Digital Media Triage: Managing Legal Risk in a Crisis

welcome back and here we are i hope you've all had a lovely morning tea um wherever you may be feed up comfortable on the couch settle in now for our legal superstar also known as the world's best lawyer paul gordon who's now a partner at warm and lawyers welcome paul thanks for having me uh if you're active in social media club adelaide you'd be very familiar uh with this guy who is

so generous with his time um answering probably what is the most basic questions around copyright defamation um and other laws that govern how marketers can legally operate in this country just a bit more about paul in case you've missed it in previous years paul has a broad commercial skill scare with specializations in the areas of technology media law intellectual property and corporate governance he is one of the adelaide's leading experts on

social media and privacy law and having been recognized in doyle's guide for leading technology media and telco lawyers and for leading intellectual property lawyers ball provides advice and if you do have any legal queries uh we strongly recommend that you contact him outside of this forum paul does have discord open at the moment so if you have any queries as the presentation's going feel free to address him at paul gordon in

the discord chat and he'll try to get to your questions uh in the session um paul's got a pretty full presentation today and we're really really excited to have him uh thank you again for your time paul look forward to your presentation so without further ado let's cross to the woman lawyers office in king williams tree in the city to mr paul gordon hello everyone um it's lovely to be here i

always love um in being involved in digital adelaide and social media day i think it's one of the best events uh in the sector around the country so great work to the team for putting together a great event in unusual circumstances as you're being said i have got discord open so if i'm ever looking to the side that is the reason why the challenge for today is to i can see when

people put up gifts or memes out of the corner of my eyes so if you can put up a relevant gift to distract me that's the challenge we also have our first question which is whether or not the best way to cook a brisket is unwrapped wrapped in butcher's paper or wrapped in foil from rhymes that's very relevant to what we're talking about today and my answer is wrapping pink butcher's paper

once you get the stall so i'm going to be i'm going to be talking about the large and generally scary world of digital law but whilst i might scare you a little bit let's uh try and keep a little bit more upbeat and give it a bit of a different title before i go any further this is the usual slide to say that i am a lawyer i'm talking about law but

this is not legal advice i haven't considered your circumstances before you rely on anything i'm about to say particularly with respect to cooking brisket consult a lawyer and if you need to consult a lawyer those are my details i'm also available for microsoft paint uh editing if you need it i'm pretty awesome at ms paint photoshop scares me but anyway um that's where you can find me so today it's a slightly

different from from the title which was digital triage but the issues that i'm going to be going through are what i have seen as being the major areas in which crises arrive over the last 12 months and that's really been in the areas of privacy liability for online content which includes social but also it can be on websites adverts etc if we have time we'll do a copyright deep dive and then

q a um loving the gifts christine in particular that one is amazing um you cannot underscore you're missing out so let's talk about privacy and i've i've covered a number of these topics in other sessions either at social media day or digital adelaide or other social media sessions that we've run um so i'm not going to go through the full gamut of any of these topics firstly because i've done it before

and secondly because we don't really have time but i'll just do a very quick refresher so as you may recall hopefully that there is no right to privacy in australia but we do have the privacy act and the privacy act applies to people and organizations who have a turnover of three million dollars a year or more so i'm afraid all of you one percenters who are earning more than three billion dollars

a year you personally have privacy obligations um but as do companies health and fitness are also covered by the privacy act and people who deal in data so if you're buying or selling data then you are caught and the one area where people sometimes forget that is if you're selling a business that includes customer information you are then dealing in data even if you weren't previously caught by the privacy act and

what that means is that if you're not in any of those categories you don't have to worry about the privacy act you can go and deal with people's information as much as you like and there's nothing much they can do about it if you are working for government be it commonwealth state or local if you are working for a government instrumentality like a university then you've got your own set of privacy

laws called the information privacy principles and that is what's going to govern what you do talk to your in-house legal about that if you are in those various areas this all covers personal information which is pretty much anything from which a person's identity can be determined um so it could be someone's voice it could be their image it could be a picture of their car with a personalized license plate all of

those kinds of bits of information are personal information even though it isn't clearly stating it is someone's name if someone who knows the individual would be able to identify them that is enough but in australia you can do pretty much whatever you like with someone's personal information as long as you tell them what you're doing so you don't need consent to collect use store disseminate personal information accept in some very limited

