Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Using Digital Tools To Assess and Remedy Online Reputational Damage
The speed with which negative Internet postings spread can cause immediate reputational harm. To remedy this harm, the nature and extent of the damage must be quantified, which is no easy task. This is true whether a defamation lawsuit is pursued or whether a public relations strategy is used. However, new digital tools can now be used to assess and quantify damage caused by these kinds of negative Internet postings.
Easy and widespread access to digital media not only allows users to publish defamatory statements far and wide with the click of a mouse or the tap of a cell phone screen, those same false statements can also can be instantaneously re-posted, cross-posted, picked up by video, and “liked” or shared on social media channels. They then begin to populate search engine results for searches of the target's name and spread still further. Unlike print media, false statements on the Internet are not limited by either geography or time. To the contrary, they can cause severe, lasting and global reputational harm. Indeed, the European Union Court of Justice has ruled that its citizens can demand that search engines, like Google, delete links to embarrassing personal information ' even if true. (The “right to be forgotten” is in the EC's Proposed Data Protection Directive Update (2012).) As explained further below, although Internet defamation presents unique challenges for its victims, the digital platform also presents unique opportunities to assess and quantify reputational damage stemming from the negative publication and to repair that damage.
Proof of Reputational Damage in Litigation
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?