company had made a ‘bunch of mistakes’ that had ‘overshadowed much of the good work we’ve done’, whilst pointing to various privacy improvements they had since made.

This is the latest development in the ongoing battle over internet privacy between the FTC and internet companies.

It will be interesting to see how Facebook balance the new privacy requirements with their aim to provide automatic ‘frictionless’ sharing by users.

Laura Mackenzie

Laura Mackenzie
0121 237 3959
lmackenzie@brownejacobson.com

Facebook F8: Media sites to tie-up with social networking

Tuesday, September 27th, 2011

Understandably, the annual Facebook F8 developer conference is about the best place to go to find out about the key trends in online social networking. Last week, Mark Zuckerberg announced a new Facebook media sharing application which allows users to share music, TV and film from media sites such as Spotify.

Facebook has clearly recognised that the way technologically literate consumers access media content has changed forever. Illegal file-sharing has increased exponentially since the days of Napster and is now a global phenomenon which is virtually impossible to police. Facebook’s collaboration with innovative media streaming sites will surely be a huge step in the right direction for the online entertainment industry.

The rapid decline in sale of CDs has left the music producers with a profound problem. How do they protect the copyright of their creative endeavours and make a profit? Spotify seems to think the answer is to align their service with the habits of consumers and with more than 750 million active users, there is no online habit more engrained than Facebook.

Dave Drew

Dave Drew
0115 976 6226
ddrew@brownejacobson.com

Social media – its role in the riots

Thursday, August 11th, 2011

Its apparent that social media has been used extensively by those involved in the riots to organise and incite unrest. BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) has been the most popular method of communication with messages then being posted on social network sites like Twitter and Facebook to increase circulation.

Research in Motion, the maker of BlackBerry and a global leader in wireless technology, has committed to assist the authorities ‘in any way it can’ and the police have said they will track down and arrest those who have posted ‘really inflammatory’ messages on BBM and social network sites.

However, its going to be a difficult task due to the number of messages involved, potential resistance from media companies to handover user details and, because BBM messages are usually encrypted when they leave the sender’s phone making tracing calls difficult.
The police will have to adapt their own policing methods to tackle this use of technology as a means of organising unlawful activities.

Posted by Sara McNeill, who specialises in non-contentious intellectual property matters, including licensing, franchise, collaboration and development arrangements and IP audits and strategy; experienced in drafting and advising on commercial agreements.

Sara McNeill

Sara McNeill
0121 237 3930
smcneill@brownejacobson.com

Freedom of speech can be distasteful

Friday, July 16th, 2010

MPs, including David Cameron, roundly condemned tributes left on a Facebook group page dedicated to the gunman Raoul Moat and asked for the group, which also criticises the police, to be taken down. Whilst the offending page has now been taken down by its creator, Facebook themselves declined to do so on the grounds it encouraged public debate. They do have a system in place to address complaints about specific offensive material.

The E-Commerce Directive creates certain protections from liability for illegal material that appears on websites, although these protections have certain exemptions. This includes where the website is put on notice of unlawful material, at which point the ‘host’ must act expeditiously to remove it.

It is arguable whether Facebook’s approach brings it strictly within the protection offered by the Directive. But is it more important for Facebook to be seen to be promoting freedom of speech, even when it could be distasteful?

Fiona Carter

Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com

Mandy the one man law-maker

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

The Digital Economy Bill continues to be a political hot potato as the government backtracks on key provisions following a wave of criticism.

On this occasion, the issue making the headlines is the proposed “Clause 17”, a provision which would enable the Secretary of State, Lord Mandelson, to make amendments to the Copyright Designs and Patents Act without first consulting Parliament.

In December, top level executives from Google, Yahoo!, eBay and Facebook expressed strong concerns about this in an open letter to Lord Mandelson, the closing line of which reads “we urge you to remove Clause 17 from the bill.” The crux of their complaint is that the controversial provision could pave the way for arbitrary measures and a high degree of uncertainty if new laws can be fast-tracked through the system on a whim.

The government has made a number of concessions in order to allay some of these fears including proposals to water down the powers conferred upon the Secretary of State. In particular, a 60 day consultation period has been proposed, as has an evidential test whereby it must be shown that harm would result if the amendments were not made. In addition, the power cannot be used to create or modify a criminal offence. In spite of mounting opposition to the clause, the government remains in support ofit, stressing that the new powers are required in order to “future-proof” copyright law as new technologies develop.

Whilst most will appreciate that the law must evolve in line with technology, Clause 17 allows the Secretary of State effectively to rewrite primary legislation with a minimum level of Parliamentary scrutiny making this clause, perhaps, a step too far.

Mark Daniels

Posted by Ryan Harrison
0121 237 3950
rharrison@brownejacobson.com