WebProNews

Tag: Legal

  • Yelp Gets Legal Victory In Privacy Case (Because Subpoena Was Issued In Wrong State)

    Yelp has been embroiled in a legal battle for the past couple years as a Virginia carpet cleaning service has sought to get the names of reviewers it alleges left reviews without using the service in order to name them in a defamation suit. Things haven’t always gone Yelp’s way. It lost in the initial trial and in appeals court, and Yelp was even held in contempt.

    The Supreme Court of Virginia has now ruled of favor in Yelp, but not because of the main issues at hand, but rather because it determined a subpoena from Hadeed Carpet Cleaning should have been issued in California – Yelp’s home turf – rather than in Virginia.

    “Although we were hoping the court would rule on both jurisdictional and First Amendment grounds, this is still an important win,” said Paul Alan Levy, a Public Citizen attorney, who represented Yelp in the case. “If Hadeed turns to California courts to learn the identities of its critics, those courts will require it to show evidence to meet the well-accepted First Amendment test for identifying anonymous speakers. And so far, Hadeed has not come close to providing such evidence.”

    As usual, Yelp boasted about its legal victory on its official blog, where the company’s “senior director of litigation” Aaron Schur said:

    Hadeed undermined its own customers’ free speech rights by trying to force Yelp to reveal their private information based merely on a hunch that they might not be real clients. Fortunately, the right to speak under a pseudonym is constitutionally protected and has long been recognized for the important information it allows individuals to contribute to public discourse. This is also why The Washington Post, Gannett Co. and other media outlets joined the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press amicus brief, while Google, Twitter, TripAdvisor and Pinterest, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and others also argued in favor of our efforts to protect free speech.

    Hadeed may still believe those reviews were not from his customers, but he has no evidence of this. In fact, several targeted customers also filed an Amicus brief reiterating that they were actual customers of Hadeed Carpet Cleaning and that their critical reviews were truthful representations of their consumer experiences. They feel strongly enough to come forward to stand by their reviews and share why they feel it’s important for consumers to be able to contribute their opinions online, even under a pseudonym if necessary.

    …

    Businesses that want to bully and intimidate customers who express displeasure with less than stellar consumer experiences should not be able to obtain their personal information without providing sufficient evidence that they have been wronged, which Hadeed failed to do in this case.

    Meanwhile, Yelp itself is being referred to as the “billion dollar bully” in a documentary about the company’s alleged business practices, which recently raised funding on Kickstarter. It’s unclear whether or not the film will delve into this case at all, as its main focus is on allegations by business owners that Yelp holds positive reviews hostage with aggressive ad sales tactics.

    Kaylie Milliken, the filmmaker behind Billion Dollar Bully, did put out a call for more stories about Yelp from businesses since hitting the funding goal.

    As far as Hadeed goes, Yelp says that if the carpet cleaner wants to issue a subpoena in California, it’s “happy to continue the fight,” though in the same post, it advises businesses to avoid litigation and focus on customer service and use Yelp’s tools.

  • HBO Is Mad at Periscope over Game of Thrones Streams

    HBO Is Mad at Periscope over Game of Thrones Streams

    HBO isn’t happy with Periscope, Twitter’s live-broadcasting app.

    The company has sent takedown notices, following reports that users were live-streaming the season five premiere of Game of Thrones for their followers to see.

    “We are aware of Periscope and have sent takedown notices,” an HBO spokeswoman said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. “In general, we feel developers should have tools which proactively prevent mass copyright infringement from occurring on their apps and not be solely reliant upon notifications.”

    As in, Periscope should be watching for this, on an algorithmic level.

    According to Periscope’s Terms of Service, it doesn’t allow the rebroadcasting of copyrighted materials and will “respond to notices of alleged copyright infringement that comply with applicable law and are properly provided to us.”

    “Twitter, Inc. respects the intellectual property rights of others and expects users of Periscope Services to do the same,” says Periscope. “We reserve the right to remove Content alleged to be infringing without prior notice and at our sole discretion. In appropriate circumstances, Periscope will also terminate a user’s account if the user is determined to be a repeat infringer.”

    So if you’re broadcasting Game of Thrones via Periscope, tread carefully.

    The company does say, however, that it “may, but are not required to monitor or control the content posted via Periscope and cannot take responsibility for such content.”

    HBO may be going after the wrong people, however, as Periscope videos vanish after 24 hours. And when you can just download decent copies of the show via torrent, why watch someone record their TV and play it back in potato quality on Twitter?

    As you probably know, the first four episodes of the new season of Game of Thrones leaked online hours before the premiere. HBO has chalked it up to a screener it sent out to an early reviewer. According to TorrentFreak, the episodes were downloaded more than 100,000 times in just the first few hours of availability. Now, that number is well over a million.

    The massive leak failed to keep the show from setting a viewing record, however. Nearly eight million viewers tuned in live.

    Image via GameofThrones, YouTube

  • Revenge Porn Now a Specific Offense in the UK, Punishable by Up to Two Years in Jail

    Revenge porn has been a hot topic in legislatures and courtrooms both across the US and abroad. Now, the UK is poised to pass a new law that will make the sharing of images without one’s consent a specific criminal offense.

    By changing the Criminal Justice & Courts Bill (currently making its way through Parliament), the UK will make the distribution of revenge porn a crime punishable by up to two years in prison. Previously, people had been brought up on charges relating to revenge porn, but had been prosecuted under various other laws. This is the first time there will be a specific criminal offense dealing with revenge porn.

    Here’s what the Ministry of Justice has to say:

    The change will cover the sharing of images both online and offline. It will mean that images posted to social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter will be caught by the offence, as well as those that are shared via text message. Images shared via email, on a website or the distribution of physical copies will also be caught. Those convicted will face a maximum sentence of 2 years in prison.

    “The fact that there are individuals who are cruelly distributing intimate pictures of their former partners without their consent is almost beyond belief. We want those who fall victim to this type of disgusting behaviour to know that we are on their side and will do everything we can to bring offenders to justice. That is why we will change the law and make it absolutely clear to those who act in this way that they could face prison,” said Justice Secretary Chris Grayling.

    In the US, revenge porn laws vary from state to state. There has been talk of a revenge porn barn at the federal level, but it has yet to materialize.

  • Getty Images & Microsoft Bury Hatchet, Partner

    Getty Images & Microsoft Bury Hatchet, Partner

    It appears that Getty Images and Microsoft have buried the hatchet after legal issues last fall, as the two just announced a new partnership, which will see Microsoft taking advantage of Getty’s imagery.

    The two companies will work together to develop “image-rich, compelling products and services” for Microsoft products like Bing and Cortana, which use Getty’s library of images. Both companies’ tech teams will partner to provide real-time access to that library as well as associated metadata “to enhance the Microsoft user experience”. This will take place over the coming years.

    “With our new partnership, Microsoft will use Getty Images’ latest API innovations and our award-winning visual content to take search experiences to a new level,” said Getty Images Senior Vice President of Business Development Craig Peters. “Our technology teams will work together to create beautiful, engaging applications and services for Microsoft users with licensed content and attribution for photographers and other content creators.”

