Seemingly legal internet activities...that aren't....

[metamorph]

I recently listened to a talk from an expert on media law. I did not realise how much of what people seem to be doing on a pretty regular basis on the internet is (strictly speaking) illegal.

He mentioned a case of a journalist, who sued a blogger, who quoted parts of her text [giving full reference to her and linking to her website] without having asked her explicitly for consent.

He mentioned cases of pictures that show other people e.g. on parties. He mentioned they could sue you if you posted those pictures on your blog or on FB....

Also, many comments on discussion boards that are not explicitly stated as personal opinion could easily cause you a lot of trouble.

Of course, hardly any of those do end in court, but I guess strictly speaking they could.

Have you guys had any experience with being sued over internet stuff or have you got any more examples?

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by metamorph

He mentioned a case of a journalist, who sued a blogger, who quoted parts of her text [giving full reference to her and linking to her website] without having asked her explicitly for consent.

Typically the "fair use" doctrine allows you to quote an excerpt from someone else's work if you give them credit for it.

There is only really trouble if you fail to give credit, or if you copy a large amount of material.

Originally Posted by metamorph

He mentioned cases of pictures that show other people e.g. on parties. He mentioned they could sue you if you posted those pictures on your blog or on FB....

If the pictures are taken in public, there is no legal expectation of privacy.

Also if the pictures are taken in private, but on someone else's property, then there is still no real expectation of privacy. Only if you are on your own private property, I would assume.

Originally Posted by metamorph

Also, many comments on discussion boards that are not explicitly stated as personal opinion could easily cause you a lot of trouble.

I think most juries would be instructed to judge the commenter based on what a reasonable person's view of the situation would be.

So if someone comments with legal advice, but it is just some random person, I think a reasonable person would realize that that commenter is not a qualified lawyer and is not giving qualified advice.

In short, even though the "letter" of the law is against some of those things, I think a good lawyer would be able to defend most of those "illegal" activities in court.

Also, good luck trying to get a jury to convict someone for posting pictures on facebook.... lol.

[ragtag]

I've gotten a somewhat threatening letter for one of my domain names, by someone who claimed to hold the trademark for the word in that domain. Fortunately they didn't have a legal leg to stand on, as trademark law is quite narrow, and I knew this. I simply sent them a reply saying that the word in question was in the dictionary, that their trademark covered a different product/business type, and even if we were in the same business they couldn't grab my domain....so they didn't have any rights in their claim. After that they simply apologized and I never heard from them again.

I guess it was a tactic from their side to try and take over my domain by bluffing me into thinking they had some kind of legal right to it. From the language of the original letter, it looked like it was written by an actual lawyer.

[GrigoriySidelnikov]

Originally Posted by metamorph

I recently listened to a talk from an expert on media law. I did not realise how much of what people seem to be doing on a pretty regular basis on the internet is (strictly speaking) illegal.

He mentioned a case of a journalist, who sued a blogger, who quoted parts of her text [giving full reference to her and linking to her website] without having asked her explicitly for consent.

He mentioned cases of pictures that show other people e.g. on parties. He mentioned they could sue you if you posted those pictures on your blog or on FB....

Also, many comments on discussion boards that are not explicitly stated as personal opinion could easily cause you a lot of trouble.

Of course, hardly any of those do end in court, but I guess strictly speaking they could.

Have you guys had any experience with being sued over internet stuff or have you got any more examples?

Sue? Yes. Win? Not very often. He is biased because he is a lawyer. As a scientist is biased when thinking about the wonders of the universe in terms of science. Or as a religious person is biased about thinking about a multitude of things in terms of being god-created, etc. What ever your strategy is for making sense out of an otherwise meaningless world, it doesn't matter.

For simply posting someone's photos on your site with credit given where it is due and after repeated requests to remove the content from the owner you are still not willing to do it - then you could be sued. It is like openly refusing to serve the military with a draft.

You didn't realize it wasn't illegal, well because it isn't. And it isn't illegal because there is at least some common sense in the law system. Had they allowed for this type of thing to be completely illegal in all possible cases, not only they would not be able to process all of the cases that people would want to take advantage of, they wouldn't be able to focus on more serious cases.

It's depends on intent and willingness to collaborate with the original creator of the content. If you put a piece of my art on your website and add a link pointing back to the original source... I could ask you to take it off your page. If you don't, then it may become a problem. Or it may not. But it is not that black and white.

