The Pied Piper and Other Social Media Tales

Pied Piper (Noun): A charismatic person who attracts followers. (Merriam Webster English Dictionary)

There was a time when the only communication with the outside world during a working day was the morning post delivery or occasional telephone call. Times have changed. Mobile phones make employees accessible 24 hours a day, and the constant barrage of e-mails, tweets, text, Facebook and Twitter messages means a moment’s silence is rare.

For spheres of employment where social media is encouraged, legal problems are bound to arise. ‘Followers’, ‘friends’ and ‘contacts’ have become precious commodities in the business world, but to whom do they belong?

The Pied Piper of Hamelin and his Twitter followers 

There has been a dramatic increase in the number of social media disputes appearing in courts worldwide. In California, ‘@PhoneDogNoah’ is being sued for refusing to relinquish his Twitter contacts when he left PhoneDog to work for its competitor. Such cases are virgin territory for UK courts, so it will be interesting to see how they approach the challenge. They came close in June 2011, when Laura Kuenssberg, one of the most high-profile UK journalists on Twitter and the BBC’s chief political correspondent, left to accept a role at ITV. Formerly ‘@BBCLauraK’, it was anticipated that the BBC would claim rights to her account or her priceless 72,000-strong following. They did no such thing. Kuenssberg changed her account name to ‘@ITVLauraK’ and continued tweeting as normal.

Essentially, there was nothing the BBC could do. Taking over her account would have been futile, since those following her were doing so specifically to receive her daily thoughts and not those of the BBC. And forcing her to close down the account would be equally pointless – merely inconveniencing her fans; making them delete the old account and ‘follow’ the new one.

Although the BBC decided against legal action in this case, other employers may not be as lenient. Companies seeking to protect their brand should be wary of its use in social media, especially if it is incorporated into employees’ display names. Whilst it might benefit the account holder by attracting followers, increasing recognition and escalating their status by association, the employer’s gain may be negligible. Furthermore, without an employer-veto, employees posting freely may damage the brand by giving the impression that their tweets represent the ‘official’ views of the company.

When you can't click 'remove post'...

What happens then if the account is registered to the employee’s own e-mail address, or used to post personal updates? This distinction will certainly create an abundance of legal problems. Companies will seek to establish ownership rights over accounts which generate interest, and distance themselves from those which are detrimental to their reputation. Due to the intense value of social media, establishing the account’s ownership is crucial. Are social media accounts equivalent to a work e-mail account, where access ceases on termination of employment, or, are they more like a personal address book, to be added to at the owner’s discretion?

The only guidance to date is the High Court case of Hays v Ions in 2008. Ions, a recruitment consultant working for Hays created his own LinkedIn account, using it to approach work contacts three weeks before resigning and setting up his own rival business. The court deemed the information Ions had taken to be confidential and ordered him to relinquish all contacts taken from his e-mail address book at Hays. Notably, Hays were not granted access to Ions’ entire database as requested. This result is extremely telling: the court is seemingly ready to intervene when misuse of online social accounts occurs, but recognises the intensely private nature of the information stored within.

Whilst content uploaded from an account would probably be governed by intellectual property law, how the courts deal with ownership of the accounts and their contacts is yet to be established. My view is if an employer wants to ensure control over work-related social media, they should register the accounts to a business e-mail address, and make sure they maintain primary control. A good social media reputation is an asset to be treasured, so just like an employee wouldn't be allowed to leave with the company laptop containing sensitive data, they shouldn’t be allowed to take its followers either.

By Judy Benmayer of HighStreetLawyer.com

When Two Become One

January is notoriously the busiest month for family solicitors, and this year is no different. Katy Perry and Russell Brand have joined the hordes of couples who have decided, in a post-Christmas epiphany, that the time has come to split. Despite their short-lived relationship, the couple underwent a marriage ceremony. But how different would their situation be had they decided against it?

According to Brand, the couple chose not to create a prenuptial agreement, which seems to have been a romantic (and wise) move. The law in California (where it is believed that the couple’s marriage was registered), gives Russell a right to half of the $45m which his wife has earned during their 14 month marriage. Had they just cohabited, this certainly would not be the case- perhaps a more sensible move for Perry. Whether Brand will take full advantage of Perry’s marital earnings remains to be seen.

British lawyers are yet to reach a consensus on how separating couples should be treated; married and unmarried. There are some who believe that cohabiting couples should have equal rights to married couples, and those who are diametrically opposed to this idea. Others view marriage as morally or religiously sacred, avoiding break-ups at all costs.

Some of the most highly influential family lawyers in the country have cited their support of Mr Justice Coleridge, a judge in the Family Division of the High Court, and his plans to set up a ‘Marriage Foundation’ to encourage and support marriage. Somewhat controversially, he has put forward the view that couples who are in stable relationships should marry in order to cement their relationship further, and those considering divorce should ‘mend it’ rather than ending it. This is an interesting stance for a man who grants divorces for a living, and with a third of UK marriages ending in divorce, cannot represent the views of the average Briton.

However, with 15% of families (7.4 million people) in the UK cohabiting, it is clear that marriage is not the most desirable option for all. Many cohabiting couples are averse to idea of formalising their relationship through a piece of paper. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are those who decide against marriage because they want their relationship to remain free from the legal and social shackles it brings.

Many unmarried couples in long-term relationships have an unfounded belief that they will be treated in law as if they were married. But however the individual couple sees their relationship, there is no doubt that UK law views unmarried cohabiting couples disparately. With divorcing couples, the court’s standpoint is to pool the ‘marital assets’ and divide them as it considers fair. When it comes to unmarried couples, the court starts from the presumption that because they never married, the parties intend to leave the relationship with whatever assets they brought to it. This might be fair when it comes to splitting the CD collection, but not necessarily when it comes to deciding who gets the house, as each of them may have contributed to it since.

In order to protect themselves when moving in together, unmarried couples can create a cohabitation agreement. Similar to a prenuptial agreement for married couples, this is a contractual document setting out what will happen to the couple’s assets should they split up. However, just like prenups, UK courts do not view cohabitation agreements as legally binding or as a concrete representation of the parties’ wishes, but will take them into consideration, enforcing them if the resultant outcome is fair.

Cohabitation agreements are horribly unromantic, and are not always practical, since many couples float into living together in the fog of love. But writing a contract creates a safety net for those couples who want to protect their assets, avoid costly and lengthy legal proceedings and minimise heartache when breaking up. The Spice Girls sang ‘Be a little bit wiser baby… ’Cause tonight is the night when two become one.’ Whether or not we should be taking legal advice from the Spice Girls, I’m not quite sure, but the lyrics do speak some truth. Before you consider moving in together, it is wise to consider a cohabitation agreement, establishing your ownership rights so that you walk into your relationship protected, with your eyes open.