    “This collaboration enables Microsoft users to take full advantage of Getty Images’ speed to market, structured metadata and unrivaled content,” added Microsoft Executive Vice President of Business Development Peggy Johnson. “We look forward to working with Getty Images to provide the next generation of image depth and breadth for our users.”

    Back in September, Getty sued Microsoft over a tool it had launched, which enabled people to embed slideshows of images from Bing Image Search on their websites. The tool was called the Bing Image Widget, which Microsoft described in the following manner:

    Bing Image Widget enhances your web site with the power of Bing Image Search and provides your users with beautiful, configurable image collages and slideshows. What’s more, Bing Image Widget is easy to configure.

    Users could get the code by going to the Bing Image Widget page or via Bing Webmaster Tools. They could simply copy and paste the code onto a page, and adjust the settings to meet their needs, and then get a collage of images. It basically looked like a group of image search results, and probably wouldn’t have even been used all that heavily, but just to make sure, Getty sued Microsoft over it, deeming it a “massive infringement” of copyrighted images.

    In October, Reuters reported that Getty had failed to convince a federal judge to take action against Microsoft as the company had already taken the widget offline voluntarily. Again, the amount of usage it was likely to attract was probably not worth the headache of a legal battle. From the Reuters report:

    Getty asked U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan to slap Microsoft with an injunction on the new product. Even though Microsoft removed the widget the day after the lawsuit was filed, Getty pressed forward with its case. Getty told Cote not to believe Microsoft’s claims that it would not relaunch the widget because it did not rule out creating a new widget that could still infringe on Getty’s content.

    …

    “We would have preferred a judicial mandate for (the widget) to stay down,” said John Lapham, Getty’s general counsel. “But the question of whether or not you’re allowed to take and use somebody else’s copyrighted materials without any attribution or compensation is still live and before the court.”

    As far as I’m aware, Microsoft has not relaunched any version of the tool since, though it had indicated to Getty at the time that if it did, it would do so with filters, attribution notices, and other copyright-related details. The original tool is still offline.

    Earlier last year, Getty had released its own embeddable image tool, enabling bloggers and website owners to use some of their images as long as they did so with the provided embed code that ensured all proper attribution, links, and other requirements.

    While the tool doesn’t give you access to Getty’s entire library, does let you search 50 million photos, and gives you quite a few embeddable options.

    “It’s easy, legal and free,” Getty says on the landing page for the tool.

    Shortly after suing Microsoft, Getty launched a mobile app called Stream designed to let users view and share its photos. It was the company’s first consumer app.

    On Tuesday, Getty also announced a new “Boards” feature that it says “sets a new standard for collaboration in the creative industry.”

    The offering lets people curate, share, and discuss Getty’s photos and video content on GettyImages.com and via a new redesigned Getty Images iOS app.

    “In today’s always-on global economy, media and creative professionals collaborate with peers and clients who are just as likely to be across the world, as across the office,” said Getty Images CTO Steve Heck. “A true collaboration tool, Boards create a dynamic platform to bring your projects to life using the world’s best imagery. By establishing seamless workflows, Boards ensure creatives can capitalise on ideas and opportunities at any time, working across various devices, wherever they may be.”

    Boards let users view collections of images and videos according to specific projects or creative interests, without requiring them to sign in to gettyimages.com.

    Getty Images has over 180 million images in its library, as well as video.

  • Court: Woman Can Serve Divorce Papers via Facebook

    If you’re trying to dodge divorce papers, stay off Facebook.

    The Manhattan Supreme Court has just issued a ruling that will allow a 26-year-old nurse to serve her husband divorce papers via Facebook message, according to The New York Daily News.

    Ellanora Baidoo and her husband, Victor Sena Blood-Dzraku, are both from Ghana. Baidoo’s lawyer said the relationship went south shortly after Blood-Dzraku broke a promise to have a traditional Ghanaian wedding after the civil ceremony. The two never lived together, but the marriage is still intact.

    Apparently, Blood-Dzraku is a tough man to find. His last known address is from an apartment he left in 2011, and he has no current address or place of employment. According to Baidoo’s lawyer, he refuses to “make himself available to be served with divorce papers.”

    He has kept in touch some over the years via Facebook, and that’s where he’s about to get served.

    She’ll serve him the papers, via Facebook, once a week for three weeks “or until acknowledged”.

    “We tried everything, including hiring a private detective — and nothing,” said her lawyer. “I think it’s new law, and it’s necessary.”

    You’ve been able to serve legal papers via Facebook for a little while now, but this is the first known case of someone officially ending a marriage via Facebook message. Of course, it’s probably not the first time Facebook has been involved in the death of a relationship.

  • Chelsea Manning Wins Fight to Be Called “She”

    In a legal fight overs pronouns, chalk one up for gender rights.

    Chelsea Manning, the Wikileaks leaker formerly known as Bradley Manning, will now be referred to as “she” or a gender-neutral pronoun in all future court proceedings.

    “This is an important victory for Chelsea, who has been mistreated by the government for years,” said Manning’s attorney Nancy Hollander in a statement. “Though only a small step in a long legal fight, my co-counsel, Vincent Ward, Captain Dave Hammond, and I are thrilled that Chelsea will be respected as the woman she is in all legal filings.”

    What this means, in effect, is that the US military must stop referring to Chelsea Manning as a man.

    In September of last year Manning sued the US Department of Defense, claiming she had been “denied access to medically necessary treatment” in connection with a gender disorder.

    “She brings this action to compel defendants to treat her serious medical needs consistent with their obligation under the Constitution,” said the lawsuit. Manning’s lawyers claimed that lack of hormonal treatment would cause Manning to “suffer continued pain, depression and anxiety” and that she “is at an extremely high risk of self-castration and suicidality.”

    Manning accused the military of stalling.

    But then last month, the DoD gave in.

    “After carefully considering the recommendation that (hormone treatment) is medically appropriate and necessary, and weighing all associated safety and security risks presented, I approve adding (hormone treatment) to Inmate Manning’s treatment plan,” wrote Col. Erica Nelson in a memo.

    Above: Army Image of Chelsea Manning, in 2012, when known as Bradley Manning

  • Revleap Wants Businesses Wronged By Yelp To Help Fund Its Legal Defense

    As previously reported, Yelp recently filed a lawsuit against a company called Revleap, claiming to “take a stand against misleading ‘reputation management’ companies”.

    Revleap, which seeks to get businesses a “large constant flow of positive reviews that stay on top of your profile” and to “remove fake reviews,” says Yelp’s allegations, which include trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition, cybersquatting, breach of contract, interference with contractual relations, and false advertising, are “completely false and unsubstantiated.”

    “Revleap services are legal in all aspects of the law, and we specialize in only legitimate reviews from real customers,” a spokesperson for Revleap told WebProNews in a statement. “Yelp has filed completely false and unsubstantiated claims against our company. We aim to decrease defamation and increase awareness of free speech for businesses. We level the playing field for everyone who uses the internet or reviews on any site.”