It also depends on the context in which something is used. According to what you are saying Google Images would be a perfect case. They take All images from everywhere and show them to you in search results. Nobody has ever given Google permission to do this (yeah you can adjust this in your website settings but honestly who does this?) But nobody can win a lawsuit against Google Images either.

[metamorph]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

There is only really trouble if you fail to give credit, or if you copy a large amount of material.

The amount you quote should be significantly less than what you say yourself in a post. So, strictly speaking a post like this is illegal:
" I really loved what XYZ said in his blog: [insert quote of 500 words]"

If the pictures are taken in public, there is no legal expectation of privacy.

As far as I know this is only for people of public interest (Obama, celebrities). E.g. if you take a picture of someone drunk at a party, and put it on your blog with, lets say, the tag: "drunk idiots", he could sue you for putting a picture of him on your blog, and for insulting you

In short, even though the "letter" of the law is against some of those things, I think a good lawyer would be able to defend most of those "illegal" activities in court...Also, good luck trying to get a jury to convict someone for posting pictures on facebook.... lol.

I would agree. It would be almost immoral to sue someone, but there are plenty of more ridiculous court cases, we all know (The 2009 Stella Awards Reveals Most Shocking US Lawsuits - Offbeat News - InfoNIAC - Latest Inventions

Originally Posted by GrigoriySidelnikov

Sue? Yes. Win? Not very often. He is biased because he is a lawyer. As a scientist is biased when thinking about the wonders of the universe in terms of science.

I read there are people, who make a living of it. They look for copyright infringements on blogs and other websites, and sue them.

Nobody has ever given Google permission to do this (yeah you can adjust this in your website settings but honestly who does this?) But nobody can win a lawsuit against Google Images either.

I guess that is true. But, certainly you can tell google to remove your picture or else you will sue them

[bluestar]

And what about those "work from home" scams, where you send a fairly small amount of money (well, I say fairly small, but in my case would buy groceries for 4 days)....for some particular "knowledge/training/information" you will need to do the work on offer (the work mentioned is data entry, which could be taken to mean typing emails, and all that boring stuff, but for a small sum for each one sent)
Anyway, what that particular knowledge ends up being is fairly simple:
You are sent a tip on how to advertise the exact same thing on free-ad boards for someone else to reply to (ie "send me some money and you will be sent details of training/knowledge/information you will need to do some data entry work)
Thus getting 20£ or$ off the next person, and so on ad infinitum....

I did in fact do that once, some years ago. When I got the picture I emailed the original person saying it sounded illegal to me, and I wasn't having any part in it, and was sorry I'd been such an idiot to reply to it in the first place!
I was assured it was perfectly sound and NOT illegal.....but it sounded at least tacky to me.

[CoolBee]

I think it depends on individual countries as to whether that is illegal or not. Multi-level marketing I think it counts as.
I believe it's illegal in the UK.

[GrigoriySidelnikov]

I read there are people, who make a living of it. They look for copyright infringements on blogs and other websites, and sue them.

Yeah I feel pity for them

[StuartPE]

Originally Posted by CoolBee

I think it depends on individual countries as to whether that is illegal or not. Multi-level marketing I think it counts as.
I believe it's illegal in the UK.

MLM is not illegal - pyramid schemes are. You should look up the difference.

[EternalOne]

Originally Posted by metamorph

He mentioned a case of a journalist, who sued a blogger, who quoted parts of her text [giving full reference to her and linking to her website without having asked her explicitly for consent].

Do you have any further details on this? I would love to look into the case more.

[RichGrad]

I think if you plagarize and do not take down the content when asked to, you're more likely to be sued. I had cases where people just copied and paste copyrighted content from my blog without crediting the source and try to pass it off as something they wrote themselves.

Usually a simple email or comment on their blog to remove the content will do the trick. I haven't had a case whereby the person ignored a cease and desist email.

[jellybeanpimp]

Originally Posted by metamorph

He mentioned a case of a journalist, who sued a blogger, who quoted parts of her text [giving full reference to her and linking to her website] without having asked her explicitly for consent.

Suing someone means absolutely nothing at all.

Winning in court is a whole other ball game.

I can sue anyone, for pretty much anything. It doesn't mean it's legit.