By Duncan Calow, 5 June 2008 14:54
COMMENT
With the explosion in user-generated content, many bloggers and posters seem to think they can operate beyond the reach of the law. Not so, says lawyer Duncan Calow.
Blogs, social networks and other user-generated content blur the line between reader and author. Internet users are now content suppliers, not just content consumers.
User-generated content regularly appears alongside mainstream media. But are people aware of their legal liabilities when they supply that content?
User-generated content:
Key issues
1. The legal pitfalls of user-generated content are principally defamation, infringement, harassment and incitement.
2. There are moves towards codes of conduct or special rules for bloggers.
3. There remains a lack of consensus or clarity among a burgeoning blogging community on the way forward. 
Sites with user-generated content may differ from conventional media channels in their style and purpose. But their content is still publicly consumed and they have the equivalent potential to cause harm and offence.
Indeed, far from being immune from the law, user-generated content is in particular danger of falling foul of it.
Our latest research shows only a small number of all internet users - about five per cent - are clear about their legal rights and responsibilities when commenting online.
Even those users who have posted a comment online are unsure about their legal liabilities, with more than three-quarters of bloggers uncertain or unaware of where the law stands.
That ignorance might not be surprising when only a third of regular internet users say they read the terms and conditions, disclaimers and guidelines for posting comment.
It's not as though some haven't already had cause to be concerned - in fact one in seven (14 per cent) users has had comments removed or taken down in the past, rising to more than one in four (28 per cent) among those who blog.
This ignorance also persists in the face of some high-profile disputes. We've seen several employment cases with bloggers sacked, or at least disciplined, for comments posted about their workplace.
Perhaps many users would realise that slagging off their employer online might be something to avoid but there are plenty of other issues to watch out for beyond defamation and employment law.
Just over a month ago, a blogger in Wales was convicted of posting a grossly offensive and menacing message online. He was prosecuted and fined under provisions in the Telecommunications Act for comments made about a police officer's family.
It's probably fair to say that most UK bloggers would never have heard of that legislation, let alone understand its impact on them.
Indeed there are a range of laws that can catch offensive messages posted online, as well as other provisions, ranging from specialist intellectual property issues to incitement, that can trip up the unsuspecting blogger.
Confusion over the relationship between this law and their online activity clearly puts users at risk, prompting calls for better - or bespoke - regulation of user-generated content.
Suggestions have included bloggers' codes of conduct and special liability rules. While half of internet users we polled felt bloggers should be held to the same legal standards as the professionals, only 27 per cent of bloggers themselves think they should.
Opinion is equally divided about self-regulation. Approximately half of users would consider signing up to a voluntary charter or code but a significant proportion (19 per cent) are either firmly opposed or unsure.
It is true of course that, ever since the earliest bulletin boards, users have got into difficulties with their posts along with the online services that carried them. Yet the importance of the user-generated content legal framework looks likely to increase.
As many as 84 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds have participated in some form of user-generated content and the overall volume of people commenting online shows a sharp increase.
That growing demand for, and willing supply of, online feedback, commentary and citizen journalism means - on the face of our survey evidence - there will be an increasing number of users who'll say they'll publish and be damned.
Yet many might be better off being damned sure they know what the law says before they next press submit.
DLA Piper is the world's largest global legal services organisation with more than 3,700 lawyers across 64 offices and 25 countries. Its award-winning technology, media and commercial practice employs 70 partners specialising in IT, telecomms, media, sport and IP law. Experts in convergence between the technology, communications and media sectors, it advises some of the world's leading multinational entertainment, media, sport and technology companies.
Comments
There are 2 comments. Join the discussion
1. Richard
Lawyers and law-makers - too often the same people - really should sort out the chaos they've created in the real world before invading the virtual one.
In the real world, much of the law is accessible only to the very rich or the very poor; there are so many crazy new laws that most people are breaking at least one.
The few new laws brought in to regulate the virtual world seem aimed at tabloid fears rather than at the issues which affect most users.
So, until lawyers and law-makers have proved that they can provide a useful service in the real world, they should be barred from disrupting the virtual one.
2. MusicFan
But isn’t that the whole attraction with blogs and forums, the ability to chat freely and express our feelings? If it were suddenly restricted it would lose its appeal.
I think the freedom that people perceive they have and speak with online is one of the greatest assets of our generation. We no longer are forced to believe what the papers and TV want us to believe. The www has the ability to mobilise us behind the truth and make us more aware when we are being lied to by our governments.
This is a good thing. Just because in this day and age, anyone can sue anyone for anything, doesn’t mean we should walk with our hands tied behind our backs and our heads bowed.
Yes, if you say something controversial it is a risk. But if it is grounded in truth then it’s a worthwhile risk.
Keep speaking out, I say!