Recent Legal Opinions on Internet Marketing

Online marketing comes with many legal gray areas. Recently some very important legal opinions have been rendered in an attempt to clear up confusion. Some of the most relevant issues include keyword purchases by a competitor, privacy of Google Street View images and fair use of online content. Additionally, the social networking world was ablaze the past few days over what were viewed as draconian additions to the Facebook Terms of Service.

Here is a summary in case you missed it or are just seeking to catch up:

Name “Hi-jacking”

Where’s The Beef? Yahoo Wins Pay-Per-Click Dispute

A federal court has handed Yahoo a victory in a lawsuit stemming from a dispute about pay-per-click ads. The case, like many other complaints stemming from search ads, concerned whether Yahoo should have allowed a keyword allegedly associated with one company to trigger an ad for a rival.

High-end meat retailer Heartbrand Beef, based in Yoakum, Texas, says it’s the only U.S. seller of “Akaushi” beef, or beef from cattle that were descended from a breed originally from Kumamoto, Japan.

The Texas company alleged that a rival beef marketer, Lobel’s of New York, used the term “Akaushi” to trigger pay-per-click ads on Yahoo. Heartbrand argued that this use of the term Akaushi was misleading and constituted a “false designation of origin”–which is prohibited by the  federal Lanham Act.

Read full story on MediaPost.

Content Privacy

Google wins Street View privacy suit

Aaron and Christine Boring sued the Internet search giant last April, alleging that Google “significantly disregarded (their) privacy interests” when Street View cameras captured images of their house beyond signs marked “private road.” The couple claimed in their five-count lawsuit that finding their home clearly visible on Google’s Street View caused them “mental suffering” and diluted their home value. They sought more than $25,000 in damages and asked that the images of their home be taken off the site and destroyed.

Read full story on CNET.

Fair Use and Content Copyright on the Web

Blurring the Boundaries Between Fair Use and Copyright Violation: NYTimes and GateHouse Media Settle

Here’s the legal issue in a nutshell: Just about everybody agrees that people who create original content should be able to protect their work. They are the copyright holders. Also, just about everyone agrees that the free flow of information is necessary for a knowledgeable and engaged society. Thus, information needs to spread easily. It’s not hard to see that there is a natural tension between these two premises. The law attempts to resolve the conflict using the doctrine of “Fair Use.” Under this doctrine, it’s okay to use other people’s content in limited ways and at limited times. Whether you’re stealing content or just making ‘fair use’ of someone else’s content is often not an easy call. Reasonable minds can and do disagree on this topic.

Read more on the SEOMOZ blog.

Finally, Facebook does an about face (no pun intended) on its recent terms of service flap.

Privacy advocates expressed concern that the terms gave Facebook too broad a right over a users’ information, going beyond the terms established by other social media sites. Mr. Zuckerberg initially defended the changes in a blog post Monday, saying they were designed merely to clarify issues the old policy didn’t adequately address. In particular, Facebook wanted to reflect the fact that content users remove from the site continues to exist if they shared it with other Facebook members.

The outcry continued, as tens of thousands of members protested the moves by joining groups on Facebook. Mr. Zuckerberg announced the decision to revert to the old policy in a second blog post late Tuesday night. After consulting a range of “outside experts,” the company decided to re-establish the terms that existed before Feb. 4, he wrote.

Read full article on WSJ

Tags: copyright, lawsuits, legal opinion, Pay per click, privacy