Some of you are probably thinking, “Ethics? We're talking about Facebook and Twitter, here, right?” Well as you will see in this video, the more involved a legal professional gets in social media, the more likely it is that an ethical question might just fall into his or her lap...
Join us on November 21, 2011 for Round II of our panel discussion with Bob Tarantino, Mitch Kowalski, Omar Ha-Redeye and yours very truly. Register here.
A video parody of “Yogi Bear” that’s much darker than your average episode of that vintage Hanna-Barbera cartoon – not to mention the coming Warner Brothers film adaptation – isn’t a viral marketing campaign gone awry. But the studio said on Monday that it wouldn’t try to take down the Web satire, either.
The video, posted on December 13th, is a well-made parody which sets Yogi and Boo Boo in a story that mirrors the end of the film The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford. It has already generated almost two and a half million views since it was posted.
Although many have argued that owners of copyrighted work should consider a more liberal approach to dealing with infringement of that copyright - or that they should reconsider their distribution models to make on-demand access to the material easier to discourage infringement - this argument has been going on since the age of bootlegged music in the 70s and 80s.
What makes Warner Brothers' action worthy of note is that this action is not in response to copyright infringement through basic reproduction of the work, but in response to a transformative use of the work; copyright reform advocates have long argued that transformative use and "remix culture" should be considered protected under fair use/fair dealing law, since they use existing elements of copyright works to create new works which should then receive their own individual copyright.
Warner's statement that taking action against the short's creators would be difficult under existing fair use law is, in that light, an admission that they believe transformative works stand a good chance of ultimately being found allowable as a fair use of existing copyright. That should be encouraging for those of us who want to make parody Youtube videos - and those of us who enjoy watching them.
Which social media tool has been most/least useful to you? Why?
From my perspective, it is no longer about which of the social media options is most useful. Our firm has a presence on most of the more popular platforms already, and they all have their places.
As I see it, one of the current challenges in social media for lawyers is integration. Once you have a website and blog, are on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube, Digg, etc., how do you tie it all together - with the least amount of extra hands-on effort - into a cohesive, seamless and consistent presence that establishes a brand or identity that is both authentic and digestible for readers?
There are lots of widgets that that utilize RSS to interconnect these resources, needless to say, but I still see maximizing the cumulative benefit of them all as a challenge. I've tried to use Wise Law Blog as a central hub to do this, but don't think that is the final answer. I will likely continue to work on better ways to accomplish this.
As a lawyer, do you find you give special consideration to how you use various social media tools?
Lawyers need to be very conscious of the "voice" we use online. Among other things, we must satisfy our regulators, speak to our intended audiences in their own language, and accomplish our own personal and professional goals, as we define them.
I've never had a struggle on this, but over time, I've certainly chosen to avoid a few hot buttons in my writing. Needless to say, online, those who disagree can be quite robust! I've not generally found engaging them to be time well spent.
How has any social media changed aspects of your practice? (Administration, marketing, client communication, other.)
I've long contended that the web and social media are the legal profession's great equalizer, allowing smaller firms to cost-effectively reach out to very large audiences, and to thereby compete globally with great success.
Done well, a law firm's web presence can become a magnet that attracts clients, interest from the press, CLE speaking opportunities, qualified job applicants, and overall, generates enhanced professional profile.
Beyond that, the available information resources at CanLii, government web sites, Canada's many exceptional law blogs, and of course, Google (to name only a few), have brought instant information to our fingertips, making us - and our clients - a whole lot smarter.
Having started my own law practice in 1986 (that's a while ago...), I can speak at great length as to the impact of the web and social media on my firm.
Bottom line - it's a very different world with new opportunity I couldn't previously have imagined.
Do you see a difference in the way Small Law vs Big Law uses social media?
Smaller firms were probably the profession's pioneers in leveraging the web.
Big firms are catching up, but they have a long way to go.
In spite of the copious money they are now throwing at their online endeavours, the best larger firms can likely hope for is the protection of their own, customary turf. Theirs is a defensive effort to stave off the various, serious challenges that have now emerged.
The "Big Law" marketplace has possibly shrunk permanently. Smaller firms may well have a decade ahead of yet-untapped potential.
For some of my earlier thoughts related to social media and the practice of law, see the following papers, written for previous CLE programmes:
Fraser said he also learned a lot about the power of the internet and about exercising extra caution when posting to social networking sites.
"Because anyone that puts anything on the internet, you're exposing yourselves and you can get yourself into trouble like we did," Fraser said. "It's embarrassing, what I did, and I'm very ashamed of the way I acted."
When asked by a reporter whether he thought the matter had been blown out of proportion, Fraser responded, "Absolutely."
