Source: https://hullbarrett.com/category/general/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:52:42+00:00

Document:
The practice of sharing photos, videos, and ideas via social media outlets has become habitual, if not expected. The realm of social media has seen exponential growth in the number of companies and users alike in the last ten years. However, many (and probably most) users, eager to use the most recent and/or popular social networks, do not stop to read the terms of service of these social media services. These eager social media users do not realize that, in expeditiously agreeing to the terms of service of these networks, they are assigning the copyrights to their intellectual property and likenesses to these companies.
The Terms of Service of Social Media Networks Strip Users of Valuable Rights.
Under United States copyright law, the creator of a work such as a photograph, video, design, sculpture, painting, choreography, and so on generally retains an exclusive bundle of rights to reproduce, distribute, perform, and display the work. The creator has these rights unless he or she made the work pursuant to an agreement, or it was made in the course of the creator’s employment. As a result, generally any original photograph or video a user posts to a social network begins as the exclusive property of that user.
But, it should be noted that, like Snapchat, the licenses Instagram retains do not terminate in the event the user deletes his or her account.
What Rights do Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, and Other Similar Social Networks Have to Exploit User Content?
For example, imagine that a user posts a picture on social media of a mother and her healthy infant child right after the child’s birth. Subsequently, the social media provider sublicenses the picture to a hospital advertising the adverse effects of alcohol use on infants during the gestation period. The picture then appears on a banner advertisement on search engines every time someone searches “fetal alcohol syndrome,” or something similar. Because the terms of service of major social media networks retains rights in what users post, the mother and the child would endure the implications that the mother was irresponsible and drank alcohol during gestation, and the child suffers from the associated complications. The mother and the child would have no recourse against this sublicense.
It is imperative, therefore, that social network users address this problem with a two-part solution: education and restraint. In the event the language is unclear or the user has questions, a quick Google search may generate summaries of the terms in plain English as well as articles explaining the legal jargon. The more educated users are about their rights, the more they can protect their intellectual property and likenesses. Second, users should exercise restraint in the amount and types of content they post to social networking sites. It would be prudent for users to refrain from posting embarrassing or otherwise unbecoming content due to the fact that it immediately becomes licensed to social networks for their use.
Artists, sculptors, dancers, painters, photographers, and companies that create and author copyrightable material must be especially wary of posting photographs and videos on social networking sites. The fact that the creators of these works have exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, perform, and display these works is the primary reason those works have monetary value. While posting copyrightable material on social networks indubitably provides for nearly an infinite amount of exposure to the public, the artists, sculptors, dancers, painters, photographers, and companies are giving up the rights to the monetary value of the works. Consequently, it is important for creators of copyrightable works to protect their rights. They must take time to understand the rights they have in their works, to consult legal counsel if necessary, and to exercise restraint when posting.
 Facebook Terms of Service as of July 22, 2015.
 Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal. 2011).
 This is true for all of the plaintiffs’ claims except for an unjust enrichment claim as to which Facebook’s motion to dismiss was granted.
 See Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 2d 939, 941-44 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (approving settlement agreement).
My wife constantly tells me, “It’s not what you said; it’s how you said it.” Nothing is truer in mediations. Whether an attorney or a client, the statements you make before the mediation and in the opening statement often set the tone for a successful or unsuccessful mediation. Body language is also important. The genesis of this presentation of mediation advice is my observations over the last 16 years of small things that attorneys and their parties have done or not done during a mediation which seemed relatively insignificant, but turned out to be major factors in determining whether the mediation was successful. Many times, the parties and their attorneys do not realize how some relatively small factors can have a huge impact on the mediation. Some of those points are obvious, but they bear repeating.
Know the process before arrival – too often, plaintiffs arrive with the explanation that they are going to a meeting to settle the case. If you are an attorney, walking the client through the entirety of the process puts the client at ease and helps him/her prepare. If you are the client, and don’t know the process, ask. It is a simple point, but it happens often.
Speak to the other side before mediation begins – it is common courtesy and sets the right tone. I once spent hours calming down a plaintiff who was a long-time policy holder when the adjuster did not speak to him before the mediation began.
Don’t dump new damages on Defendants at the beginning of the mediation – it is an absolute recipe for failure. Despite court orders, no person has unlimited settlement authority.
Listen to other side’s opening – appear genuinely interested, even if you are not. Don’t check your phone constantly, and turn your phone off if you are able. Look at the other side. This is where your body language can impact the mediation.
A 45-minute Power Point is not needed – in a minor case, you will not enhance the value of your case or strength of your defenses with a lengthy Power Point.
Treat everyone with respect – don’t ridicule corporate parties in openings. The corporate representative is a person just like you. Many big companies are very safety conscious and lack of respect can really set the wrong tone. Be very careful in your comments about a Decedent if you represent the defense.