    The company says it’s now looking for help from the “business community” that has been negatively affected by Yelp, and has set up a crowdfunding campaign via GoFundMe to help with its legal defense. Here’s what the campaign’s description says:

    We set out on a mission to make one small thing easier for businesses, managing their reviews on various platforms. Along the way we discovered person after person who’s business has suffered because of Yelp’s unfair practices. Our average client is someone who has been in business for 20+ years, that is obviously doing great business or they would not have been in business for so long. They’re listed 5 stars on Google, City Search and Facebok, and they also have an A rating with the BBB. This small business owner usually will have 15 reviews on Yelp. 13 Positive and 2 negative, all verifiable from real customers. Yelp will hide all 13 of their positive reviews in the not recommended section that and only show the 2 negative reviews on the front page. Taking this 5 star business down to 1 star, plumeting their revenue, hurting their family and even forcing some completely out of business.

    Outraged business owners call our company daily asking for help, Revleap only specializes in real, legitimate reviews from customers that are completely unbiased. We simply facilitate an easier way for people to leave you feedback. We didn’t break any law, and we have helped many business owers save their business. The corporate tech giant has filed a lawsuit last Friday in an attempt to strong arm us, just as they have many other small business owenrs to cease operating.

    We ask for the help of the American business owners, and anyone reading this to help us defend this case.

    Yelp aims to make an example of us. They wish to discorage any attempt from anyone looking to relenquish some control from their overbearing dictatorship of your online presence. If we lose this case, it will be a loss for business owners across the world because the grip they have on you will become even tighter.

    When we win, it will open the door for more companies like ours, and more innovation from all over to help you, the small business owner control your presence online.

    RevLeap provides a valuable service to businesses in almost every industry with a simple feedback-gathering tool that prompts customers to write reviews online.

    Any donation from a business owner will receive 1 month free of our service, if you’re an individual we’ll send you a signed thank you card and know in your heart that you’re really helping support the American dream by countering this lawsuit.

    (sic)

    Yelp says Revleap is a scam and that business owners should fall for offers like what it claims to provide, or they’ll end up “paying dearly, both with their bank accounts and their online reputations.”

    As of the time of this writing, Revleap has raised just north of a hundred bucks.

    Image via GoFundMe

  • Revleap: Yelp’s Allegations Completely False, Unsubstantiated

    Last week, Yelp said it was “taking a stand against misleading ‘reputation management’ companies,” as it filed a lawsuit against a company called Revleap, which it said is a scam, and puts small businesses at risk because of the Yelp Consumer Alert program in addition to federal and state regulations.

    Yelp said has Revleap had operated under various names like Yelpdirector and Revpley, and “has spammed businesses with unsolicited messages claiming that they can get good reviews to stick and remove bad reviews.”

    The actual suit alleges trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition, cybersquatting, breach of contract, interference with contractual relations, and false advertising.

    We reached out to Revleap for comment, and the company said Yelp’s claims are “completely false and unsubstantiated.”

    Here’s the full statement we received:

    Since RevLeap’s inception as a platform for businesses to connect with their customers to gather feedback in a new way, we champion the freedom of speech and open internet. “The Open Internet” as described by the FCC calls for 1. Transparency, 2. No Blocking, and 3. No Unreasonable Discrimination.

    RevLeap services are legal in all aspects of the law, and we specialize in only legitimate reviews from real customers. Yelp has filed completely false and unsubstantiated claims against our company. We aim to decrease defamation and increase awareness of free speech for businesses. We level the playing field for everyone who uses the internet or reviews on any site.

    We believe the internet, business owners, and their customers benefit greatly from having an open internet. Any disruption of these principles like the Yelp “Filter” or described on Yelp’s website as “Recommendation Software” preys on businesses using the reviews as leverage as described in thousands of FTC complaints against Yelp from 2008-2014. Yelp’s Yelp Profile has over 10,000 1-Star Reviews from business owners, friends and family of business owners who have been hurt by Yelp and we hope through our services we can restore faith in the internet and reach a point of transparency with Yelp.

    Yelp has been talking about the “open Internet” itself. On Wednesday, the company released a blog post calling for people to express their support for Net Neutrality before the FCC votes on February 26, and saying that Yelp values users and works with other companies and organizations to “support adoption of the strongest Net Neutrality principles to protect the American Public.”

    Here’s an excerpt from that:

    Since Yelp’s inception as a platform to connect people with great local businesses around them, we have supported and relied on the principles of an open and free Internet in order to do business. These principles, which have become enshrined in the term “Net Neutrality,” provide that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should treat all legal data and content equally, and not discriminate, throttle, or charge different rates depending on the nature of the site, platform or data being transmitted.

    Regarding Revleap, Yelp says business owners often fall for such “scams” and pay “dearly, both with their bank accounts and their online reputations.”

    You can see the full complaint here.

    Image via Yelp

  • Yelp ‘Takes A Stand To Protect Business Owners’

    Yelp filed a lawsuit against a company called Revleap, which it says is a scam, and puts small businesses at risk because of the Yelp Consumer Alert program as well as federal and state regulation. Revleap has fired back, saying it’s doing nothing wrong, and is looking for businesses wronged by Yelp to help crowfund its legal defense.

    Is Yelp right about this company or is Yelp the one damaging reputations as Revleap maintains? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Yelp says Revleap has operated under various names like Yelpdirector and Revpley, and “has spammed businesses with unsolicited messages claiming that they can get good reviews to stick and remove bad reviews.”

    The actual suit alleges trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition, cybersquatting, breach of contract, interference with contractual relations, and false advertising. You can take a look at the complaint here.

    “One thing Revleap actually does, it seems, is bombard their clients’ customers with surveys,” says Yelp VP of Communications Vince Sollitto. “Customers that respond favorably, and agree to post a review, are entered in a drawing for gift cards in an effort to deceptively boost their clients’ reputations.”

    “We sometimes hear reports about ‘reputation management’ or ‘small business marketing’ agencies that promise (for a fee, of course) to help businesses remove negative reviews and gain more positive reviews on Yelp,” Sollitto writes in a blog post. “Some of these agencies imply that they have a special relationship with Yelp or even lead business owners to believe that they are acting on behalf of Yelp.”

    He goes on to call such offers “scams,” and notes that some business owners fall for them and end up “paying dearly, both with their bank accounts and their online reputations.”

    Yelp is painting the lawsuit as “taking a stand to protect business owners”.

    Revleap said this in a blog post last month:

    Yelp is a swiftly growing reviews site with very real challenges,” Revleap said in a blog post last month. “Many business owners who are reviewed on Yelp have experienced real-world changes in their businesses due to the reviews posted by customers. The reviews site has definitely benefited businesses with plentiful 4 and 5 star reviews. But if one studies the conversation in social networks, blogs and the news feeds, Yelp is facing a real PR nightmare due to a poorly run internal sales department that pushes business owners to pay for expensive marketing add-ons.

    Terry Thomas recently published an article in the Seattle Times about his experience with Yelp. Apparently, a Yelp sales rep called Thomas after his business had risen due to excellent reviews. The sales rep proposed that Thomas pay Yelp $8400 per year for a mid-level marketing add-on program. When Thomas declined, he saw an almost instant drop in the positive reviews of his business due to a Yelp “filtering” program. Interestingly, Thomas noted that positive reviews were filtered out, while negative reviews remained. His rating went down as a result and his business was directly affected. (SOURCE: Seattle Times)

    ​There are numerous other examples of similar issues going on for business owners across the world (Yelp is an international reviews site). If you Google “yelp problems” or simply look at Yelp in the news for the last 7 days, you will see an overwhelming amount of bad press and negative feedback about the site.

