Hello:
I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving Holiday. This time of year is always busy for me because clients want to wrap up legal issues before the end of the year and I have a family that demands my attention with all the Holiday hoopla!
Currently, I am working on a very interesting story about what does copyright case law say about proper linking and quoting in regards to copyright infringement. What is Fair Use and what is not? As copyright owners, we do not want individuals quoting our work without our permission. However, service providers and news organization want to be able to provide 'snippets' or a portion of copyright protected material and links without always having to go to the copyright owner for permission. So I will explore in my article what does the law say about this delicate balance between copyright infringement and Fair use? Stay tuned, it will be a very informative and interesting piece.
Also, next week I am speaking to a momprenuer networking group about Intellectual Property 101! Yes, these ladies have some pretty genius products and business ideas and they want to know how to protect them. So I will explain the difference between patents, trademarks, trade secrets and copyrights; how to properly protect these types of intellectual property and the benefits of licensing and royalty income. I love educating individuals on Intellectual Property and am I am looking forward to it.
Thanks for reading!
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Twitter's New Trademark Guidelines: Why Trademark Guidelines are Important
Hello Everyone:
Recently, Twitter revealed its new trademark guidelines regarding the proper use of the Twitter name and trademarks.
Some key terms of the new trademark guidelines are as follows:
1. When users promote their own Twitter accounts, they need to use the proper Twitter logo and ensure the letter "T" in Twitter is capitalized.
2. When mentioning Twitter on TV or any other public forum, users should refer to the company as Twitter and messages as Tweets. Also unless expressly given permission to do so, do not imply an endorsement or relationship with Twitter.
3. Users must not ever manipulate or change the Twitter logo. Furthermore, ensure the Twitter logo is not next to your logo to imply an association.
4. When developing Twitter applications, developers are now forbidden to use Twitter or Tweet in the name of the app.
5. Developers are also forbidden from copying the look and feel of the Twitter website in developing applications and websites.
Twitter's new trademark guidelines were necessary in order for Twitter to protect and manage its brand. Remember a trademark owner can lose trademark rights if the trademark is not controlled and managed. Specifically, a trademark owners has to:
1. Ensure the mark does not become generic (a common name for the goods or services and ceases to function as a source for the goods);
2. Ensure trademark infringers are prosecuted effectively and swiftly. A trademark owner that allows anyone to use their trademark without prosecuting infringers, has a weak trademark. A weak trademark is one that is no longer considered unique to the trademark owner's product or service.
Trademark Guidelines Assist in Brand Management
Trademark guidelines are first steps in alerting the public to the proper use of a company's trademarks and ultimately brand. They ensure the trademark is used properly; forbids impermissable uses or as Twitter states "the lawyers get involved"; and clearly gives direction as to when express permission or a license is needed for use.
Trademark Guidelines are especially important if your brand is entering a partnership with another brand or if your brand is used by multitudes of people.
Does your brand have trademark guidelines in place?
Recently, Twitter revealed its new trademark guidelines regarding the proper use of the Twitter name and trademarks.
Some key terms of the new trademark guidelines are as follows:
1. When users promote their own Twitter accounts, they need to use the proper Twitter logo and ensure the letter "T" in Twitter is capitalized.
2. When mentioning Twitter on TV or any other public forum, users should refer to the company as Twitter and messages as Tweets. Also unless expressly given permission to do so, do not imply an endorsement or relationship with Twitter.
3. Users must not ever manipulate or change the Twitter logo. Furthermore, ensure the Twitter logo is not next to your logo to imply an association.
4. When developing Twitter applications, developers are now forbidden to use Twitter or Tweet in the name of the app.
5. Developers are also forbidden from copying the look and feel of the Twitter website in developing applications and websites.
Twitter's new trademark guidelines were necessary in order for Twitter to protect and manage its brand. Remember a trademark owner can lose trademark rights if the trademark is not controlled and managed. Specifically, a trademark owners has to:
1. Ensure the mark does not become generic (a common name for the goods or services and ceases to function as a source for the goods);
2. Ensure trademark infringers are prosecuted effectively and swiftly. A trademark owner that allows anyone to use their trademark without prosecuting infringers, has a weak trademark. A weak trademark is one that is no longer considered unique to the trademark owner's product or service.
Trademark Guidelines Assist in Brand Management
Trademark guidelines are first steps in alerting the public to the proper use of a company's trademarks and ultimately brand. They ensure the trademark is used properly; forbids impermissable uses or as Twitter states "the lawyers get involved"; and clearly gives direction as to when express permission or a license is needed for use.