Don’t disparage the other side or their attorney in opening – Once, in opening, I heard a lawyer say, “I have tried this case a hundred times and your lawyer has never tried one.” Do you think that helped?
Don’t say “I am only here because it is court-ordered” – and you have no case or no defense. If you want to settle, it sets the wrong tone.
Don’t overstate the strength of case in opening unless you really believe it – in 3-4 hours, if you are pressuring you client to settle, they will remind you of your fighting words.
Be especially careful about statements about venue, for example, “there has never been a big verdict in this county” or “defendants never win here.” Big settlements are paid everywhere and defense verdicts happen in unlikely places.
In opening statement as defendant, don’t’ just say I am here to settle your case – look at the plaintiff, and say “this is the other side and I need to give you some perspective as to my offers.” There is a fine line and many disagree with me, but it is very important in cases with a liability defense.
Know the basic facts and names of key players – nothing tells the other side you are not serious about the case quicker than botching the most basic facts.
Be patient – especially on the defense side. It can take a while to get to know the plaintiff and bring down expectations if it is needed. As attorneys have grown accustomed to mediations, it is important to remember that many clients are new to the procedure. Also, manage expectations as most want mediations to be complete within a few hours.
Make realistic opening offers and demands – demanding $200,000 to settle a $25,000 case only makes the mediator money. Offering $5,000 initially to settle a $100,000 case is also not productive. I have never seen unrealistic demands or offers procure a better deal.
Don’t say “I will impeach the other party within an inch of his/her life, but I am not going to tell you how” – unless you are a legendary trial lawyer, empty threats don’t work and have ethical problems. Share the smoking gun or keep it in the holster.
Don’t threaten to walk out unless you mean it – if you keep saying I will leave unless the other side does X and keep staying, you lose all credibility.
An apology can go a long way to settle a case – in professional negligence cases or a really sensitive case, the Defendant saying “I am sorry” can seal the deal.
Shake hands when it is over – it is professional and sets the tone for the next time you deal with the parties.
Federal, state, and local governments all seem to be in agreement on a basic principle: it is important to protect the integrity and quality of our nation’s oceans, rivers, lakes and streams. Many states (such as Georgia) have longstanding laws and agencies dedicated to this task. Recently, however, a major battle has erupted between the federal government and at least 28 states over a simple-sounding but fundamental question: where does the jurisdiction of state and local government end and the federal government begin? The answer to this question is not an academic issue; it has such significance that groups such as the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau, and others have filed additional lawsuits over the issue within the last month.
What is the dispute, and how does it impact your home and business?
In 1972, Congress passed a law which would grow into the current Clean Water Act (or “CWA”). Regulations are issued under the Clean Water Act by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”). By enacting the CWA, Congress recognized that states historically played a pivotal role in achieving water quality goals and in regulating land and water use as well. Many states had already enacted laws and programs to protect local waterways. Rather than invalidating all of these historic state efforts, Congress believed that the best way to enhance the integrity of our waterways was to overlay federal law on the existing state laws. The CWA thus allows the states to administer some of their own programs, subject to EPA’s approval. To this end, a number of the nation’s water pollution programs are primarily administered by the states rather than the federal EPA.
In an effort to resolve the mystery and bring clarity to the boundary line between federal and state jurisdiction, two federal agencies (the EPA, along with the U.S. Corps of Engineers) published a new regulation on June 29, 2015, attempting to define what they consider to be the “waters of the United States” (often referred to as the “WOTUS Rule”). The WOTUS Rule is controversial for several reasons and touched off a series of lawsuits and actions in Congress seeking to change or invalidate the administrative agencies’ new rule.
Thus the law is currently in a state of upheaval – which is problematic for anyone who owns or uses property. According to the enacting agencies, the WOTUS Rule is a reasonable interpretation of Congressional intent, scientific findings, and decisions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court and others. To its critics, the WOTUS Rule is the result of a flawed rulemaking process which failed to take the concerns of interested stakeholders into account, and which oversteps the limited federal power that the Constitution of the United States otherwise reserves to state and local governments.
The national Chamber of Commerce, for example, contends in its lawsuit that the WOTUS Rule potentially will bring more than 8.1 million miles of rivers and streams under federal regulation, as opposed to the approximately 3.5 million miles presently categorized as “waters of the United States.” The Chamber of Commerce thus concludes that under the WOTUS Rule, “virtually any business that owns or operates a facility or has property could be adversely affected, particularly if it has ditches, retention ponds for storm water runoff, fire/dust suppression ponds, or other surface impoundments on site.” The enacting agencies have not yet filed a response to these allegations, and typically have at least sixty days from service of the complaint to respond.