    ​Revleap has come to the rescue of business owners by providing a simple program where existing customers of a business can be invited to contribute reviews to Yelp. The program utilizes a proprietary software package that business owners license from Revleap. With this package, a business owner can upload a list of customers and these same customers will be invited to contribute reviews to Yelp. The Revleap software filters out negative reviews submitted by the customers, while guiding positive reviewers to Yelp directly. Most medium-sized businesses using Revleap have noticed an average of 10-20 new positive reviews on Yelp per day as a result.

    Yelp said earlier this month that it will be beefing up its sales staff, especially here in the U.S. In January, the company issued its latest round of Consumer Alerts, slapping warnings on the pages of 85 businesses.

    We reached out to Revleap for comment. Here’s what they said:

    Since RevLeap’s inception as a platform for businesses to connect with their customers to gather feedback in a new way, we champion the freedom of speech and open internet. “The Open Internet” as described by the FCC calls for 1. Transparency, 2. No Blocking, and 3. No Unreasonable Discrimination.

    RevLeap services are legal in all aspects of the law, and we specialize in only legitimate reviews from real customers. Yelp has filed completely false and unsubstantiated claims against our company. We aim to decrease defamation and increase awareness of free speech for businesses. We level the playing field for everyone who uses the internet or reviews on any site.

    We believe the internet, business owners, and their customers benefit greatly from having an open internet. Any disruption of these principles like the Yelp “Filter” or described on Yelp’s website as “Recommendation Software” preys on businesses using the reviews as leverage as described in thousands of FTC complaints against Yelp from 2008-2014. Yelp’s Yelp Profile has over 10,000 1-Star Reviews from business owners, friends and family of business owners who have been hurt by Yelp and we hope through our services we can restore faith in the internet and reach a point of transparency with Yelp.

    Yelp has been talking about the “open Internet” itself. On Wednesday, the company released a blog post calling for people to express their support for Net Neutrality before the FCC votes on February 26, and saying that Yelp values users and works with other companies and organizations to “support adoption of the strongest Net Neutrality principles to protect the American Public.”

    Here’s an excerpt from that:

    Since Yelp’s inception as a platform to connect people with great local businesses around them, we have supported and relied on the principles of an open and free Internet in order to do business. These principles, which have become enshrined in the term “Net Neutrality,” provide that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should treat all legal data and content equally, and not discriminate, throttle, or charge different rates depending on the nature of the site, platform or data being transmitted.

    Revleap has started a crowdfunding campaign to try and raise money for its legal defense in the Yelp suit. It’s hoping businesses that have been hurt by Yelp will step up and help.

    Which of these companies do you think is in the right here? Either? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Image via Yelp

  • Interactive Advertising Bureau Weighs In On Obama Proposals

    During Tuesday’s State of the Union Address, President Obama briefly touched on some proposals that may have an impact on the digital advertising industry. These include laws to combat cyber attacks and to protect the data of minors.

    Here’s the full speech in case you didn’t watch it:

    From the prepared remarks:

    We are making sure our government integrates intelligence to combat cyber threats, just as we have done to combat terrorism. And tonight, I urge this Congress to finally pass the legislation we need to better meet the evolving threat of cyber-attacks, combat identity theft, and protect our children’s information. If we don’t act, we’ll leave our nation and our economy vulnerable. If we do, we can continue to protect the technologies that have unleashed untold opportunities for people around the globe.

    The follows Obama’s proposal last week to require companies to notify customers of breaches within 30 days as a “single, strong national standard”. This is part of what’s known as the Personal Data Notification and Protection Act. The President says this will not only let consumers know when their info is stolen, but also make it easier for companies to deal with hacks.

    The Interactive Advertising Bureau has some thoughts about the President’s proposals, and sent us a statement from Mike Zaneis, EVP, Public Policy & General Counsel.

    “Among these ideas, were some extremely positive legislative vehicles that IAB wholeheartedly endorses,” he said. “The mission of securing the internet through stronger cybersecurity laws is vitally important. This is why the IAB created an Anti-Malware Working Group and formed an information partnership with the FBI in September of 2014. We also laud the President’s call for a single, national data breach notification standard. Having a patchwork of 46 disparate state laws does not adequately protect consumers’ identities. The President rightly called for new free trade agreements that would allow the internet to flourish. We also applaud the President in his effort to craft a new Federal law to secure students’ data when they are using innovative digital tools.”

    “The President laid out many areas where there can be bipartisan cooperation to enact new consumer protections that also allow industry to continue to innovate and create new jobs. These are ideals shared by the IAB, so much so that the digital marketing industry has taken a lead role in ensuring that consumers have the ability to control their privacy online, creating the first ever comprehensive digital self regulatory program called the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA). The DAA was developed in coordination with the FTC and endorsed by this Administration in 2012.”

    “We want to build upon these successes, but some of the President’s proposals could derail our collective efforts,” he added. “A push for controversial, European-style privacy restrictions, such as enactment of a ‘Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights,’ would make the U.S. less competitive in the global economy. This nebulous concept is ill-advised and could undermine the opportunities to deliver real results to the American public. ”

    “We look forward to working with the Administration and the 114th Congress on their pro-growth agenda and to having the $50 billion U.S. digital advertising industry continue to lead our economy in the right direction.”

    Not all of this was explicitly discussed in the State of the Union Address, but here’s the President’s speech about protecting consumers and families in the digital age from January 12:

    And his speech on Cybersecurity the following day:

    The White House Blog runs down the key takeaways from the privacy speech here.

    Images via YouTube, IAB

  • Another Publisher Goes After Google For Unpaid AdSense Earnings

    There’s been a lot of this going around lately. Publishers are getting banned from Google AdSense after Google tells them they’re in violation of their rules. This happens after the publisher accrues a sizable amount of earnings and readies for the payday. It also happens after Google reps have indicated that the sites were in compliance in the first place. That’s how the story goes anyway.

    Do you think Google is doing anything wrong? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Another publisher, SuperCrayCray, has come out suing Google over this. But first a little background.

    Similar stories have been circulating for years, generating varying degrees of attention in the media. Last year, the issue got possibly the most attention to date as a new mysterious, but ultimately debunked element came into play.

    The ‘Former Googler’

    Last spring, someone claiming to be a former Google employee accused the company of stealing money from AdSense publishers posting on Pastebin that they “took part in what I (and many others) would consider theft of money from the publishers by Google, and from direct orders of management.”

    “There were many AdSense employees involved, and it spanned many years, and I hear it still is happening today except on a much wider scale,” it said. “No one on the outside knows it, if they did, the FBI and possibly IRS would immediately launch an investigation, because what they are doing is so inherently illegal and they are flying completely under the radar.”

    For the curious, the entire post and “explanation” is still live here.

    After this made its way to the spotlight, numerous publishers claimed to have experienced similar treatment by Google to what was described. Basically, Google would ban their sites as payments became due, and they wouldn’t get their money. Various industry types poked holes in the story presented by the so-called ex-Googler, including the use of inaccurate terminology and the fact that Google only makes money on AdSense when it delivers the ads. In other words, it’s not in Google’s interest to ban successful sites.

