The Law of Photography

People are Strange
People have very strange ideas about what constitutes fair use of other people's photographs. What they do not realize is, that by the time they get sued, simply claiming ignorance is no defense.

Recent Cases
Photopreneur.com has just posted an interesting run down of some recent cases involving unauthorized use of third party photography. The cases are not just limited to copyright infringement. Several involve issues you may never have considered when snapping that depantsing of Uncle Lem.

The Law of Photography
Of course, those of you who keep an extra intellectual property attorney in the pantry for those times you wax philosophic on the epistemology of intangible property know these things, but for those of you who don't, here are some of the other, less well known, but no less harrowing, issues to consider when taking or using that next photograph.

Right of Privacy
Right of Publicity
First Amendment
Interference with Official Acts
National Security
Buildings not ordinarily visible to the public
Breach of Contract
Rules of Court
Laws relating to specific subject matter
False Light
Defamation
Common carrier special duty of care
Trespassing
Concealed cameras
For Third Party sexual gratification

If You Get Stopped
If you take a lot of photographs, Attorney Bert Krages II even provides a downloaded "Photographer's Right" pamphlet which you can carry with you if you are ever confronted. I, myself, tend to rely on my winning personality and wry, wide-eyed, sociopathic grin.

Brett Trout

photography laws privacy copyright

The Good the Bad and the Ugly of Online Networking

The Good
Law Firm blog guru Kevin O'Keefe has many examples of how online networking activities, like blogging, have landed lucrative jobs and driven in clients by the hoards.

The Bad
Adam Steen, a true networker's networker, however, warns of the dangers of viewing companies as "competitors" rather than potential networking "collaborators. " According to Adam, "businesses that stand alone and are unwilling to collaborate with 'competitors' may miss an opportunity to grow strategically and/or financially."

The Ugly
Business lawyer Rush Nigut (shhh, I told him he was only going to be "Bad") waxes philosophic on the dangers associated with CyberSlamming. Cyberslamming is when people on social networks and message boards post (here is the intellectual property tie-in . . . wait for it . . .) defamatory comments about you.

Instead of doing my own legwork to determine what to do if you find yourself the hapless victim of CyberSlamming, I have instead posted anonymous, yet quite scathing Rush-related aspersions on fourteen social networking sites and message boards. I will await my answer in what I assume will be one of his more lively upcoming posts.

If your network does not extend onto the web, you are calling iPhones with a tin can and a string. Your business has to become part of the conversation to survive. But tread lightly. As noted above, you never know when a misstep might cause you endless amounts of online trouble.

Brett Trout

blogging networking cyberslamming defamation

California Supreme Court insulates bloggers from defamation liability

Rush Nigut scooped me on a big blog-related lawsuit I should have been following. Thanks to Rush for the heads up. Although the facts of Barrett v. Rosenthal do not involve bloggers, the ruling of the California Supreme Court in that case surely does. Yesterday the California Supreme Court ruled that 47 USC 230 not only insulates Internet service providers from liability associated with defamatory comments posted by third parties, it also insulates ordinary Internet users who repost defamatory material.

While the ruling does nothing to protect bloggers who aid in the creation of the defamatory material, bloggers can rest easy that, at least in California, they will not be liable for the defamatory nature of information they reprint from somewhere else. Keep a close eye on this District of Columbia case, however which threatens an opposite ruling which could put bloggers' heads on the chopping block. While this new California ruling protects bloggers from liability associated with defamation, neither this ruling, the anticipated DC ruling or 47 USC 230 limits blogger liability for patent, trademark or copyright infringement, other intellectual property laws, criminal laws, state laws, or communications privacy laws. Be sure to check out Eric Goldman’s Technology and Marketing Blog for the latest 47 USC 230 case law updates.

Brett Trout

Other Related Topics:
Defamation, 47 USC 230, Blog Liability, Barrett, California Supreme Court