Trademark Guidelines are especially important if your brand is entering a partnership with another brand or if your brand is used by multitudes of people.
Does your brand have trademark guidelines in place?
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Facebook vs. Faceporn: Trademark Infringement or Copyright Infringement
Hello!
Recently, Facebook filed a lawsuit against the pornographic social networking site, Faceporn, alleging trademark infringement of its trademark, Facebook. Specifically, Facebook alleges the use of the mark, Faceporn, is "confusingly similar" to the mark Facebook and the use of the mark, Faceporn, is causing dilution of the Facebook brand.
Dilution
Dilution is a trademark infringement legal claim that can be asserted by famous brands. I have previously discussed Dilution here. Dilution occurs when a lesser known brand uses the mark of a famous trademark owner, and the use of the more famous mark by the lesser known brand, dilutes the distinctiveness of the famous trademark. Dilution can be asserted by famous trademarks even if the products or services are totally unrelated.
Although, Facebook is claiming the use of the Faceporn mark is diluting its brand via tarnishing its reputation, with the revision of the Dilution statute, the only thing Facebook has to prove is the use of the Faceporn mark will cause a likelihood of confusion between the two trademark among the relevant consuming public.
Likelihood of Confusion
The courts determine whether likelihood of confusion exists by balancing 8 factors. Those factors are: if the marks are similar in sight, sound, and meaning; the similarity of the goods and services sold; the similarity of the distribution channels and customers for the goods or services at issue; the sophistication of purchasers and the expense of the product or service at issue; the similarity of means and methods of advertising and promoting the goods or services at issue; whether there is evidence of actual confusion of consumers or other relevant groups; the strength of the mark; and was the potentially infringing trademark adopted with good faith or with intent to imitate the established trademark?
I think Facebook would have a hard time proving the trademarks were similar in sight, sound, and meaning. Facebook and Faceporn clearly do not have the same meaning. Furthermore, they really do not sound the same...book and porn. The only thing Facebook could possible claim is similar is the word "face" in both trademarks. But I do not believe that is similar enough. Next, Faceporn could certainly refute that Facebook and Faceporn have the same customers and/or distribution channels. Individuals looking for porn are not going to go to Facebook to find it. At least I don't think so. In addition, Facebook users seems to be very sophisticated consumers and would have enough intellect not to go to Facebook looking for or expecting to see the contents of Faceporn. Also, I am sure Facebook and Faceporn are not promoting their services through the same advertising and/or marketing channels. Lastly, I do not believe Facebook can prove actual confusion between both sites among their and Faceporn's consumers. Like I said earlier, people looking for porn are not going to visit Facebook attempting to find it and vice-versa.
However, I do believe the strength of Facebook's lawsuit against Faceporn lies in the last two factors. Clearly, Facebook, has a strong trademark. It is a unique term created by Facebook and was created to brand the number one social networking site. Also, Facebook could easily prove Faceporn created the trademark and site with the intent to copy the famous Facebook trademark. Specifically, Faceporn's site did have the same look and feel as Facebook. The logo was in the same type and font, the color scheme was the same and the layout was identical to Facebook's. I believe Facebook would have a stronger copyright infringement claim than a trademark claim. Clearly, Faceporn copied the layout and style of Facebook's site.
You can view a screen shot of the Faceporn site here. It has since been changed. But what do you think?
Recently, Facebook filed a lawsuit against the pornographic social networking site, Faceporn, alleging trademark infringement of its trademark, Facebook. Specifically, Facebook alleges the use of the mark, Faceporn, is "confusingly similar" to the mark Facebook and the use of the mark, Faceporn, is causing dilution of the Facebook brand.
Dilution
Dilution is a trademark infringement legal claim that can be asserted by famous brands. I have previously discussed Dilution here. Dilution occurs when a lesser known brand uses the mark of a famous trademark owner, and the use of the more famous mark by the lesser known brand, dilutes the distinctiveness of the famous trademark. Dilution can be asserted by famous trademarks even if the products or services are totally unrelated.
Although, Facebook is claiming the use of the Faceporn mark is diluting its brand via tarnishing its reputation, with the revision of the Dilution statute, the only thing Facebook has to prove is the use of the Faceporn mark will cause a likelihood of confusion between the two trademark among the relevant consuming public.
