Now, I wouldn’t blame you for thinking that a presentation on ‘The Law and Social Media’ at a firm of lawyers in a CBD office might not be the most exciting part of Singapore’s Social Media Week … but, for this attendee, Lionel Tan’s presentation was one of the week’s highlights.
Whilst Lionel’s content was interesting and his delivery very enthusiastic I should add that the outdoor Level 21 of Rajah & Tann’s office with its stunning downtown views wasn’t too shabby a location either.
Lionel covered off several areas and alluded to some specific Singapore examples in his comprehensive roundup despite his not having a lot of time.
In this post I’d like to share with you some of his key points and, in this time of mass sharing, remind you of some copyright basics that have not really changed despite the huge evolvement of the online landscape and what can now be done without a second thought and often with complete (unintentional) disregard for the law.
If, in publishing this post for example, I use a copyright protected image that I quickly Googled I may be breaking the law. Reproducing third party content attracts liability and there’s vicarious liability for organizations whose employees do the same. We need to remember this.
I’m regurgitating Lionel’s broad statements here and hope I’m being accurate and broad at the same time. I know too that there are lots of other considerations here and notions of Creative Commons and the rest but it’s worth remembering that in the age of push sharing there are still some very important legal implications.
Lionel gave some very good advice. He said that we should look to understand what it is we are trying to do with our Social Media communication and understand and pre-empt the risks around our goals. In addition to this, one should also look at the specific platform(s) and understand its specific characteristics and pitfalls.
As I mentioned, several specific examples were mentioned including the case of Gary Yue Mun Yew, who posted a doctored photograph of a Vietnamese soldier executing former Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng by holding a gun to his head.
He also mentioned the case (alluded to during an earlier presentation that day) of the Singapore SMRT spoof site set up in reaction to the alleged lack of response from the ‘real’ SMRT.
The use of the logo, said Lionel, could quite possibly be infringement. During that earlier presentation the audience was enjoying a laugh and lighthearted moment over the content on the spoof site without seemingly any concern for any possible copyright infringement. It’s perhaps this type of situation that epitomizes our sometimes casual disregard for copyright and the law when it comes to some social media.
Lionel mentioned an interesting new trend in which companies are mining their competitor’s social media output and that of its employees in an attempt to extract directions in strategy and sentiment through detailed analysis of all social media interactions.
When it comes to the law, things are changing in Singapore at least with new legislation in the pipeline. In the meantime, Lionel was keen to stress, any organization or company could prevent some huge headaches by setting up T&C’s on any Social Media pages to manage expectations and protect against future problems.
He also suggested that companies trying to enforce blanket bans on their employees’ use of Social Media might not necessarily be heading in the right direction and a strong policy with clear guidelines could be a better route. He cited Intel as a good example.
My main takeaway is that we would all do well to remember that there are still laws even in this seemingly free and easy space.
And we should, I think, be aware of a pervasive sentiment in our online society that seems to think that copyright isn’t important anymore and that there is some inherent entitlement to whatever we want and having to pay for something went out the window a few years ago.
