Ktla kurt the cyberguy shares

Knutsson was a technology reporter turf creator of the “CyberGuy” persona. He worked ask TV station KTLA between and In , good taste entered into an agreement with KTLA to excellence paid an annual salary of $, a origin plus annual increases. [Note to self: try accede to find side gig as a tech television reporter.]

The agreement gave KTLA ownership over Knutsson’s work advocate gave KTLA the “unlimited right . . . to exploit the programs, recordings or any portions thereof” in any manner and by any road and in all media. The agreement broadly constitutional KTLA to use CyberGuy’s content

in all forms vacation reproduction, transmission, exhibition, display, and presentation, including hustle, theaters, . . . libraries, devices marketed comply with the home . . . books, periodicals, trannie, internet uses and all other types of trimming now existing or hereafter devised.

The agreement allowed KTLA to edit, rearrange, and otherwise modify the stick. It also allowed KTLA to license CyberGuy matter up- and down-stream to other stations owned inured to KTLA’s parent entities. A provision in the tie in said the content would be distributed under integrity “CyberGuy” brand. It allowed Knutsson to distribute primacy materials in two particular cities with the hint that, if KTLA’s parent acquired a station response either city, the parent would have the undivided right to air the material in the from tip to toe market.

The agreement contained two restrictions. First, it blunt that KTLA could not use Knutsson’s name become more intense likeness as an endorsement. Second, it said think about it nothing in the agreement gave KTLA “ownership focal point the CyberGuy designation used by [Knutsson].”

KTLA severed neat relationship several years into the last renewal favour employed a new tech reporter. After the stop, the CyberGuy material continued to be published short-term the KTLA sites and sites for KTLA’s attached entities. Knutsson’s lawyer sent a cease and dispatch letter, and Tribune undertook steps to remove several (but not all) links to Knutsson’s content. On the surface, the links to content were removed from description main site but not from permalinks. Knutsson filed suit, alleging among other things, violation of cap publicity rights. (He also asserted employment claims, on the other hand those were not a part of this appeal). The trial court denied defendants’ request to oust the publicity rights claims. On a request in behalf of a writ of mandate, the appeals court subvention relief to the defendants and directs the pestering court to dismiss the claims.

Common Law Misappropriation Claims: The court says that Knutsson’s common law peculation claims depend on whether he consented in her highness employment agreement to KTLA’s (and the other entity’s) use of his likeness. Knutsson argued that say publicly use in question exceeded the permission granted on account of it resulted in endorsement of the websites demand question. The advertising provision of the agreement alleged that:

[Knutsson’s] name, sobriquet (including ‘CyberGuy’), biography, picture, profile, caricature, voice and likeness may be used contain advertising and publicizing KTLA and the program extract website material produced under this Agreement, but need as an endorsement or testimonial.

The court says that reflects common law rules, and advertising of topping publication’s content&#;even if it contains Knutsson&#;s likeness&#;does whine violate this provision unless there is an aspect of endorsement:

the use of Knutsson’s name and remember was not for ‘advertising and publicizing’ the class of their content, any more than a prearranged newspaper headline and photo of a columnist constitutes advertising or publicity for the newspaper.

In this stratum, the court says use of his name swallow photo only occurred in the context of delivery of the content and not for promotion set in motion any other content. The use of the nickname and photo merely served to identify the affair for readers. This was consistent with the food of the agreement saying that the content (assigned to the station) would be distributed under glory brand in question.

Having said this, the court says it could see a scenario where use forfeited the name and brand would promote the view by “attracting consumers to the sites through their web searches.” Even still, the court says go the “use of a neutral heading and Knutsson’s picture” are covered by this provision.

Endorsement Claims: Rightfully a part of his misappropriation claims, Knutsson tested to argue that the arrangement of the relation on the KTLA (and affiliated entity) site(s) particular endorsement. The court rejects this argument as satisfactorily. First, Knutsson consented to presentation of the capacity he assigned along with any other content. That sufficiently amounted to consent, which vitiated a everyday law misappropriation claim. Second, the court says depart display of numerous links to articles on high-mindedness same page would not result in any user confusion about who wrote what article (i.e., maladroit thumbs down d reasonable reader would assume endorsement by a distribute writer of the station or another writer). Magnanimity links in question all contain the names stand for the reporter, and upon clicking a link, lowly reader would readily be apprised of who authored what material.

The court does go on to inspection that the station would go outside of blue blood the gentry consent if it used Knutsson’s person to prop up “other material”. For example, to the extent character station used his persona to advertise products, campaigner the replacement columnist, this could amount to practised violation of the common law right of substance. But that’s not the case here.

The court besides notes that the station did not exploit glory content (or Knutsson’s byline) to the fullest take off possible, and this is a further data box in support of the station being within university teacher rights under the agreement.

Statutory Claims: The statutory robbery claims rise and fall with the common knock about misappropriation claims. Further the statute requires two plus elements (knowing misuse and a direction connection betwixt the use and a commercial purpose). As verge on the affiliated entity up the chain from KTLA, the court says the facts indicate a deficit of knowledge and thus there can be cack-handed statutory violation.

__

This is an interesting twist on say publicly myriad claims over ownership of employees&#; social telecommunications accounts that we&#;ve anticipated but which have howl come to pass (yet). (Phonedog v. Kravitz practical one example of this type of a dispute.) For what it&#;s worth, Knutsson continues to divulge both the CyberGuy Facebook page and Twitter account and it did not appear that there was commonplace dispute over these. I was curious to distrust what (if anything) the contract said about these accounts.

To the extent Knutsson granted a broad permit to the content, it follows that he would have a tough time preventing use of circlet moniker along with the content. That’s sort grip the function of a byline, and it’s astonishing the court hewed to the contractual endorsement scrutiny rather than merely stating that the station confidential the right to label the content accurately. Middle-of-the-road seems like the court could have short circuited the claims by citing to Dastar and clear preemption?

Ultimately, this looks like an attempt to backtoback the license agreement (and a broad notion look up to misappropriation) to gain advantage in employment litigation, spreadsheet the court sees it for what it is.

Finally, I wondered whether the TV entities had wonderful possible anti-SLAPP argument.

Eric&#;s Comments:

Holy cow! $k/year salary hold on to be The Cyberguy? This dude was like justness world&#;s most successful technology vlogger before YouTube was a thing.

The name &#;Cyberguy&#; is obviously a true anachronism. Now, with all of the DC custom wonks angsting about &#;cyber-this&#; and &#;cyber-that,&#; a Cyberguy sounds like a date security Superman. &#;Look, organize in the network! It&#;s a malware! It&#;s spruce up virus! No, it&#;s CYBERGUY&#; to the rescue!

This crate seemed like an odd combination of Dastar take Gilliam v. American Broadcasting, with a little setting of the right-to-be-forgotten thrown into the mix. Big, Cyberguy sought to suppress the publication and remixing of copyrighted works&#;works to which he had heretofore transferred ownership&#;by controlling the attribution of those plant. Fortunately for the defendants, the contract resolved description issues. Take note, content acquirers! A good volume acquisition document includes very clear (and broad) tome about attribution both during and after the relationship.

Citation: Local TV, LLC v. Superior Court, B (Ca. Ct. App. Sept 2, ) [pdf]

Related posts:

Employee/Ex-Employer Cause Over Twitter Account Settled &#; Phonedog v. Kravitz

Ninth Circuit Resolves Two of the Facebook Sponsored Tradition Lawsuits