circumstances you do however have to keep it secure and that's where we've had some pretty significant issues in the last 12 months mainly in the area of ransomware so i've had a number of clients uh come to me in the past 12 months where their systems have been hit with a ransomware attack and even though the ransomware attack isn't aimed at accessing personal information the fact that the hackers had access to

the system is enough to mean that you have privacy or issues arising from it in terms of consent you only need consent when you're dealing with sensitive information so health medical political affiliations uh sexuality race religion etc if you're keeping any of that information you need consent and it can be withdrawn or if you are using the personal information to market to people which i'm assuming a lot of you will do

so if you are using remarketing techniques if you are tracking people with pixels then you are using their personal information for direct marketing and you need either their consent or for them to reasonably expect that you would be doing the direct marketing with that information we've just had a question on tick tock chrissy i will get to tip top when we get to copyright so that is absolutely on the cards so

since last year when we talked about all things privacy we've had a few pretty significant things happen firstly facebook has been sued by the information commissioner which is interesting as someone who has currently got three or four matters against facebook i wish them luck it is good fun trying to pin facebook down apologies to facebook if anyone um from there is it from it is on this webinar um if you can

let me know how i can serve papers on you i'd be really grateful because it is frustrating but that's going to be quite significant as to whether or not they are deemed to have breached privacy and then we've also seen a number of cases taken by the information commissioner about work practices which had disclosed personal information unlawfully so we had a group of psychologists who refused to hand people's information back to

them we had spotless find for disclosing the names of certain employees to a union there was a company who got in trouble when they used information for direct marketing that they got from a third party so they'd hired an agency to gather information on potential customers and then use that list for cold calling because they didn't inform the individuals at the point of collection that they had that information or how they

got that information they were then fined now the interesting thing here and what can give you all a little bit of relief from any concerns about the international commission or swat teams coming through your windows is that in all of those cases the monetary damages were actually quite low so the commissioner can find individuals up to 370 000 per breach and companies up to 1.7 million per breach but each of these

fines were in the order of three to six thousand dollars so it's to be honest i'm a little bit surprised by how low those v fines were but that's what's happened so far and it's really interesting to see what information has been the subject of breaches so the majority of it is contact information the information commissioner puts up a quarterly report on what privacy breaches there have been over the preceding quarter

and that means these are only situations where there have been breaches which have been deemed to potentially cause serious harm to the people whose information is exposed so if a company has a data breach and they don't think it's going to reasonably cause serious harm to people they don't have to report it and the numbers don't get into these graphs so i find it actually quite interesting that there has been over

400 cases in the past quarter where just contact information has been disclosed and that's been deemed to be serious enough that it would cause harm to the people whose information was disclosed i mean financial details you'd expect that health information tax file numbers etc absolutely understand why that would cause serious harm if it's just someone's name and address that must be an interesting context in which it occurred and the majority of

it has been because of malicious and criminal activity which once again is surprising i mean that's a lot of religious activity going on where people have lost information 64 32 human error the number of times i get calls saying sorry we emailed the information to the wrong person it's too many to actually account and then four percent system faults and in terms of the malicious attacks they're mainly cyber incidents institute ransomwares

and hacks etc rogue employees keep your employees happy because they can absolutely take your information away social engineering is actually lower than i would have expected um and the effect of paperwork or dollar storage devices another one we just pointed out that there was a little bit more than a small fine for a spam act breach and that's absolutely right so for those of you who didn't follow it in the news

woolworths copped a consent fine of over a million dollars for breeders of the spam act where they were sending marking material to people who did not ask for it and when they didn't when they asked to unsubscribe didn't unsubscribe them and so the awcc certainly said the acma took them to court and then through consent orders they would find a massive amount of money so it's generally a good idea to not

only have an unsubscribe link in all of your external communications but actually let it work so if someone asks to be taken off take them off the other thing that's been quite prevalent in the last one we talked about last year and i think we'll continue to talk about it for some time to come is the gdpr for those of you who haven't heard me talk on this in the past it's

basically the european privacy law that came in in 2018.

