Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Mitigating Liability from Employee Use of Technology
Gone are the days when all that 'business technology' meant was a telephone, an adding machine and carbon paper. Today, no business can survive, let alone thrive, without providing employees with a full range of highly sophisticated electronic tools, including cell phones, computers and laptops, personal navigational devices, PDAs, and the list continues to grow.
Employee abuse of employer-provided equipment has always created a potential for liability, but the advent of the computer and the Internet has significantly altered the landscape. What is new about today's electronic tools, and what increases the level of employer exposure, is the fact that these devices enable employees to have instantaneous access to the outside world. The difference between giving an employee a telephone or a computer with Internet access is like the difference between giving a hunter a pea shooter or an AK47. The likelihood of success is much greater with the AK47, but so is the risk of a significant mishap.
Technology-based claims against employers continue to increase. Initially, many of those claims were filed by employees alleging that employers violated their privacy rights by monitoring their electronic communications. The majority of courts have dismissed those claims, based on recognition of the need for employers to control their employees' activities and protect their business interests. The more recent, and less settled, area of concern for employers comes from claims by outside third parties who are 'damaged' by employees using company-provided computers. Two recent cases illustrate the divergent views, and outcomes, that these types of claims can have.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?