Likelihood of Confusion
The courts determine whether likelihood of confusion exists by balancing 8 factors. Those factors are: if the marks are similar in sight, sound, and meaning; the similarity of the goods and services sold; the similarity of the distribution channels and customers for the goods or services at issue; the sophistication of purchasers and the expense of the product or service at issue; the similarity of means and methods of advertising and promoting the goods or services at issue; whether there is evidence of actual confusion of consumers or other relevant groups; the strength of the mark; and was the potentially infringing trademark adopted with good faith or with intent to imitate the established trademark?
I think Facebook would have a hard time proving the trademarks were similar in sight, sound, and meaning. Facebook and Faceporn clearly do not have the same meaning. Furthermore, they really do not sound the same...book and porn. The only thing Facebook could possible claim is similar is the word "face" in both trademarks. But I do not believe that is similar enough. Next, Faceporn could certainly refute that Facebook and Faceporn have the same customers and/or distribution channels. Individuals looking for porn are not going to go to Facebook to find it. At least I don't think so. In addition, Facebook users seems to be very sophisticated consumers and would have enough intellect not to go to Facebook looking for or expecting to see the contents of Faceporn. Also, I am sure Facebook and Faceporn are not promoting their services through the same advertising and/or marketing channels. Lastly, I do not believe Facebook can prove actual confusion between both sites among their and Faceporn's consumers. Like I said earlier, people looking for porn are not going to visit Facebook attempting to find it and vice-versa.
However, I do believe the strength of Facebook's lawsuit against Faceporn lies in the last two factors. Clearly, Facebook, has a strong trademark. It is a unique term created by Facebook and was created to brand the number one social networking site. Also, Facebook could easily prove Faceporn created the trademark and site with the intent to copy the famous Facebook trademark. Specifically, Faceporn's site did have the same look and feel as Facebook. The logo was in the same type and font, the color scheme was the same and the layout was identical to Facebook's. I believe Facebook would have a stronger copyright infringement claim than a trademark claim. Clearly, Faceporn copied the layout and style of Facebook's site.
You can view a screen shot of the Faceporn site here. It has since been changed. But what do you think?
Monday, October 18, 2010
Speaking About FTC Rules and Ethical Blogging At Lavish!
Hello!
I have been neglecting this blog because I am so busy these days. Which is a good thing and I am not complaining.
So here is an update on my activities for the last month. I attended another social media conference, Blogalicious. It was a good time and of course I learned a few things. Most importantly, individuals are using social media in such creative and business savvy ways. It is amazing. There is a lot of intellectual property being created through social media and individuals have to become educated about protecting their intellectual property.
I was invited to speak at the Lavish Experience Conference. It is a conference conceived and produced by Shameeka Ayers of The Broke Socialite and focuses on the Lifestyle blogger. Lifestyle blogging is Big Big Business and mainstream media and corporations are taking note! I will discuss how to navigate offers of paid income to blog or advertise on beauty and fashion blogs while also adhering to the revised Federal Trade Commissions Regulations regarding disclosure of paid advertising and product endorsement on social media platforms. Yes disclosure is required on all blogs, Facebook updates, Twitter feeds, etc.
The conference will take place here in Atlanta, GA at Mansion Hotel from December 10-12.
If you can not attend, please follow my tweets on that day. My tweets will include all the good information you need!
I have been neglecting this blog because I am so busy these days. Which is a good thing and I am not complaining.
So here is an update on my activities for the last month. I attended another social media conference, Blogalicious. It was a good time and of course I learned a few things. Most importantly, individuals are using social media in such creative and business savvy ways. It is amazing. There is a lot of intellectual property being created through social media and individuals have to become educated about protecting their intellectual property.
I was invited to speak at the Lavish Experience Conference. It is a conference conceived and produced by Shameeka Ayers of The Broke Socialite and focuses on the Lifestyle blogger. Lifestyle blogging is Big Big Business and mainstream media and corporations are taking note! I will discuss how to navigate offers of paid income to blog or advertise on beauty and fashion blogs while also adhering to the revised Federal Trade Commissions Regulations regarding disclosure of paid advertising and product endorsement on social media platforms. Yes disclosure is required on all blogs, Facebook updates, Twitter feeds, etc.
The conference will take place here in Atlanta, GA at Mansion Hotel from December 10-12.
If you can not attend, please follow my tweets on that day. My tweets will include all the good information you need!
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Senate Bill Cracks Down On Online Infringement
Hello!
