Online Social Networking & Business Collaboration World – The Law meets Web 2.0
I’m at Day Two of Online Social Networking & Business Collaboration World, where I’m chairing the plenary sessions and enterprise streams.
Other posts:
RIchard Kimber, CEO of Friendster, presentation
Rebekah Horne, head of Fox Interactive Media Australia and Europe, presentation
Francisco Cordero, GM Australa, Bebo, presentation
Ross Ackland, Deputy Director, World Wide Web Consortium
Laurel Papworth, Director and Social Networks Strategist, World Communities
Paul Marshall, CEO, Lassoo.com.au
Partner event: Enterprise 2.0 Executive Forum on 24 February 2009
The Law meets Web 2.0
Donna Bartlett, Partner, Holding Redlich
Rewards:
* Value in collaboration
* Meets expectations of business customers and partners
* Allow open and instantaneous exchange of information e.g. LinkedIn
* How those entering workforce expect to engage
Legal implications:
* In Web 2.0 content comes from various streams with uncertain intellectual property
* On blogs, need to consider moderation, what is and isn’t permitted, and who is responsible for the content on the site
* To what degree site owner is responsible for implications of content on the site
* Most website owners and contributors don’t understand their legal implications
* Copyright infringement – need to know you have the necessary rights – very difficult to manage as people don’t understand or don’t believe in it
* With large websites, it’s hard to monitor – so is it reasonable to place the onus on the website owner for content on the site?
* Defamation – anyone responsible can be held liable – in fact some sites are set up specifically to ridicule and lower the reputation of people or companies
Nick Abrahams, Partner and Sydney Chairman, Deacons
Deacons did social networking survey earlier this year. Commissioned research on how people are using social networks in the office – 700 people were interviewed. Only 14% are using social networks in the office, with a strong demographic skew to younger people.
Employers taking chances when blocking Facebook, says Deacons.
Employment related issues:
Employers want to shut down Web 2.0 sites for productivity issues and IT resources, and are looking for legal reasons to do so.
If a senior male manager asks a junior female employee to be a friend on Facebook, it raises issues. If he then has *very* casual photographs of himself on his site and open discussion of his personal life, it can be inappropriate.
People not getting invited to social functions can be considered discrimination.
Facebook’s terms and conditions says that the information cannot be used for commercial purposes, so doing checks on job candidates is a breach of T&C.
The End User License Agreement (EULA) on Facebook makes alumni networks challenging as it gives Facebook great control over user information.
You won’t bring a defamation case against an impecunious blogger. So send them a sternly worded letter if you can identify them, or if not get to them through the ISP, but they want you to prove that it’s defamatory. However they will respond more quickly if there is an intellectual property infringement, as they lose their defence that they’re not aiding and abetting that.
You need to manage how you give people access to a great voice inside the organization. How much do you want to open up? Are you ready for the feedback, especially if you allow anonymous comments. You need policies to be established. The broadcast nature and visibility makes it riskier than what is said at Christmas parties.
DISCUSSION
Codes of conduct are usually in place. They require refreshing in a new environment.
Companies cannot be defamed any more, only individuals, but there is still injurious falsehood.
If you are creating a venue for people to interact where you explicitly don’t moderate, there is a potential defence. However if it’s a smaller site where you would be able to moderate it effectively, you would be more liable. You need to make your T&Cs evident.