and the gdpr came in with much fanfare because for the first time it was an external facing law as well as internal facing within the eu which means that it doesn't just apply to companies in the eu so basically when it came in everyone freaked out for australians it's important to know that there is no monetary threshold like with the privacy act so you might not actually be covered by australian laws

but you absolutely are covered by european laws if you offer goods and services to people in europe or you monitor the information of people in europe and there's a lot of conjunction as to whether or not that's only eu citizens or eu permanent residents or if it's just an australian who happens to be checking their email from strasbourg they have significant penalties and there are much small stringent obligations on you because

you need consent from people to collect their information with gdpr sensitive or otherwise you also have to provide them with the right to be forgotten and to withdraw their consent at any time unless you have a legal obligation to hold on to that information if you are monitoring information in the eu or you are offering on a regular basis you also have an obligation to have a person on the ground in

the eu to take on any privacy complaints that you get so it's pretty draconian it's pretty strong um i'm sorry i'm just back on the spam act chrissy wants to know how the unsubscribe button didn't work it was a deliberate act um look i don't know the exact detail my understanding was that they had an unsubscribe link but when it was clicked it didn't actually remove people from the database automatically and

that was the breach but i'm having to take them on on notice so with the gdpr there's been a lot of debate as to when things kick in so if you have a website that happens to allow people to order things from europe then are you caught i'd say probably not unless you are actively promoting it as offering worldwide shipping or offering services worldwide or having things that allow for translations currency

conversions that sort of thing um in 2019 2020 there were 340 cases with over 158 million euros in fines the biggest of which was to google the smallest line was 90 euro which makes you wonder why did they bother um i went through and i had a look at the various cases that came up in that period and not a huge number were outside of the eu google was one of them

in general it has been the large players outside the eu who have fallen foul of the gdpr although there are some cases in relation to smaller entities but generally then that's quite egregious bridges of privacy of people in the eu so there was a firm that was running political ad monitoring and they bring the privacy of people in the eu because they were working on an eu based campaign even though they

were based in canada they were then taken on for gdpr breaches the upline is clarified thank you they had customers in their database sharing email addresses if someone used that email you let me know i'm subscribed they only underscored that user they didn't underscribe the other users sharing that email address if they assumed they were separate users there you go thank you ryan um also questions does that mean gdpr doesn't apply

if you're sending from servers in eu but you're saying to au emails jasmine that is absolutely correct the only time the gdpr will apply is if you are collecting information of people in the eu so your data provider hosting provider in the eu may have gdpr obligations but you as an australian company simply using a controller that's what they call so you would be controlled sorry a processor in the eu doesn't

require you to comply with the gdpr if however you are collecting information with anyone who transfers through the eu or anything like that you absolutely could be caught it depends upon whether or not it's a once-off or if it's something that happens on a regular basis so these are the kinds of things that you need to be concerned about um do you sell products as people in you do you does your

site of a currency conversion translation or specifically mentioned eu countries are you systematically monitoring information about people near you so if for example you have google analytics and you are seeing significant traffic from the eu and you are able to identify personal information from those analytics then that might be an issue if you are collecting information about people's criminal history in particular it doesn't matter how small your operation is that is

automatically caught so we have had some clients in the past who are doing checks on potential employees or who because of anti-money laundering legislation have to monitor activity in the eu and that becomes problematic for them obviously if you are concerned that a non-south australian contestant will win master in fact when you are with me i know i'm conflicted i was team callum so anyway that's my heartbreak so that's privacy so

if anyone has any other privacy questions now's your time um i will give you five four three two one awesome no privacy questions if you have privacy questions you can absolutely still put them in so the other major development that we've had in thank you we've had in the law has been to do with online publication and in general it array it relates to defamatory content misleading deceptive conduct or breaches of

advertising standards there's also copyright breaches that we've seen issues arising and the major development has been in terms of responsibility for content online the major question that we see is who has published content if you're working for a marketing agency and you are distributing content from a client who is responsible for that content once it gets out there into the wild in the case of algae pathways which is one of my

favorites i mentioned i think every presentation because i think it's amusing that you could try and cure peanut allergies with acupressure maybe you can apologize to you acupressure enthusiasts out there but in that case the court said that the media published to make known sorry my own quote which doesn't help me or to produce a thing for publication it can mean to expose or display to public view and this case basically

arose from the question of whether or not a company was responsible for comments posted on its website and for comments post on social media channels and it all came back to this case law from 1937 about bulletin boards and the question there was if i have a bulletin board and someone posts up a notice at what stage am i responsible for that having been published the court in that case held that

