News

Second Life is a website in which Internet users pay, with real money, to meet virtual people, do virtual activities, and buy virtual property.  Tens of millions of dollars have been spent on the website, demonstrating the possibility of making money from online communities.

Some of the website’s users have brought a class action suit against Second Life, claiming that they were misled about their ownership of virtual property.  The plaintiffs’ Second Life accounts were terminated, depriving them of access to their virtual property.  They are also claiming that their virtual property was devalued because Second Life now allows anyone to create land on the site.

Second Life asserts that users own the copyright of the content they create on the site and that they own virtual property.

However, when a user becomes an “owner” of virtual property by buying it from the site or another user, it seems they are paying for a license.  This may or may not incorporate an intellectual property license.  For example, the design may not be sufficiently original in order for it to be copyrighted.

Another situation is that users may be paying for something that has nothing to do with a copyright, e.g. buying a house next to a virtual celebrity’s house, which might cost more than an identical house in another location.  The user is not buying something that is protected by copyright.

If Second Life terminates an account, they are not taking the user’s copyright in the content he created.  They simply stop using a license the user has granted.

The court now must decide whether Second Life has been misleading users into thinking they are buying intellectual property protected by a copyright.

Can employers fire or not hire someone based on comments posted on Facebook, Twitter or other online social networks?  There is no simple answer.

The issue could wind up in court, resulting in lengthy and expensive legal proceedings, and damage to both parties’ reputations.

Conducting Internet searches on current or prospective employees can give rise to claims of discrimination and harassment, and that the employer’s decision was based on unlawful criteria.

Even if the company can articulate legitimate reasons for its decision, there is always a chance that the jury will believe that the results of the Internet search were the employer’s true motivation.

For example, a North Carolina school district was sued after it terminated one of its employees, the latter claiming his position as a “role model” in “the school community” was damaged.  The district countered that the “damage” was caused by the plaintiff’s MySpace page, where he revealed himself as a follower of the Wiccan religion and his wife as a bisexual.

Other cases have been brought based on gender, racial, and religious discrimination.

These cases make it clear that employer review of employee social media comments can open the door to litigation.  Even meritless arguments must be investigated, which takes significant time and expense.  Employers may be better off if they avoid employee social media pages.