    Google strongly denied the accusations, calling the whole thing “complete fiction.” Still, the theories and allegations persisted.

    A Criminal Investigation?

    The FairSearch Coalition, a group of Google competitors, which frequently complains to government agencies about Google’s business practices, called for a criminal investigation into the company’s AdSense business.

    “Google often tries to reinforce its image and reputation as a tech innovator rather than an advertising-funded corporation driven by profits,” it said. “But These recent allegations are another sign that Google’s thirst for profits comes at the expense of meeting its legal obligations and commitments to business partners it says benefit from its own dominance. In the past few years, the company settled for $500 million with the Department of Justice for assisting in the illegal sale of prescription drugs online, and several state Attorneys General have voiced concern over Google’s revenue from ads placed with YouTube videos that depict or promote illegal and other activities harmful to consumers and even children.”

    “Trust, but verify is an old maxim that applies to Google’s business too,” the coalition added. “The time may be near for another investigation into Google’s business practices. The outcome could very well be potential criminal and civil charges against the company, especially if top executives were aware of the practice, as they were in the illegal pharmaceutical ad sales.”

    FairsSearch member companies include Microsoft, Nokia, TripAdvisor, Hotwire, Expedia, Level, Foundem, ShopCity, Twenga, AdMarketplace.com, Travel Tech Association, Buscape Company, TheFind, Allegro, and Oracle.

    Class Action

    In May, a class action suit was filed against Google related to claims it was stealing money from publishers. This one was filed by consumer rights law firm Hagens Berman (which had previously filed another questionable suit against the company related to phone pricing). The suit claimed that Google “unlawfully denies payments to thousands of website owners and operators who place ads on their sites.”

    The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and alleged that the company “abruptly cancels website owners’ AdSense accounts often without explanation shortly before payments are due, and refuses to pay for the ads that ran prior to the cancelation.”

    “This wrongful practice has sparked numerous bitter complaints from website owners across the Web, with some reporting losses reaching thousands of dollars a pop,” said Steve Berman, one of Hagens Berman’s founding partners. “What we believe to be true from our research is that Google’s practice is likely hurting thousands of website owners and operators who feel they have no way to fight giant company like Google.”

    After the debunked Pastebin document came out, there were indeed numerous individuals commenting around the web that it sounded suspiciously like what had happened to them, sometimes matching time periods mentioned in the story. The law firm claimed the suit didn’t depend on that document’s merits.

    After the suit came out, GigaOm reported that Berman had represented Microsoft in the past, and speculated that the company was behind the whole thing. Considering that Microsoft is a major part of the FairSearch Coalition, it’s an intriguing theory. The publication, however, updated its report with a quote from Microsoft denying any involvement.

    More Allegations

    Several months later, a nineteen-year-old entrepreneur, who runs a text message site called MesTextos, claimed to have lost nearly $50,000 after Google decided the site didn’t comply with its AdSense rules. Business Insider reported at the time:

    In an email Google sent to Sami, Google says MesTextos was incentivizing or forcing people to click on ads to use the site, which is against the rules; Sami denies that. He says two different Google sales staff praised his revenue-generating efforts and, in separate emails, offered to help optimize his site to improve its performance. He says he wasn’t warned there was something wrong with his site until it was too late.

    The report included screenshots of the emails, which were in French, as well as a generic statement from a Google spokesperson, who wouldn’t comment on this particular case:

    … we always send a note to the publisher explaining which policy was in question and, in many cases, give them a chance to make changes to their pages to keep the account in good standing. Publishers are also given an opportunity to appeal policy decisions.

    According to the report, the ban came less than two weeks after Google sent the young entrepreneur an email offering to help him boost his revenues. He claimed to have spoken with the company, and that they told him “everything was good.” He also claimed to have “begged and pleaded with Google,” but was unable to figure out what Google actually thought was wrong with the site.

    Fast forward to last month. Business Insider says it has heard from seven companies that they have lost ad income when they were suddenly banned by AdSense, and that each company claims to have been following Google’s rules about ad placement.

    “Some were even encouraged or given approval by Google’s sales staff — only to be told they had been banned from the service, losing out on all the advertising revenue they had accrued,” Business Insider’s Lara O’Reilly writes.

    Last month, the publication reported on a “bunch of lawsuits,” against the company, including one from a company called Pubshare, which sued Google for about a million dollars, which was reportedly generated by AdSense before Google sent the company the following message:

    LAYOUT ENCOURAGES ACCIDENTAL CLICKS: Publishers are not permitted to encourage users to click on Google ads in any way. This includes any Complaint implementation that may encourage accidental clicks, such as placing ads near flash games or navigation bars, or placing ads and site links extremely close together.

    As the report says, the guy who runs the site and filed the suit claims to have been using the same format as other popular sites who were allowed to continue using AdSense. It also includes a quote from his lawyer, which would seem to represent the crux of most of these complaints:

    “Allowing an AdSense publisher to accumulate hundreds of thousands of dollars in earnings without any warnings of improper practices, and then abruptly refusing to pay out any of those earnings by means of auto-generated form e-mails is the very definition of bad faith.”

    Google had reportedly asked for the suit to be dismissed, but a judge allowed it to continue. Meanwhile, the suits are piling up. Included in Business Insider’s report are: PubShare (claiming a loss of $1 million); a viral news site claiming a loss of $500K, a business accelerator site claiming $200K, a publisher claiming $300K, MesTextos claiming $46,000, a quiz site claiming $35,000, and a storytelling site also claiming $35,000.

    In another report, BI points to a comment it received from former Googler Fili Wiese, who used to be on the company’s Ad Traffic Quality Team, which handled click spam and invalid clicks:

    So one thing that may not be clear here is that Google loses money too when a publisher gets banned. All money that is not paid out is in full returned to the advertiser, so Google also does not make any money. It is also important to keep in mind that Google is the client and the publishers are the suppliers. The publishers are responsible for the quality of the traffic they are delivering to the advertisers of Google. Google AdSense is just the platform which makes this easy and possible. If the publisher delivers traffic that can result in invalid clicks then the advertiser is paying for this. The trust of the advertisers is of utmost importance. Without this Google AdSense would not be possible at all. Ask yourself, would you want to keep paying for low quality products, such as invalid clicks?

    A common theme among a number of the complaints is that Google allegedly assured the sites that they were compliant ahead of the banning.

    Business Insider shares a screenshot of a conversation between an AdSense rep and the site owner in which the rep did assure them that “no additional action is needed” on their part.

    The report makes an important note that the folks at Google who are lending such approval are separate from the staff that bans publishers.

    SuperCrayCray

    Now there’s SuperCrayCray. Marketing Land brought this one to the spotlight. SuperCrayCray is a content site that seems to follow the BuzzFeed model (which seems to be working out pretty well for BuzzFeed I might add).

    SuperCrayCray says Google suspended its account the very day it was supposed to get paid. It claims to have accrued $535,000 in earnings, which were supposed to be paid out in October. The site says Google suspended it on the grounds that it “encouraged accidental clicks,” and like others before it, it claims to have gotten approval on its site and clicks from a Google rep.