once it was brought to your attention that it was there if you had control of that bulletin board you were responsible as if it was your document that had been posted on there and so we developed this system through allergy pathways and other decisions about a requirement of monitoring and acting upon notifications of improper content being posted on a channel that you control so the a3c basically said the amount of time

that you need that you can take to remove content depends upon your size the size of social media you're following how reasonable it would be for you to take something down so if you are a multinational company with lots of resources you have to take it down quicker than if you are a mum and dad operation operating out of your lounge room and that was also something held up in the smirnoff

and tom standards board case but now unfortunately you may have to start being a little bit psychic and the reason for that is the dylan bowler case now this one was a pretty high profile case when it came out so dylan voller was the young man who was in detention at the dondell corrections facility in the northern territory and he was photographed in a spit hood tied to a chair there was

lots of controversy as to the appropriateness of the restraints and bridges of human rights a number of media organizations published stories about this in which they encouraged comments on their page but also they pushed it to their social channels and allowed comments to be made by the public on those stories the public was a little bit very harsh and posted some absolutely disgusting comments about mr voller and he was less than

pleased he without any notice to the news companies in advance of this commenced proceedings against them for defamation the media companies said well hang on a second this isn't our content we didn't publish it you didn't tell us that you were concerned about it so what's the problem the court held about a year ago that on the limited question of who had published the content the media companies were responsible now we

don't have a decision as to whether or not the common comments were in fact defamatory or whether there are defenses to defamation but on the question of whether or not it was the media companies who had published the content the court in new south wales said sorry media companies you pushed people to these pages you encouraged them to make content you made comments on the content and you used really um inflammatory

headlines in an attempt to get more clicks there's a lot of evidence about the amount of money and incentives that were provided to journalists at these organizations to try and get more engagement on social so that was a single judge and no one really did much about it there was a bit of uproar at the time but it went on appeal pretty quickly to the full bench of the new south wales

court that court about a month and a half ago upheld the decision they upheld the fact that if you are a publisher of content and you have a public facing page that you control and have the ability to deal with you are responsible for the content that is posted on it and whilst the full court didn't deal with this issue the original decision included a comment that you have that obligation before

the content is displayed to the public so it's not just you have to check it on a reasonable for a reasonably frequent basis it was that you are responsible before it even appears on your page and whilst it had been pointed out to the court that well there's no real function in facebook for example to allow you to do that the court said well make one up don't take it together so

what the court said everyone should be doing is having content filters on all of their digital outlets which are normally used for profanity as profanity filters and just add common words to it and the part a et cetera to try and capture everything and through doing that you can then moderate the content doesn't help if people use intentional misspellings doesn't help if people use images which may contain text but the court

didn't seem to really think about that so unfortunately the position at law at the moment in australia is that you must pre-moderate any content that third parties put out there so if you are running a campaign that requires you know competition requires third parties to put up commentary if you are hosting a website of some kind if you have any kind of album where people can post commentary then you are responsible

but now let's know does having posting rules on your pages avoid your responsibility no so if you've got something out there that says you are responsible for what you post and you mustn't post anything defamatory but someone posts undefamatory you are still responsible you can't contract out of that obligation so it's left us in a really weird position now i'm sure the case is going to be appealed to the high court

whether or not they agree to hear it who knows but when there was just one judge in new south wales the rest of the country could kind of say yeah that's that's relevant but it's not binding on us now that it is a full court decision it becomes highly persuasive for other four courts and also potentially binding on single judges in proceedings around the country so the landscape has unfortunately changed and

where you are dealing with high-risk matters you need to be incredibly careful about allowing people to post things online and being really vigilant to prevent commentary coming up there unfortunately i don't have an answer to you as to a neat legal way to get around this um i mean it's great news for us lawyers to mean there'll be a bunch more cases i mean i i must admit i have used in

a case um the argument about some rather unflattering things that were said by about a client and i will continue to do so because that's now the toolkit i have to play with but for people who are running digital content it can be really scary um the other thing that we've seen more and more of is influencer issues so people who are either putting themselves out there as influencers and not disclosing