The enacting agencies, by contrast, contend that these types of claims and concerns are either overblown or that they misunderstand the new WOTUS Rule. According to the enacting agencies, “[t]his rule makes the process of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation of our nation’s water resources.” The enacting agencies also contend that the WOTUS Rule has a much more limited impact than do its critics, only estimating more modest increases of “between 2.84 and 4.65 percent in positive jurisdictional determinations annually,” if not an actual decrease in the scope of jurisdictional waters under the CWA. The agencies also contend that the increased costs of implementing the WOTUS Rule will be more than offset by the economic benefits derived from implementing the new rule. One would expect that all of these contentions, in one form or another, are now being challenged in court.
As of today, there are at least nine separate lawsuits challenging the WOTUS rule, brought by 28 individual states (including Georgia and South Carolina), and 29 private parties and trade organizations. These lawsuits, generally, seek injunctions against the implementation of the WOTUS Rule and/or an order declaring the WOTUS Rule invalid. Additional plaintiffs and lawsuits would seem likely as well, and it is fair to say that the myriad of procedural issues surrounding the disputes are quite complex.
When does the WOTUS Rule take effect?
To steal a phrase, the jury is still out. The WOTUS Rule provides by its terms that it takes effect on August 28, 2015. Given the various lawsuits which have already been brought, as well as pending Congressional action aimed at preventing the WOTUS Rule from being implemented, it remains an open question. There are multiple requests to courts to enjoin the implementation of the WOTUS Rule, and the House of Representatives voted at least one bill out of committee to essentially defund agency implementation of the WOTUS Rule. All of these things, however, will take time — perhaps considerable time — to resolve. And given the looming presidential election process which is fast approaching, it is uncertain that the WOTUS Rule – even if it clears all of its hurdles – will ever actually have the effect of law at any date in the future.
So, ultimately, why does this matter to you?
The short answer is, even the enacting agencies recognize that the WOTUS Rule may have a significant impact on consumers and the economy. The enacting agencies concede, for example, that the WOTUS Rule is a “major rule” which is defined as a regulation likely to result in “an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000.00 or more;” “a major increase in costs” for consumers, industries, government agencies or geographic regions; and/or likely to create “significant adverse effects” on employment or markets. Any person, business, or local government that wants to develop or use land may now be subject to a federally mandated permitting regime which can impose significant cost, expense and complexity on any project. Or, given the multiple pending lawsuits, it may not. The state of affairs thus adds an element of uncertainty as to what, exactly; the applicable law is for the short term.
Thus, ironically, a rule designed to clarify the law may have instead brought more uncertainty than already existed. We will continue to monitor the various lawsuits and legislative activities surrounding the WOTUS Rule, and will be providing an update as events warrant.
 See, e.g. Ga. L. 1964, p. 416 (Georgia Water Quality Control Act of 1964, O.C.G.A. § 12-5-20 et seq.).
 In addition to improving water quality, the Clean Water Act recognizes that states have primary responsibilities to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, and to plan the development of land and water resources. 33 U.S.C. § 1251(b).
 To date, all states except Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Mexico have EPA-approved NPDES programs. EPA governs Native American lands. State Program Status, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, http://cfpub.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.gov/npdes/stormwater/authorizationstatus.cfm (last visited March, 25 2013).
 United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121 (1985); Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001); Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).
 Hawkes Co., Inc. v. U.S Army Corps of Engineers, 782 F.3d 944, 1003 (8th Cir. 2015) (Kelly, K., concurring).
 80 Fed.Reg. 37,054 (June 29, 2015).
 Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et. al. v. EPA, No. 4:15-cv-386, Complaint filed July 10, 2015 at ¶ 83.
 See 80 Fed.Reg. at 37,076-77 (June 29, 2015).
 Chamber of Commerce, supra at ¶ 90.
 80 Fed.Reg. at 37,055 (June 29, 2015).
 Chamber of Commerce, supra at ¶ 89.
 80 Fed.Reg. at 37,054 (June 29, 2015).
During the last legislative session, the Georgia General Assembly passed House Bill 386 which eliminates the annual ad valorem tax on motor vehicles. Beginning March 1, 2013, when you title a car in Georgia, you will pay a one time title fee instead of the annual ad valorem tax and also avoid the sales tax due at the time of your vehicle’s purchase.
This new law will apply to new and used vehicle purchases as well as casual sales which are sales between two private individuals (not by a licensed dealer). The one-time title fee rate will begin at 6.5 and rise to 7 percent in 2015. Even at 7 percent, this fee is less than or equal to the current sales tax in most counties. Cars that are purchased prior to March 1, 2013, will have the option in 2013 to opt-in to this new program by paying the title fee by December 31, 2013 or continue paying the annual ad valorem fee.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 12
 § 1251
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.