Some prominent New York divorce lawyers couldn't think of another case where a spouse -- in this instance, the wife of a major Broadway theater operator -- had taken to YouTube to spill the secrets of a marriage in an apparent effort to gain leverage and humiliate the other side.
"This is absolutely a new step, and I think it's scary," said Bonnie Rabin, a divorce lawyer who has handled high-profile cases. "People used to worry about getting on Page Six [the gossip page of the New York Post]. But this? It brings the concept of humiliation to a whole new level."
In a tearful and furious YouTube video with close to 150,000 hits to date, former actress and playwright ("Bonkers") Tricia Walsh-Smith lashes out against her husband, Philip Smith, president of the Shubert Organization, the largest theater owner on Broadway,
She goes through their wedding album on camera, describing family members as "bad" or "evil" or "nasty," and talks about how her husband is allegedly trying to evict her from their luxury apartment. She also makes embarrassing claims regarding their intimate life, and then calls his office on camera to repeat those claims to a stunned assistant .
The sound on this tune is as "vintage" as it gets - kind of like Take it Easy meets Already Gone:
Here's a second version of the same song, live from the CMA Awards last evening (h/t Jeralyn):
On the Eagles news front, not only has the new album sold over 700,00 copies in its first week and knocked Britney Spears from the number 1 spot on Billboard's charts.
The group's exclusive retail distribution deal with Wal*Mart has caused Billboard to change a long-standing policy against charting projects that are sold only in single retail outlets.
According to a press release, "Billboard will now allow exclusive album titles that are only available through one retailer to appear on The Billboard 200 and other Billboard charts," effective pronto.
Now, certain people will celebrate Billboard's change of heart as a victory for classic California rock over ultra-synthetic, producer-based teen pop. Others may view it as a simple triumph of age over beauty. And some may even take it as a comforting reaffirmation of their faith in charts. Me, I can't help but see it as testimony to the undeniable market dominance of Wal-Mart.
Luis Garcia, international product manager for YouTube, said the content on both YouTube.com and YouTube.ca will be the same, but the new site will promote Canadian submissions.
The only thing that's different is that this is just a Canadian lens into that content, so if a user wants to get the Canada point of view into that global body of content, then they're able to do that.
(Although I just went to YouTube.ca, and it seemed only to redirect to YouTube.com).
The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ordered National Money Mart Company to pay $30,000 in compensation to a former, one-year employee of the company who had been subjected to ongoing, serious sexual harassment by her workplace supervisor.
Workplace bullying is a serious problem for thousands of Canadians at work. It can degrade one’s self worth and create serious health problems for workers and their families.
There has often been very little that could be done to stop the workplace bully in his or her tracks. But, in Ontario, there is now hope around the corner.
With the Ontario Court of Appeal's June 25, 2009 ruling in Slepenkova v. Ivanov, it is now clear that the nearly-universal pronouncements by management lawyers as to the death of Wallace damages after Honda and Keays may have been a bit premature.
In Slepenkova, the Ontario appellate court upheld a two-month notice extension for an employer's bad faith termination, even though no evidence was led at trial as to the specific damages the employee directly incurred as a result of the bad faith. This appeared to place the trial Judge's decision at odds with the new Wallace test set out in Honda.
Should access visitation with children via Skpe be considered an acceptable substitute where a custodial parent wants to move far away with the family's children?
Canada's family courts have reached conflicting decisions on this challenging new issue of the digital age.
Canada's press has had a field day with four sensational cases that have been winding their way through the nation's courts.
Dealing with fundamental questions at the very root of our values around marriage, children and family, these cases have captured the public's collective imagination - and ire -for very good reason.
Wise Law Blogfeatures timely articles on legal developments in Canada and the United States, along with commentary on Canadian politics, American politics, technology and noteworthy current affairs.
Launched on April 5, 2005, Wise Law Blog also highlights key decisions of Canadian courts, with focus on Ontario Family Law, Ontario Employment Law and other areas of interest.
Garry J. Wise is primary contributor to Wise Law Blog. He is a Canadian litigation lawyer who practices with Wise Law Office,Toronto. He is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School and was called to the Ontario Bar in 1986.
Garry's colleagues at Wise Law, as well as occasional guest bloggers, also contribute to Wise Law Blog.
The articles and comments on Wise Law Blog are intended to provide general information on current issues and developments in the law. They are not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should not rely upon or act on information in this, or any blog without seeking legal advice as to the matters of specific concern to them. No solicitor and client relationship is created or can be created by accessing, reading or commenting upon any post at this site.
Wise Law Blog is not responsible for and does not necessarily agree with the contents of comments posted by readers of this blog. Such comments represent the personal views of the commenters only, and are included on this blog in the interest of promoting public discourse and a free exchange of ideas. We reserve the right to decline or delete any comment posted on this site which we, in our sole and absolute discretion, deem inappropriate for publication on this site.