Last week, Senator Leahy along with a host of other co-sponsors, introduced SB 3804: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. This Bill gives the Attorney General authority to seize domains of infringing websites if it is proven the sites are totally dedicated to Intellectual Property infringing activity. The Bill defines infringing activity as: websites that provide access or offer for sale unauthorized copies of copyright protected material or any website that sells or distributes good or services bearing a counterfeit mark in violation of a trademark's owner exclusive right to use the mark. Specifically this Bill is targeted to websites that sell counterfeit goods for luxury items such as designer purses, watches, jewelry and shoes.
This Bill also gives Internet Service Providers (hosting companies, domain registrar, etc.) the right to shut down the infringing site and provides immunity to the ISPs for doing so. The Bill also allows the Attorney General to prevent a website that is non-domestic from conducting business in the U.S. and prevent the importation of infringing goods and services. The Attorney General will also keep a list of infringing websites or domains available to the public via online.
Results?
As evidenced, Intellectual Property Infringement is rampant on the Internet. Intellectual Property owners spend considerable amounts of money defending their Intellectual Property through DMCA take down requests, cease and desist demand letters, TROs and IP Internet Monitoring Services. However, sometimes these efforts may stop infringers for a moment, but if they are highly organized, they re-group and infringe again. This is particularly relevant when it comes to counterfeit goods. This bill allows the Attorney General to combat online infringement at the source.
The Bill has been referred to Committe and should be up for a vote soon.
Do you think this is a step in the right direction in stopping online Intellectual Property Infringement?
Last week, Senator Leahy along with a host of other co-sponsors, introduced SB 3804: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. This Bill gives the Attorney General authority to seize domains of infringing websites if it is proven the sites are totally dedicated to Intellectual Property infringing activity. The Bill defines infringing activity as: websites that provide access or offer for sale unauthorized copies of copyright protected material or any website that sells or distributes good or services bearing a counterfeit mark in violation of a trademark's owner exclusive right to use the mark. Specifically this Bill is targeted to websites that sell counterfeit goods for luxury items such as designer purses, watches, jewelry and shoes.
This Bill also gives Internet Service Providers (hosting companies, domain registrar, etc.) the right to shut down the infringing site and provides immunity to the ISPs for doing so. The Bill also allows the Attorney General to prevent a website that is non-domestic from conducting business in the U.S. and prevent the importation of infringing goods and services. The Attorney General will also keep a list of infringing websites or domains available to the public via online.
Results?
As evidenced, Intellectual Property Infringement is rampant on the Internet. Intellectual Property owners spend considerable amounts of money defending their Intellectual Property through DMCA take down requests, cease and desist demand letters, TROs and IP Internet Monitoring Services. However, sometimes these efforts may stop infringers for a moment, but if they are highly organized, they re-group and infringe again. This is particularly relevant when it comes to counterfeit goods. This bill allows the Attorney General to combat online infringement at the source.
The Bill has been referred to Committe and should be up for a vote soon.
Do you think this is a step in the right direction in stopping online Intellectual Property Infringement?
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Are Recording Contracts Works Made for Hire?
Hello:
In light of the recent decision in the Fifth-Six Hope Road Music Ltd (Estate of Bob Marley) vs. UMG Recordings, many Artist are worried that all of their sounds recordings are going to be classified as "works made for hire." Basically, the judge ruled in the Bob Marley case that all of his recordings with Island Records from 1973-1977 were "works made for hire" and Universal Music Group is the rightful owner of the copyrights to five recordings Marley recorded. Specifically, the judge determined that despite Marley's artistic control over the recordings, both parties had a contractual agreement that clearly indicated the Marley sound recordings were "works made for hire."
A work made for hire is defined as a work created by an employee within the scope of the employee's employment. A work made for hire can also be created by a contractual agreement between two parties. Because most recording contracts are classified as independent contractor relationships and not employer-employee relationships, recording contracts are not usually deemed as works made for hires. However, record labels are now adding work made for hire clauses into recording contracts and artists and artists rights organizations are up in arms.
Work made for hire clauses in recording contracts have serious legal implications for artists. If the sound recording is classified as a work made for hire, the record label can retain the copyright to the work and the Masters in the recording. As a general rule, the Artists retains the right to have the Masters returned after a ten year period. This gives the Artist control over licensing and other revenue that can be obtained from the Masters. In addition, there is also "termination of copyrights" to consider. Termination of copyrights assists artists who may have signed away their copyrights. After 56 years, the artist can recapture the copyright for the last 39 years of the 56 years. For example, a contract signing away copyrights entered into in 1950 can be terminated in 2006 and the copyright can revert (artist has to give proper notice of termination) back to the artist or original author of the work. However, termination of copyrights is not applicable if the work is specifically a "work made for hire."
