Slashdot Mirror
Tech Site Sues Ex-Employee, Claiming Rights To His Twitter Account
nonprofiteer writes "Noah Kravitz worked as a mobile phone reviewer for a tech website called Phonedog for four and a half years. While there, he started a Twitter account (of his own volition) with the handle @PhoneDog_Noah to tweet his stories and videos for the site as well as personal stuff about sports, food, music, etc. When he left Phonedog, he had approximately 17,000 followers and changed his Twitter handle to @noahkravitz. This summer, Phonedog started barking that it wanted the Twitter account back, and sued Kravitz, valuing the account at $340,000 (!), or $2.50 per follower per month. Kravitz claims the Twitter account was his own property. A California judge ruled that the case can proceed and theoretically go to trial. Meanwhile, Kravitz continues to tweet."
He created the Twitter account as part of his job, so it does belong the company. Valuing those followers at $2.50 really isn't much either, and I can easily see that such group of targeted followers is worth that (I work in advertising too).
This seems like a really straight-forward case. The Twitter account belongs to Phonedog.
Don't ever mix personal and employer projects, ever.
Especially don't use your employer's name or trademarks in your personal projects.
Hell in some states, depending on your terms of employment, even your personal projects can be seized by the company.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
If they win, it may damage their Twitter reputation more than just leaving it alone.
17,000 followers can spam a Twitter account pretty heavily.
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
All he needs to do is create a new account and tweet about the issue. "I am moving to a new twitter handle nsert new handle here so please update accordingly if you would like to follow me after this handle is returned to Phonedog" Problem solved
This is clearly a personal account, that of his own volition he named and populated in a way that benefited the company he worked for. No good deed goes unpunished (or unjudged based on the current comments here). There is no reason a company should be able to claim ownership of a personal social networking account because the owner freely chose to promote said company's work and brand. Suing a former employee for such a ridiculous amount of money for not handing over his personal account is at best a wasted opportunity. Why not ask him to occasionally tweet about their site, especially if he left the company on good terms? Now they will get bad publicity under a public eye that has been increasingly critical of corporations acting like bullies - and deservedly so.
You are aware your DNA has been copyrighted and patented by Humans-Are-US. As such all your labor and product are derivative works and must be produced and immediately stored directly in our Patented Human DNA production facilites.
As such we require your labor services by tomorrow at 7am. Please report to your Personal DNA Labor Slave Cell by 7am. Irregularities will result in immedia removal of all temporary-credit and life sustainment system access rights.
Thank you
Our Beloved Patent Lord
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
They have the right to the handle with PhoneDog in it. Let them have it. But he doesn't use that handle any more; they don't have a right to his personal account.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I'd say there's a lot of upper management from PhoneDog posting ITT.
Seriously though, the company did not create the account: The employee did. As long as he's not trying to slander, libel or defame Phonedog, they don't really have a case. If you think I'm somehow making this up, go back and look at court case documents involving this kind of stuff. Asking for a password to something that no longer reflects the company, or was never created by the company in first place is laughable, and at best, shaky grounds for litigation. While I'm not a lawyer, common sense seems to dictate that Phonedog is painting itself into a corner.
... related to your job. For example he doesn't own the skills you gain working for him. Nor does he own the personal relationships you develop with customers. He might in some jurisdictions be able to contractually restrict what you do with those things after you part ways, but if he doesn't think to do that in advance he's out of luck.
Now let's look at the company's actual claims. They're claiming the guy's follower list and password are trade secrets.
OK, so how about the follower list? Of course if you work for a consultancy, you can't walk of with the entire database of clients. That *is* a trade secret. But this guy's Twitter follower list isn't a secret at all, anyone can look it up, even if you aren't Twitter subscriber. Furthermore that list has never been under the control of the company. So the follower list can't possibly be the company's trade secret because it's not even a secret in the first place. And it can't be *theirs* because it was never under their control.
As for the password to the account, that has never been in the possession of the company either, therefore while it may be a secret, it's hard to see how it is *their* secret. You could argue that the guy was working for the company when he dreamed up the password, and so it was in possession of a company employee (him). That's a stretch, but he could just change the password on the account and give them the old password. That wouldn't satisfy the company because they really don't give a damn about the password. They're after something else that isn't control of secret information. They're trying to control *public* information and so gain control over the fan relationships this guy developed while in their employ. The IP claim is just bogus.
I do think the company might have some legitimate claims to certain things here. I think they might have at least a moral claim they own posts this guy wrote when he was being paid. They probably have a right to his old handle, which he no longer uses. But that's not what they want. They want the relationship this guy has with his subscribers.
It sounds like the company parted ways with this guy, not realizing they were parting ways with his fan base too. Now they're trying to undo the damage that could have been avoided by keeping him on or making advance arrangements (like insisting he use an account that they control) instead of being loosey-goosey. It's too bad for them they didn't think ahead, but that's no excuse for using the threat of legal action to secure de facto control over something they have no right to. That's theft by legal extortion.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Twitter clearly indicates in their ToS that the service can only be used if you can enter a binding contractual relationship with Twitter.
Unless the company gave him the ability to enter a contract with Twitter on the company's behalf, then the account is either in violation of the ToS, or it is personal.
Twitter gives the company various options for dealing with an account that infringes their marks.