that it is in fact an advert or people who are shoot using a photograph of someone to apply they endorse a particular product that is not a new issue but it is one which has continued to bubble away and i think we're going to see more and more of it we've seen recently the uh interesting issue of ivanka trump and her beans advert which was confusing on many levels but that was

a if that would happen here in australia there may well be issues with respect to whether or not it's misleading conduct to not disclose that that was for done for a political purpose or for a commercial purpose in general there are significant issues with using influencers who don't disclose whether or not they are being paid or been given a benefit to post a comment similarly if you are using someone's image without

their permission even though it might be an image that you own from a copyright perspective you may still fall into difficulty if they say that you're implying an endorsement that doesn't exist um i've gone to s and sorry the double a a code came out where it basically said that do you have a reasonable degree of control over the material it doesn't mean material draw attention to the public amount of calculated

promoter product if um if so there's no require to label it as commercial i'm i just don't agree with that i'm sorry double a i think that if you provide a product to someone with the expectation or hope that they will give it a positive review and you've provided it to them for free then you're giving them a benefit there's an incentive for them not to be honest with their review because

if they give it a bad review they are less likely to get another free product from you so i'm a bit more conservative than the double a a on that but use your unconscious i guess a case which has come out very recently that is of major concern to anyone who uses click wrap so that's your standard terms and conditions on your website for whatever it is you're doing is one to

do with unfair contract terms it used to be that there was this regime of unfair contract terms uh sorry uh lady graham adelaide salesman's causing classes influencers uh content appear on their pages paper by clients but does it do much sponsored content generally yes then if someone has received promotional collateral or payment for something and it's advertorial it may be an obligation to tag it as such it's it can be a

gray area depending upon what's going on there i wouldn't want to comment on any of those particular cases but the general position is that if you are being paid for something and you are putting it out there as if it was not an advert then you may be engaging in misleading deceptive conduct and you may be reaching out to standards codes unpaid contract terms so almost every website uses some form of

click wrap be it a box that you have to click or just terms and conditions at the bottom of your website and for a while now there has been a law which says that if you have a standard form consumer contract or a standard form contract with a small business you cannot include unfair terms and up until now there's been very little guidance from the course as to what unfair means that

changed about a month and a half ago with a decision involving bendigo back where the question in the context of a different act that was under the asset act um was asked as to whether or not their terms and conditions were unfair and so we now have a bit of guidance as to what will be or won't be unfair contract terms generally anything unilateral will be skirting the line of being fair

unfair so if you have the ability to change your fees without their consent or if you have the ability to modify your offering without notice that may well be an unfair contract term if you have indemnities in place so one of the big ones which has been identified is that there was a case where a company said you will indemnify us for any loss or damage we suffer as a result of

providing you with our services reasonably standard sort of thing the court said was well that doesn't make sense because if the customer has no control over it if it's not their fault or their action that caused your loss why should they be identifying you that's unfair the other thing is that there's an imbalance in rights so if you have full control of how services are provided and the customer doesn't then you

can be reasonably sure that's an unfair term if you want to control things by the contract so unless you are allowing your customers to negotiate contracts with you and make amendments to it in a bona fide in a real way you probably have a standard form contract if you're consumer-facing it's definitely a consumer contract if you're a small business facing it's probably a business contract small business contract and so you need

to be really careful that your contracts aren't entirely invalid because they contain unfair contract terms that's another fun one that's come up over the last couple of months and now we're going to what was going to be topic number one and i forgot to change the slide copyright now the reason why i'm going to do in the next eight minutes a copyright deep dive is because this continues to be an area

that i get a lot of questions on a bunch of the different groups that i'm involved in and whilst we've gone through some of it in previous years i think it is still important just have a quick refresher so copyright is an ip right that protects the original expression of an idea it does not protect the idea itself and we've got some lovely flowery wording about clothing an idea in material form

which basically means that i can have a great idea if i tell you that idea that's not protected by copyright if i write that idea down the form of words i've used to describe the idea are protected but the idea itself is not once again microsoft paid skills are amazing just so you know and copyright provides you with the right to reproduce content the right to publish it communicate to public perform

it adapt and transmit it broadcast it and transmit it so that basically means that anything that is created by you in the context of the digital campaign or anything else is going to be protected by copyright but it also means if you are using memes or images you found online then you may be infringing copyright through your use of it and it covers basically any form of expression so writing images sculptures