It is evident that both record labels and artists have a lot of stake when it comes to work made for hire clauses. Artists should hire good legal representation to ensure their works are not classified as works made for hire. Especially if the artist has created the work indepedently and not as an employee.
I welcome your thoughts.
In light of the recent decision in the Fifth-Six Hope Road Music Ltd (Estate of Bob Marley) vs. UMG Recordings, many Artist are worried that all of their sounds recordings are going to be classified as "works made for hire." Basically, the judge ruled in the Bob Marley case that all of his recordings with Island Records from 1973-1977 were "works made for hire" and Universal Music Group is the rightful owner of the copyrights to five recordings Marley recorded. Specifically, the judge determined that despite Marley's artistic control over the recordings, both parties had a contractual agreement that clearly indicated the Marley sound recordings were "works made for hire."
A work made for hire is defined as a work created by an employee within the scope of the employee's employment. A work made for hire can also be created by a contractual agreement between two parties. Because most recording contracts are classified as independent contractor relationships and not employer-employee relationships, recording contracts are not usually deemed as works made for hires. However, record labels are now adding work made for hire clauses into recording contracts and artists and artists rights organizations are up in arms.
Work made for hire clauses in recording contracts have serious legal implications for artists. If the sound recording is classified as a work made for hire, the record label can retain the copyright to the work and the Masters in the recording. As a general rule, the Artists retains the right to have the Masters returned after a ten year period. This gives the Artist control over licensing and other revenue that can be obtained from the Masters. In addition, there is also "termination of copyrights" to consider. Termination of copyrights assists artists who may have signed away their copyrights. After 56 years, the artist can recapture the copyright for the last 39 years of the 56 years. For example, a contract signing away copyrights entered into in 1950 can be terminated in 2006 and the copyright can revert (artist has to give proper notice of termination) back to the artist or original author of the work. However, termination of copyrights is not applicable if the work is specifically a "work made for hire."
It is evident that both record labels and artists have a lot of stake when it comes to work made for hire clauses. Artists should hire good legal representation to ensure their works are not classified as works made for hire. Especially if the artist has created the work indepedently and not as an employee.
I welcome your thoughts.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Twitter TOS: Does It Apply To Celebrities?
Hello Everyone!
I hope all is well.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post on Black Web 2.0 about Twitter's Terms of Service Agreement and whether it applied to Celebrity Twitters. The article spread like wildfire on the web and I was kind of surprised. Read the full article below and tell me what do you think.
Over the past week Hip-Hop artist, 50 Cent, took control of his Twitter account and went on a tweet rampage. He threatened to kill people, posted pornographic images, issued defamatory statements against other artists, and also made racist statements. His Twitpic account was suspended due to the pornographic images. But his Twitter account is still up and running.
If that weren’t enough, last Sunday, Denver Nuggets forward, Carmelo Anthony and his wife Lala got into a Twitter fight with exhibitionist Kat Stacks. Allegedly, Carmelo offered $5000 cash to anyone who would physically harm Kat Stacks. He also allegedly threatened her with physical harm. As a result Stacks has filed charges against Anthony.
Is Twitter becoming the wild, wild west of social networks? Twitter does have “Twitter Rules” in their Terms of Service Agreement that outlines Rules of Content for posted content. Specifically Twitter prohibits:
1. Impersonation
2. Trademark Infringement
3. Violation of Privacy
4. Violence and Threats
5. Copyright Infringement
6. Promotion of Illegal Activities
7. Spam Abuse
But considering 50 Cent’s Twitter account is still up and running and other Tweeters are also guilty of violating Twitter’s Rules of Conduct, does Twitter actually enforce these rules? Twitter states “we do not actively monitor user’s content and will not censor user content, except in the above limited circumstances.” Twitter basically covers themselves with this statement and considering the millions of users on Twitters, it makes sense. But is Twitter motivated to take action against violaters, especially if they are celebrities and have millions of followers like 50 Cent? The rapper even bragged that @ev (Evan Williams), co-founder of Twitter, gave him a call and said he was the best thing that happened to Twitter. This may or may not be true, but it is an interesting statement.
