An interesting question in case an employee uses a twitter account for "almost" business purposes and leaves the company. Are twitter account an asset? What's their value? and who owns them?
Interesting NYT article below, about a lawsuit taking place in California.
I'd like to hear what you think of it.
I personally think that there should be a distinction between the accounts "tolerated" by companies and the ones in which companies are actually investing (eg. emplyees time, ...)
Happy holidays,
Salva
--
Lawsuit May Determine Who Owns a Twitter Account
A lawsuit filed this summer could answer the growing question of whether a company can claim ownership of an employee’s social media account.
http://nyti.ms/todWE3
I see this an extension of the question of ownership of contact lists and the like - the Twitter element perhaps makes it more newsworthy.
ReplyDeleteFor example, back in 2007, in the UK, the High Court ruled (PennWell Publishing (UK) Limited v Isles) that a list of contacts amassed by an employee was the property of the company.
There are some differences here - the list was not stored on the company's computer, but on Twitter's servers - but the basic principle is the same, that the list was created in the course of employment, and the account was created with a prefix referencing the website in question.
Personally, the part which gets me the most is the argument that a Twitter account could constitute property and thus be capable of ownership, but that's perhaps another matter - if just seems to stretch the already-thin notion of intellectual property to breaking point.
From a practical point of view, the employment contract or company handbook should make this sort of thing clear, whether it is a contacts database, a list of clients or the use of a Twitter account post-employment, along with the practical issues of ensuring that the company has the password and the like.
Two things jump out at me here:
ReplyDelete1. 'workers who are increasingly posting to Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus during work hours'
Speaking in an anecdotal sense from an American workplace standard, the expectation everywhere I worked was that anything done on work time was for the purposes of the company, except in rare exceptions where it could not be done during non-work hours, such as calling a doctor's office. Therefore, if Mr. Kravitz was using Twitter, then it was for company purposes.
Of course social media has done much to blur the boundaries of work and play. I recall in the earlier days of such sites, when companies blocked twitter, facebook, linkedin and the like from their networks, before realizing the positive, company promoting aspects of them.
2. 'over time, had amassed 17,000 followers. When he left, he said, PhoneDog told him he could keep his Twitter account in exchange for posting occasionally...But eight months after Mr. Kravitz left the company, PhoneDog sued, saying the Twitter list was a customer list'
Really? I'm not sure whether to be more appalled at the idea that PhoneDog may have made such an agreement sans contract, or if true, that it then took them eight months to figure out the value of Mr. Kravitz' Twitter list.
I'll be curious to see how this one plays out in the US Court system.
> anything done on work time was for the purposes of the company
ReplyDeleteI think that this was very much the case a few years back, but I think that there is a less clear divide between "working time" and "not working time" - if people are expected to be on calls during the evening and the like, there is often an expectation of flexibility; something done "in the office" or "during working hours" may well be a personal activity, I'd have thought. (I think this goes towards your point that social media is blurring boundaries.)
> I'm not sure whether to be more appalled at the idea that PhoneDog may have made such an agreement sans contract
I think that many, many agreements are made without there being any evidence in writing. A risky strategy, but my feeling is that many people, even in a business context, simply do not bother, relying on trust instead.
(I'm guessing you mean a written contract here - if Kravitz's assertions are true, it would seem that all the requirements of a contract are made?)