dramatic works musical work sound recordings cinematograph films which is just fun words to say it's the best movies as long as they are substantial and so there's been a whole lot of commentary as to whether or not something is or isn't substantial uh there was a case taken against the panel back when that was a show as to whether or not its use of clips firstly fell within fair dealing exceptions so

those are the get mgl free cards and also the substance whether or not they were substantial enough to constitute a copyright work but there's really inconsistent guidance as to what easel isn't substantial so for example supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is substantial whereas the man who broke the bank at monte carlo is not exxon is not but it was brilliant and the slimy toads was so if you think i'm just using it a little bit

it doesn't have copyright maybe maybe not it all depends upon how iconic or how substantial it is in terms of the impression that leaves a reader or viewer of the content the other thing is that it must be original so if i was to reproduce for example the content of the phone book that's not original i'm actually turning the mind to it and this becomes really interesting when we have a i

created content as to whether or not something that has been created by a machine is the copyright of the person who created the code and where machine learning comes in we become we get into a really interesting area and the my favorite case on this actually involves a monkey where i'm not sure if people have seen this as some great articles in the new yorker about it a photographer dropped his camera

in a in an area that was filled with monkeys one of them took the camera and took an amazing photograph of itself with the camera smiling at the camera and the photographer then tried to enforce copyright over that image but as he hadn't taken the image he didn't own the copyright so you need to be the author it needs to be created with independent intellectual effort skill and judgment or view some

form of creative spark even rebecca black's friday probably qualifies for protection and it is owned by whoever created the content so if you are as an agency creating copy for your clients unless there is a contract or something in writing assigning that back to your client you own it which means you can do what you want with it after it has been used for that client we often have people get very

confused by this and think well hang on a second i paid for that content surely i own it that's not the way it works if you are an employee your employer does own the content that's the only time that really changes or if you are taking uh portrait photography for some reason portraiture is owned by the person who commissioned the portrait um you're welcome you are absolutely welcome often we find orphan

works that means a work which you find online which you can't work out the creator of in other countries they have provisions with respect to orphan works in australia they don't which means you can't use it even though you can't figure out who owns it and it runs for 70 years after the death of the creator um or the death of publication there's no identified creator and chrissy that is actually a

really good case to reference now once your people saw what happened with the bit of the social media stash between she digital and south austin with cozzi but basically content was created by she digital for client the client thinking that they owned that content gave it to cozzy cozzy used the content and based on that use there was a complaint made by she digital saying hang on a second you're using our

copyright content the challenge there is that kovi did not know that the content wasn't in fact free to use and so there was a legitimate complaint against his user because he didn't have copyright authority to use it but he was acting in good faith and so it becomes really a difficult situation if you don't know the provenance of the content you're using which is why it's always important to ask the question

of your clients okay you've got this this photography on this video or this copy do you own it and ideally can you prove that because if they can't you're putting yourself at risk remembering that the publication is by you if you're the one putting it out there this is where links copyright the vola decision all together um the other thing is to remember that your copyright rights may be limited by jurisdiction

or time or use so it might be that you have as in the case of the lucy corn's cosi issue the client did have a license to use that material but only in a limited manner and so it was the use of that material in a manner not contemplated by the license that caused the problem so really interesting uh sort of area to think about is what am i allowed to do

with this content when it's given to me you may think you can get away by saying that this is all fair use keep in mind fair use does not exist in australia it does exist in the us and here we have only fair dealing which allows for limited use of materials so it must be for your own research and study for criticism and review satire and parody reporting of the news or

providing legal advice if you don't get into those areas and it's not public domain you need consent if you want to use a substantial part of copyright material which brings us to i'm going to skip through to chrissy's question of tick-tock tick-tock in my opinion almost certainly infringes the copyright of the individuals who use whose music is being used in that medium now i think that the political satire tik tok so

you know the android pro and you know this is not your uh you're in charge this interview mine or the misogyny speech tick tocks and all those sorts of things those i think would absolutely fall within the fair dealing exception for parody or satire however if it is me lip-syncing to rebecca backs friday firstly what's wrong with the world but secondly i'm almost certainly breaching her copyright even though i'm only doing