    Once again, there’s a chat record, which appears in the suit. This occurs between Denis Gayev (SuperCrayCray’s co-founder) and Ryan J (an AdSense rep):

    Denis: We reported our selves previously in the month asking to verify if our site is fully complaint (sic) with all TOS [Terms of Service]. We never received a response, does that normally mean that it was checked and no issues were found?

    Ryan J: Correct, warnings are resolved once you mark them as such. If there is a future issue the policy team will get back to you.

    Denis: Honestly, our biggest concern was our CTR on our ads. We wanted to confirm if it was inline with whats normal. We wanted to double check that the CTR was not in anyway a result of accidental clicks, or what not. Is that something that’s checked periodically when a site scales quickly? Or is that something checked in the 2 week period?

    Ryan J: We do validate all clicks and impressions and are monitoring it constantly. The CTR you are seeing is within the normal range. I’m also not seeing any concerns are you site, ex. implementation that could cause a high amount of accidental clicks.

    Ryan then allegedly confirmed that the site was set to receive a payout, and the same day another co-founder of the site sent a message to an AdSense rep to make sure high click-through rates he was seeing was okay and that the ad placement wasn’t generating invalid clicks. The rep responded that Google found implementations to be “correct,” and that they appreciated the “honesty” and “efforts” to keep the account in good standing.

    Several days later, yet another AdSense rep allegedly recommended the site not change anything.

    So after all this confirmation that everything was copacetic, the site spent $300,000 promoting its content before being denied the $535,000 it’s owed and having the account suspended. Allegedly.

    Google has been relatively quiet on the matter.

    AdSense is said to account for roughly a third of Google’s revenue.

    Do you believe the publishers’ stories? Do you think Google owes them their earnings or do you think they’re really violating Google’s guidelines? Does Google need to do a better job of communicating problems? Discuss.

    Image via Google AdSense (YouTube)

  • Should Google News Be Shut Down In Spain?

    Publishers aren’t fond of the idea of not having Google News to send them traffic, it would seem. Who knew? Last week, Google announced it would shut down Google News in Spain on December 16. The day is here, and as of the time of this writing, the site is operational, but it may be gone soon. The company’s hand was forced by legislation in that country requiring news aggregation services like Google News to pay publishers for using small snippets of content.

    Should Google be forced to pay publishers or shut down Google News? Do you agree with this law? Should it be implemented in other countries? Should publishers just be grateful for the traffic they get? Share your thoughts on the issue in the comments.

    The law is similar to one in Germany that ensured publishers could charge services like Google for doing just that, but the difference with the Spanish law is that publishers actually have to charge.

    You see, when the scenario played out in Germany, publishers eventually caved, coming to the realization that they actually relied on that Google traffic. Google wasn’t going to pay them for snippets, so it just wouldn’t index those who wanted to charge. Minds were changed.

    Minds have also changed in Spain, but given the different nature of the law, a reversal might not be as easy. The Spanish Report reports that the Spanish Newspaper Publishers’ Association (AEDE) wants the Spanish government and EU competition authorities to stop Google from closing Google News. The publication writes:

    The Spanish Newspaper Publishers’ Association (AEDE) issued a statement last night saying that Google News was “not just the closure of another service given its dominant market position”, recognising that Google’s decision: “will undoubtedly have a negative impact on citizens and Spanish businesses”.

    “Given the dominant position of Google (which in Spain controls almost all of the searches in the market and is an authentic gateway to the Internet), AEDE requires the intervention of Spanish and community authorities, and competition authorities, to effectively protect the rights of citizens and companies”.

    Keep in mind, this is the group that lobbied the government for such a law in the first place. Apparently they didn’t expect Google to actually pull the plug. Now they seem to be panicking.

    Last week, Richard Gingras, Head of Google News, said:

    As Google News itself makes no money (we do not show any advertising on the site) this new approach is simply not sustainable. So it’s with real sadness that on 16 December (before the new law comes into effect in January) we’ll remove Spanish publishers from Google News, and close Google News in Spain.

    For centuries publishers were limited in how widely they could distribute the printed page. The Internet changed all that — creating tremendous opportunities but also real challenges for publishers as competition both for readers’ attention and for advertising Euros increased. We’re committed to helping the news industry meet that challenge and look forward to continuing to work with our thousands of partners globally, as well as in Spain, to help them increase their online readership and revenues.

    We’ve yet to see any comment from Google in light of this new news, and it remains to be seen if the government will indeed intervene again to keep Google News alive in the country.

    Currently, Google News is still operational from Google.es. If you go to the main Google News page, it presents the user with Google’s message about shutting down, but if you perform a regular Google search that lends itself to news, you still get news results within the regular search results, and can click through to the Spanish version of Google News like normal (h/t: Greg Sterling). This is likely how most people use the service as it is.

    This could very well go away soon, but we have to wonder if Google is in talks with the government in light of the publisher group’s recent comments. After all, they would be the beneficiaries of the law, so the law has little reason for existing if it doesn’t cater to those it’s supposed to protect.

    Do you think Google News will ultimately remain in operation in Spain, or do you expect it to actually be gone for good? Let us know in the comments.

    Images via Google

  • ‘Right To Be Forgotten’ Dangerous, According To Web’s Inventor

    A lot of people (especially those not trying to hide information about themselves) agree that the Right to Be Forgotten in Europe is problematic for a variety of reasons, including the censorship of information.

    The latest to speak out against the current situation is none other than Tim Berners-Lee, the guy responsible for the World Wide Web. Via CNET:

    “This right to be forgotten — at the moment, it seems to be dangerous,” Berners-Lee said Wednesday, speaking here at the LeWeb conference. “The right to access history is important.”

    …

    In a wide-ranging discussion at the conference, Berners-Lee said it’s appropriate that false information should be deleted. Information that’s true, though, is important for reasons of free speech and history, he said. A better approach to the challenge would be rules that protect people from inappropriate use of older information. An employer could be prohibited from taking into account a person’s juvenile crimes or minor crimes more than 10 years old, for example.

    The EU recently put forth some guidelines for the right to be forgotten, for search engines to work with, though they don’t go very far in terms of quelling the biggest concerns many have with the ruling, such as Berners-Lee’s.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Yahoo Angers Photographers By Selling Their Work

    How would you feel if the photo storage service you use decided to start selling your photos, and not share the profits with you? That’s what Yahoo’s Flickr is doing, and it’s leaving a bad taste in the mouths of some.

    Assuming the provider is within its legal bounds to be able to do so, would you mind if they sold your photos and kept all the money? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Yahoo has upset Flickr users as it sells their photos and keeps all the profit, but at the same time is not actually doing anything legally wrong, according to the company and the EFF.

    It would seem that Yahoo is trying to make better use of the content it hosts in terms of turning it into a revenue stream. This stream should be at its peak during the holiday season.

    Last week, the company launched Flickr Wall Art, enabling users to turn their personal photostreams into prints, search from over 50 million “freely-licensed Creative Commons images, and order hand-selected collections from Flickr’s licensed artists.”

    “In addition, we’ve curated a gorgeous selection of Flickr Marketplace licensed photos in various popular categories — animals, food, abstract, landscapes, patterns, and travel,” the company said in a blog post. “With the option to use Creative Commons, licensed artist images, or a photo of your own, you have endless possibilities to create the perfect holiday gift.”

