I presented at this terrific conference about social media and the law. I touched on a couple themes including copyright, online reputation and privacy. I took a new approach (for me, at least) and used my diabetes as an analogy for how non-lawyers tend to approach Legal.

1. Advertising &
Marketing Law
#amlaw13

2. I’d like to share a personal story*
* @pauljacobson

3. I was careless and
I knew better

4. On the 5th of February 2013, my life changed

6. Suddenly my indulgences became hazards

7. What does this have to do with social
media and the law?

8. Without thought
to consequences ...
even though you
know better

9. You never think you will overdo it
or things will go wrong

10. Copyright

11. Where is your team
getting its content?

12. Did they obtain permission?

13. How are you licensing
your content?

14. This is Trey Ratcliff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scobleizer/5916015734/

15. http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/8837173497/

16. Privacy on the social Web

17. You know POPI
is coming

18. “consent” means any voluntary, specific and informed
expression of will in terms of which permission is given
for the processing of personal information"

19. “processing” means any operation or activity or any set of operations, whether or not by
automatic means, concerning personal information, including—
(a) the collection, receipt, recording, organisation, collation, storage, updating or
modification, retrieval, alteration, consultation or use;
(b) dissemination by means of transmission, distribution or making available in any other
form; or
(c) merging, linking, as well as restriction, degradation, erasure or destruction of
information;

20. ‘‘personal information’’ means information relating to an identifiable, living, natural
person, and where it is applicable, an identifiable, existing juristic person, including, but not
limited to—
(a) information relating to the race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, national, ethnic
or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental health, well-being,
disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth of the person;
(b) information relating to the education or the medical, financial, criminal or employment
history of the person;
(c) any identifying number, symbol, e-mail address, physical address, telephone number,
location information, online identifier or other particular assignment to the person;
(d) the biometric information of the person;
(e) the personal opinions, views or preferences of the person;
(f) correspondence sent by the person that is implicitly or explicitly of a private or
confidential nature or further correspondence that would reveal the contents of the
original correspondence;
(g) the views or opinions of another individual about the person; and
(h) the name of the person if it appears with other personal information relating to the
person or if the disclosure of the name itself would reveal information about the person;

22. Expression and Reputation

23. Perceptions are important

24. The social Web
amplifies

26. “Chris Cairns removed from the IPL auction list due to
his past record in match fixing. This was done by the
Governing Council today”
Lalit Modi on Twitter, 5 January 2010
(tweet has been removed)

27. The original Tweet was received by only a limited number of followers within
England and Wales. One expert calculated that they numbered 95, the other 35.
The parties have sensibly agreed that I should take the figure of 65. The second
publication, to Cricinfo was on their website only for period of hours. The expert's
figures for numbers of readers of this publication are respectively 450 and 1500. I
shall proceed on the basis that about 1000 people read the second publication,
which I have found carried the less grave but nonetheless serious meaning that
there were strong grounds for suspecting that the claimant had been involved in
match fixing. In respect of the second publication I also bear in mind that Cricinfo
have settled with the Claimant, paying him £7,000 damages and a further sum for
costs.

28. Modi was ordered to pay £90 000
in damages

29. Modi was also ordered to pay £400 000
in legal costs

30. The test for determining whether words published are
defamatory is to ask whether a ‘reasonable person of ordinary
intelligence might reasonably understand the words . . . to
convey a meaning defamatory of the plaintiff. . . . The test is an
objective one. In the absence of an innuendo, the reasonable
person of ordinary intelligence is taken to understand the
words alleged to be defamatory in their natural and ordinary
meaning. In determining this natural and ordinary meaning the
Court must take account not only of what the words expressly
say, but also of what they imply’
Judge Willis quoting Argus Printing and Publishing Co Ltd v
Esselen’s Estate in the Joburg High Court case of H v W

31. Something else to bear in mind
It gets worse ...

32. 2003
Collection of 12 000 Californian
coastal properties
Government sanctioned and
commissioned project
She sued for $50 million
Went public and over 420 000
people viewed the photo online

34. “If you try to stick up for what you have a
legal right to do, and you're somewhat
worse off because of it, that's an
interesting concept.”
Michael Avery, Toshiba’s attorney,
commenting on the 2007 Digg revolt

35. There is more and it gets worse

37. The result was astonishing

39. Do you have a plan in
place to anticipate
these risks?

40. Back to my diabetes

41. Do you want your
business on chronic
medication
administered by
lawyers?

42. Or will
you start
running?

43. ... and monitor your legal exposure regularly?

44. Thank you!*
* Questions to follow ...

45. Questions

46. Can personal information be supplied to 3rd parties?

47. Can you collect children’s personal information
using incentives to persuade them to disclose
their personal information?

48. What is POPI’s impact on promotional
competitions and what are promoters’
obligations?

49. What are the rules governing prize giveaways
on Facebook? What is acceptable?

50. Viral marketing defamation risks?

51. Possible retrospective implications for pre-POPI
personal information processing

52. Must sources be included in video representations?

53. Any more questions?

54. Paul Jacobson
paul@webtechlaw.com
@webtechlaw or +Web•Tech•Law
webtechlaw.com