Carmelo Antony’s Twitter account was deleted but we don’t know if Twitter deleted his account or the NBA forced him to delete his account. His statements to Kat Stacks are a federal crime and if proven he did in fact make the statements from his computer or mobile device, he could potentially face jail time and suspension from the NBA. Carmelo and his wife are now claiming his Twitter account was hacked and he did not send the criminal tweets.
Whether Twitter enforces its Rules of Conduct are debatable. However, when Tweets are written and sent, they are forever in cyberspace regardless of whether the user deletes the tweet or their Twitter Account. Tweets are public records and can be used as evidence in any civil or criminal litigation. I previously wrote a post on the Do’s and Dont’s of Twitter. Many of those Do’s and Dont’s included several of the above Twitter Rules. But regardless if Twitter kicks violators off Twitter or not, engaging in “Dont’s” can get you sued, jail time, and fines.
So be careful what you tweet. When in doubt, just don’t.
Category: Featured, Social Networking | Tags: 50 Cent, black web 2.0, Civil Litigations, Criminal conduct, Defamation, Federal Crimes, IPLAW101, Kat Stacks, La La and Carmelo Anthony, NBA, Phillips Givenslaw, Pornography, terms of service agreements, Threats, twitter, Twitter Rules of Conduct, Violence
I hope all is well.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post on Black Web 2.0 about Twitter's Terms of Service Agreement and whether it applied to Celebrity Twitters. The article spread like wildfire on the web and I was kind of surprised. Read the full article below and tell me what do you think.
Over the past week Hip-Hop artist, 50 Cent, took control of his Twitter account and went on a tweet rampage. He threatened to kill people, posted pornographic images, issued defamatory statements against other artists, and also made racist statements. His Twitpic account was suspended due to the pornographic images. But his Twitter account is still up and running.
If that weren’t enough, last Sunday, Denver Nuggets forward, Carmelo Anthony and his wife Lala got into a Twitter fight with exhibitionist Kat Stacks. Allegedly, Carmelo offered $5000 cash to anyone who would physically harm Kat Stacks. He also allegedly threatened her with physical harm. As a result Stacks has filed charges against Anthony.
Is Twitter becoming the wild, wild west of social networks? Twitter does have “Twitter Rules” in their Terms of Service Agreement that outlines Rules of Content for posted content. Specifically Twitter prohibits:
1. Impersonation
2. Trademark Infringement
3. Violation of Privacy
4. Violence and Threats
5. Copyright Infringement
6. Promotion of Illegal Activities
7. Spam Abuse
But considering 50 Cent’s Twitter account is still up and running and other Tweeters are also guilty of violating Twitter’s Rules of Conduct, does Twitter actually enforce these rules? Twitter states “we do not actively monitor user’s content and will not censor user content, except in the above limited circumstances.” Twitter basically covers themselves with this statement and considering the millions of users on Twitters, it makes sense. But is Twitter motivated to take action against violaters, especially if they are celebrities and have millions of followers like 50 Cent? The rapper even bragged that @ev (Evan Williams), co-founder of Twitter, gave him a call and said he was the best thing that happened to Twitter. This may or may not be true, but it is an interesting statement.
Carmelo Antony’s Twitter account was deleted but we don’t know if Twitter deleted his account or the NBA forced him to delete his account. His statements to Kat Stacks are a federal crime and if proven he did in fact make the statements from his computer or mobile device, he could potentially face jail time and suspension from the NBA. Carmelo and his wife are now claiming his Twitter account was hacked and he did not send the criminal tweets.
Whether Twitter enforces its Rules of Conduct are debatable. However, when Tweets are written and sent, they are forever in cyberspace regardless of whether the user deletes the tweet or their Twitter Account. Tweets are public records and can be used as evidence in any civil or criminal litigation. I previously wrote a post on the Do’s and Dont’s of Twitter. Many of those Do’s and Dont’s included several of the above Twitter Rules. But regardless if Twitter kicks violators off Twitter or not, engaging in “Dont’s” can get you sued, jail time, and fines.
So be careful what you tweet. When in doubt, just don’t.
Category: Featured, Social Networking | Tags: 50 Cent, black web 2.0, Civil Litigations, Criminal conduct, Defamation, Federal Crimes, IPLAW101, Kat Stacks, La La and Carmelo Anthony, NBA, Phillips Givenslaw, Pornography, terms of service agreements, Threats, twitter, Twitter Rules of Conduct, Violence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)