    For users, that sounds pretty good. Flickr is apparently the biggest Creative Commons content partner for photos. Some photographers supplying those photos, however, aren’t too thrilled about Yahoo using their work to make money without sharing any of the profits.

    The Wall Street Journal, which highlights some complaints from disgruntled photographers, reports:

    Yahoo says it is complying with the terms of Creative Commons by selling only images that permit commercial use. The licenses “are designed for the exact use case that we’re enacting through our wall-art product,” Bernardo Hernandez, vice president of Flickr, wrote in an email.

    …

    A spokesman for Creative Commons, a nonprofit group formed in 2001, confirmed Yahoo is in accord with its licenses. Legally, “it doesn’t appear that Flickr is doing anything wrong,” said Corynne McSherry, intellectual-property director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

    It’s just that some of the photographers made their photos available under Creative Commons under the impression that they’d be used in articles or by other sources rather than Yahoo itself turning them into a source of revenue, much less one that leaves out the content creators. In fact, it’s entirely possible that the move could hurt Yahoo. If enough photographers feel that way, they could simply stop using Flickr, and take their photos to other sites that do share revenue with content creators in these types of scenarios.

    As one photographer the Journal spoke with pointed out, however, leaving Flickr isn’t that simple for those who have already invested so much into the service, and have massive amounts of photos on the service. That photographer, Devon Adams, had this to say in a Facebook post:

    I am very wary about Flickr’s new policies about selling CC images as mural art on their website. Biggest complaint is how rough it is to keep attribution with the image.

    Adams links to a blog post from Carter Law Firm, which says:

    Every Creative Commons license I’ve ever seen requires giving the copyright holder an attribution for their work. (Always give credit where it’s due!) I would hope that Yahoo would put the attribution on the front of the image – in a lower corner, so anyone who sees it can know who created the image. If that’s not possible (and good luck convincing me it’s not possible), at least put a non-removable label or notice on the back of who the copyright holder is and a URL to the original image on Flickr. If they don’t give an attribution as the license requires, they could be committing copyright infringement and could face a cease and desist letter, a bill, or a lawsuit.
    …

    I hope Yahoo is diligent about giving photographers the credit they deserve and respecting when a photographer changes the license on their Flickr account to only allow non-commercial uses. This won’t impact a person’s ability to own wall art of it prior to the license being changed; but Yahoo should stop selling it if the artist doesn’t want the company making money from it.

    This isn’t the first time Yahoo has tried to better monetize Flickr of late. It also started including ads in photo slideshows in another move that irked some of those photo providers.

    While some photographers are clearly not thrilled with Yahoo’s selling of their work, it’s certainly worth noting that the majority of the photographers the Journal spoke with were actually okay with it. 8 out of 14 indicated they were fine with the move, mainly because they’re happy to get the exposure and see people appreciating their work. It’s hard to say, based on this small data set, just how controversial Yahoo’s move is.

    Do you see a problem with what Yahoo is doing? Let us know what you think.

    Image via Flickr

  • Google Breakup Approved By European Parliament

    As previously reported, the European Parliament was considering a proposal to call for a breakup of Google. More specifically, it wants to separate the company’s search business from the rest of its offerings.

    When the subject came up for a vote, the proposal was approved. Don’t get too excited just yet though. The Parliament doesn’t exactly have the authority to act on the Google breakup. Rather, it’s just moving forward with this position in hopes of convincing regulators that do have this authority – the European Commission, which has been embroiled in an antitrust probe of Google for years.

    The Wall Street Journal reports:

    In a vote in Strasbourg, 384 legislators voted in favor of the controversial initiative, with 174 against and 56 abstentions. Lawmakers rejected a last-minute amendment by the liberal party bloc that would have dropped a key clause calling for a possible “unbundling” of search engines from other services they may offer.

    As The New York Times recently pointed out, one member of the Parliament – Andreas Schwab – was credited with drafting the breakup proposal, and also has a direct interest in Google’s business practices in that he is “of counsel” at CMS Hasche Sigle, a German law firm. This firm has represented German publishers, which have been battling Google. According to the report, Schwab claimed the proposal was a “purely political issue”.

    Joaquin Almunia, the European Commission’s former competition chief, left office a month ago, as Margrethe Vestager stepped into the position. Vestager has indicated she will take her time with the antitrust investigation. Parliament’s call for a breakup should at this point only be considered as a suggestion to be weighed along with all other related comments from various parties.

    Image via Google

  • Microsoft Sues IRS For Not Delivering On FOIA Request

    Microsoft has sued the IRS in relation to a Freedom of Information Act request.

    The company wants information related to an IRS investigation into its tax records as it conducts an audit. The audit focuses on a fee charged between Microsoft’s subsidiaries, or transfer pricing, used between 2004 and 2009.

    Specifically, the company wants details on a contract and proposals related to law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. Microsoft found out that the IRS entered into a contract with it for legal services related to the audit.

    Microsoft filed a Freedom of Information Act request a couple months ago, and the Internal Revenue Service has so far not made good on it, though it requested an extension until December 9, which Microsoft says is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

    Here’s the filing (via Electronista):

    Microsoft versus IRS

    As Reuters points out, the IRS has also looked at Amazon over transfer pricing.

    Microsoft sent us the following statement:

    “Government agencies, funded by citizens, have an obligation of transparency under the Freedom of Information Act. The IRS has failed to meet the deadline to respond to a valid FOIA request, and we’re simply asking a Court to ensure that the IRS meets its obligations.”

    The IRS isn’t commenting.

    The suit (Microsoft Corp vs. Internal Revenue Service, 14-1982) was filed in the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia.

    Image: Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella (via Microsoft)

  • Google Agrees To Remove Defaming Links In UK

    Google has settled a defamation suit in the UK, which was filed in response to content Google simply indexed in its search results. The settlement is noteworthy as historically Google has not claimed responsibility for the content in its results. It is, after all, just pointing to websites.

    Things have gotten trickier on that front in Europe, however, since the recent “right to be forgotten” ruling, which has forced Google to yank results based on requests and other criteria it has set, and is still trying to map out.

    This particular case actually isn’t directly related to that, but it’s certainly in the same ballpark, and further highlights how Google is treating this issue differently in Europe, even if it has no choice in some cases.

    The settlement (via Search Engine Land/BBC) was with Daniel Hegglin, a UK businessman, who had been called a murderer, a pedophile, and a KKK sympathizer by an alleged troll. He didn’t specifically target Google in the suit, but the company was brought into the case.

    Terms of the settlement were not disclosed, but Google said in a statement that it reached a “mutually acceptable agreement.”

    In all likelihood, this specific example of result removal is probably more tolerable by the search giant compared to the burden of the whole right to be forgotten mess. That is, by the way, getting even messier, as there’s talk that Google may have to get rid of these results throughout its global network of search engines. What once may have only had to be removed from one country’s version of Google may have to be removed from all of Google.

    Image via Google

  • ‘Right To Be Forgotten’ Going Global?

    ‘Right To Be Forgotten’ Going Global?

    Links removed from Google’s European search engines may end up having to be removed from Google’s other search engines.

    As you may know, Google has been removing links from its European search results because of what has come to be known as the “Right to Be Forgotten” law. The law enables people to request Google get rid of search results about them.