it for a short burst it is still a bridge and that's different from a position in the us where things would most likely cover that usage so apra which is a collecting society so an organization that goes out and collects money for performers and producers of content has been lobbying for tick tock to actually do the right thing um i think the problem with trying to take action against tick tock is

they're not based here so it would just be an absolute nightmare if you were going to try and get tiptok to cough up the cash that may well mean that they are going to i kind of do um they are going to most likely have to go after individual creators which is not really economic because if i go after that 14 year old who's you know breaking out some dance moves firstly

for that pr more consecutively unlikely to have much money but if brands start using tick tock and if brands start using copyright material that's what i think we're going to start seeing cases brought against them in relation to that use in terms so the question about tick tock is t use of donna do you think governor's likely within the flight shut it down in australia so beyond the copyright question is the

question of data security and sovereignty and under existing laws unless it was able to be shown that tick tock was providing information to foreign governments or that it was using it in a manner which was inconsistent with the privacy act i think would be a little bit challenging for them to shut it down and take it and get rid of it without new legislation which is entirely possible or even regulation under

the privacy act or other data security measures that there are um at the moment i think that it is only likely to happen in a political context rather than in a uh more cyber security context just because of the nature of what tic toc is being used for but i mean it is still mine a huge amount of data i mean just people's faces and identities is massive so i think it

is entirely possible that that may occur it could also be through sanctions that against china that teton could be shut down on that basis in the same way that huawei has been blocked from the 5g network tick tock as you would have seen in the recent full page adverts in the advertiser are really wrong there's nothing to see here it's perfectly fine perfectly safe i don't have a tiktok account not only

because i like coordination but also because i think it is a little bit creepy um but at the end of the day unfortunately you have to go where people are people are on tick tock so i think at the moment you're going to have to weigh the risk of it being shut down versus the reward of engaging with people on it but if you do engage with people on it i would

strongly encourage you to consider what material you are actually using to ensure that you aren't breaching someone's copyright now other quick thing one day i get to change the site about instagram because we've been talking about official regramming for years i think in fact robina would have been the one who mentioned that rebranding was coming possibly even last year um my last check was that there's no official regramming allowed at the

moment um but please feel free to correct me on discord if that's wrong but that means still regrounding is copyright infringement never forget so um the only other thing to remember with using copyright content is that consent is one thing fair dealing is another thing neither of them get you past moral rights so if you've got the permission of a company to use material on their on your digital channels they don't

own the moral rights of attribution and integrity that the author of the material does so they might have you know jimmy in graphic design who's creating some content that you're using if jimmy wants his name on it you may have to put his name on it even though you have the consent of big bad corporation to use the content vice versa if you have jimmy's permission to use it you would still

need the corporation's consent to use their copyright material if they own it so moral rights are something that you can't really get out of unless you get waivers from the individuals who created the content well so resharing on stories is now able to be done thanks christy so that would be fine go for your life but re-granting is not remember the distinction so do you have to credit everybody every time depends

on the context if you're doing sign writing you probably don't if you're using someone's photograph you probably do there we go only seven minutes over time i think that's not too bad um do i have time to quickly touch on facebook competitions and what is slash isn't allowed as entry mechanisms so many people business ask people to share this post which i thought wasn't allowed do any pages actually get shut down

for not following the rules so the rule against share this post or tag in this post etc um is a facebook returning condition not a legal requirement there are huge amounts of regulation of competitions in australia that are legislative requirements of other things like whether or not it's a game of chance or getting skill whether or not your prize calls over certain amounts whether it's open to people in different areas as

to whether or not you need permits in terms of the facebook competition rules that is as i say their terms and conditions and it does seem that people get away with it quite a lot um enforcement is very patchy will continue to be patchy for some time um unfortunately there's not much more i can say than don't do it and if you don't expect you might get caught but maybe you won't

um i think that's probably all we have time for at this stage unless anyone tells me otherwise i would say so paul thank you so much um it was really worth giving you that extra 10 minutes thank you for touching on tick tock as well um from both from the copyright perspective but also the more recent um more pressing issues around data what it's tracking on your phone where that data may

be going um and again thank you so much for your time fantastic presentation um i loved your instagram slide personally um there's been some great questions too from everyone and if you want to watch it back this will be available as will other sessions uh live on demand so we're just going to take a quick couple minute break to switch over and we'll be back with ryan jones talking about websites