    As expected, the whole thing has been a big mess. It’s about to get even messier, as a new court ruling indicates that search engines like Google will have to extend their hiding of search results on a global basis.

    A French court ordered Google to pay fines of €1,000 unless links to a “defamatory” article are removed from its global network, The Guardian reports (via 9to5Google). The company, it says, is considering its options. The report shares this quote from a Google spokesperson:

    This was initially a defamation case and it began before the CJEU ruling on the right to be forgotten. We are reviewing the ruling and considering our options. More broadly, the right to be forgotten raises some difficult issues and so we’re seeking advice – both from data protection authorities and via our Advisory Council – on the principles we should apply when making these difficult decisions.

    Google has been engaging in something of a Right to be Forgotten tour, traveling around the world to talk with experts on how to proceed.

    This ruling adds a new element to the whole thing, as Google could face more and more fines from others following similar legal paths.

    The Guardian report has some additional context from a lawyer involved with the suit.

    In October, Google provided an update on search result removal stats. It said it had evaluated 497,695 URLs for removal, and had received a total of 144,954 requests.

    Image via Google

  • EU Court: Video Embeds Don’t Violate Copyright Law

    EU Court: Video Embeds Don’t Violate Copyright Law

    When it comes to the usage of media on the Internet, there has always been a lot of debate about what’s acceptable versus what’s unacceptable. Here we are in 2014 still trying to hammer out exactly what all falls into “fair use,” and who is ultimately responsible when copyrighted material is used in ways unintended by the copyright holder.

    It always depends on the scenario in question, but the state of the social, user-generated Internet makes it virtually impossible for content owners to truly control what happens to their product.

    The other day, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that it is not copyright infringement if someone embeds a copyrighted video on their website, even if that video itself was uploaded without permission in the first place. The basic logic behind the ruling is that embedding it isn’t making it available in a new way. If you embed a YouTube video, that’s still YouTube. It was on YouTube, and that’s still where it is, so someone embedding that video on their site using the code made available by YouTube doesn’t make that person responsible for infringement.

    TorrentFreak reports on the verdict after obtaining a copy (which here in German):

    The Court argues that embedding a file or video is not a breach of creator’s copyrights under European law, as long as it’s not altered or communicated to a new public. In the current case, the video was already available on YouTube so embedding it is not seen as a new communication.

    “The embedding in a website of a protected work which is publicly accessible on another website by means of a link using the framing technology … does not by itself constitute communication to the public within the meaning of [the EU Copyright directive] to the extent that the relevant work is neither communicated to a new public nor by using a specific technical means different from that used for the original communication,” the Court’s verdict reads.

    As the publication points out, a previous case with a similar ruling about linking was used as the basis for this ruling. Essentially, the content is there whether a third-party webpage points to it or not. Pointing to it, even via an embed is not infringement, as far as the court is concerned.

    Image via YouTube

  • Celeb Nude Photo Leak Victims Threaten to Sue Google for $100M

    More than a dozen female celebrities – actresses, models, and athletes – who were recently victimized by the iCloud nude photo leak debacle are now threatening to sue Apple Google for “failing to act expeditiously and responsibly to remove the images” and well as “knowingly accommodating, facilitating, and perpetuation the unlawful conduct”.

    Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin, and Google counsel have received a letter from a law firm claiming to represent many of the celebs victimized by the leaks. In it, lawyer Martin Singer admonishes Google for “blatantly unethical behavior” and threatens that a large lawsuit could be forthcoming – one that could exceed $100 million.

    The letter accuses Google of being too slow to react to DMCA takedown requests

    “The vast majority of those sites and ISPs/hosts, all of which are much smaller than Google, with far fewer staff and resources, complied with their obligation under the DMCA and removed the images within an hour or two of receiving our DMCA notice,” says the letter.

    The letter lays in on pretty thick – comparing the situation to the NFL’s current Ray Rice scandal and invoking the ‘what if it were your daughter’ argument.

    “If your wives, daughters, or relatives were the victims of such blatant violations of basic human rights, surely you would take appropriate action. But because the victims are celebrities with valuable publicity rights, you do nothing – nothing but collect millions of dollars in advertising revenue from you co-conspirator advertising partners as you seek to capitalize on this scandal rather than quash it. Like the NFL, which turned a blind eye while its players assaulted and victimized women and children, Google has turned a blind eye while its sites repeatedly exploit and victimize these women.” [bolding ours]

    Though this paints a pretty cut and dry picture of Google’s role in this and what Google needs to do to make it right – things are, of course, more complicated.

    For instance – does linking equal publishing?

    The letter demands that Google both remove the images from “all Google hosted sites, blogspot accounts, and Youtube channel account”, as well as “immediately remove Google search engine and Google image search results for and which display the hacked stolen images.” These are two vastly different things. The former has to do with properties Google actually owns, and the latter simply involves Google’s linking to outside properties.

    At this point, it’s unclear which celebrities Singer is representing – but it’s rather clear that this is going to be an ongoing battle.

    “Google has exhibited the lowest standards of ethical business conduct, and has acted dishonorably by allowing and perpetuation unlawful activity that exemplifies an utter lack of respect for women and privacy. Google’s ‘Don’t be evil’ motto is sham,” says the letter.

    Legal Ntc Ltr to Google 100114

    h/t The Hollywood Reporter, image via Wikimedia Commons

  • ‘Yelp Bill’ Passed In California

    ‘Yelp Bill’ Passed In California

    California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill that prevents consumers from facing legal action from businesses over negative reviews. The law keeps businesses from being able to prevent customers from writing negative reviews or penalize them for doing so.

    As a Washington Post article that Yelp points to explains, “The bill bans businesses from forcing consumers into contracts in which they waive their right to comment on the service they receive, and it also bars businesses from otherwise penalizing customers for such statements. It imposes fines of $2,500 for the first violation and $5,000 for each thereafter. If a violation was willful, intentional or reckless, an additional fine of $10,000 could be levied.”

    The bill is being referred to by some (including Yelp) as the “Yelp Bill”. The company says on its blog:

    From time to time we hear about businesses that are so afraid of what their customers might say about them that they sneak clauses into consumer contracts designed to forbid their customers from saying anything bad about them on sites like Yelp. Some of these contracts even threaten fines or legal action. These types of non-disparagement contracts not only seek to intimidate potential reviewers away from sharing their honest experiences online, but also threaten to deprive the public of useful consumer information.

    A five-star rating for a business who had used one of these clauses to simply scare all negative reviewers into removing their comments wouldn’t really represent the experience a consumer could expect to have at that business in our opinion.

    AB 2365 makes it explicitly clear that non-disparagement clauses in consumer contracts for goods or services in the state of California are void and unenforceable. What this means is that individuals writing online reviews in California are now further protected from those bad actors who hide jargon in consumer contracts in attempts to prohibit you from posting reviews — positive or negative — online.

    One hotel recently came under fire for charging guests $500 for negative Yelp reviews, but ultimately removed that from its policy after a wave of negative publicity.

    The passage of the Yelp Bill is the second favorable piece of legal news for the company in as many weeks. Last week, an extortion suit was dismissed.

    Yelp still faces a class action suit from shareholders who claim the company mislead them about the legitimacy of reviews.

    You can look at the bill here.

    Image via Twitter