Judge Says You Don't 'Own' The Facebook 'Likes' On Your Page
from the good dept
In a world where people are always pushing the idea of "intellectual property" over just about everything, is it really any surprise when people assume all sorts of property-like rights in things that clearly shouldn't have any such thing? In a slightly bizarre lawsuit over the control of a Facebook fan page for the TV series The Game, the creator of the page, Stacey Mattocks, argued that BET effectively appropriated the approximately 6.78 million "likes" the fan page got. The details of exactly how this happened aren't worth getting into, but suffice it to say it was a contract negotiation gone wrong, as BET sought to bring the fan page under its official control. All that matters here is that among the other charges in the lawsuit, Mattocks claims that BET got Facebook to transfer those likes to its official page, which she alleged is a form of unlawful conversion.However, the court has pretty soundly rejected this, noting that there's no property right in Facebook "likes" and thus no property to unlawfully "convert."
Based on the record, Mattocks cannot establish that she owns a property interestin the “likes” on the FB Page. As explained in Part I.A, “liking” a Facebook Page simply means that the user is expressing his or her enjoyment or approval of the content. At any time, moreover, the user is free to revoke the “like” by clicking an “unlike” button. So if anyone can be deemed to own the “likes” on a Page, it is the individual users responsible for them.... Given the tenuous relationship between “likes” on a Facebook Page and the creator of the Page, the “likes” cannot be converted in the same manner as goodwill or other intangible business interests.Either way, it's nice to see a legal ruling that recognizes a lack of property rights in the likes other people give to your page. It would be even nicer if we stopped trying to declare everything a form of "property" when that makes no sense at all.
Even if Mattocks could claim an ownership interest in the “likes” on the FB Page,she cannot demonstrate that BET’s migration request was unauthorized or wrongful. After Mattocks breached the Letter Agreement by limiting BET’s access to the Page, BET asked Facebook to migrate the “likes” to the other official Series Page. Facebook then reviewed the FB Page in accordance with its corporate-brand policies and determined that BET’s request was valid. More, as already explained, no substantial evidence shows that BET’s request violated any other legal duty to Mattocks.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: likes, ownership, property, stacey mattocks, the game
Companies: bet, facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If I make something as a fan of something else, and other fans "enjoy" my something, that doesn't mean that the something that my something is related to gets the "enjoyment factor" that my something garnered.
If anything, the "enjoys" should have just been deleted, and BET's page can get their own if people want to "enjoy" their page.
Stupid judge, stupid techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As you say, the "Like" is probably for the fan site, not for the thing the fan site is about.
But now we get into, is the "like" for the fan site, or for the author of the fan site?
If the fan site changes ownership, how do we know which likes were for the fan site (now under new ownership, but likes should be retained) or for the original author of the fan site (likes should be discarded)?
If the new owner of the fan site changes the site radically, then people who once liked the fan site my no longer like it. (This is assuming they picked "Like" because they liked the site, rather than liking its former author.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or were those likes contractually signed over (sarcasm) and now owned for 95+ years by the owners?
But what if you no longer like the site? Wouldn't it be fraud to claim that you do? Now we have intellectual property vs fraud. It's infringement to revoke your like but it's fraud not to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe the act of un-liking a commercial business should also create a cause of action for them to sue the person who un-liked them. But the lawsuit should be under a seal for the porpoise of keeping it a secret.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I say 'Class-Action' on behalf of the 'Likers'
If I were a person who likes the Fan-page but dislikes the Official-page, I would have no way to show that except to 'Like' the one and do nothing with the other. By taking my like away (or simply copying it) from the Fan-page to the Official-page, my freedom of speech has now been affected and interfered with. I CHOSE not to like you; don't claim I like you if I liked something similar to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I say 'Class-Action' on behalf of the 'Likers'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is certainly value in these subscriptions, otherwise BET wouldn't have wanted to move them.
She needs to get a better lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook "likes" certainly have a dollar value (of sorts): just ask any of the many 'astroturfing' companies out there how much they would charge to give your page 7 million 'likes' -- I doubt the price is cheap. As just about everything imaginable these days seems to have a legally-recognized dollar value (whether warranted or [usually] not) I don't think that this sort of issue will go away anytime soon.
But realistically, there at least should be a disclaimer informing visitors that the page's "likes" (or lack of) were not earned the usual way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But if a like can be revoked by the liker, whenever the liker wants, then it cannot be permanent or treated as permanent.
The question of whether a transferred like be unliked by the original liker also goes towards establishing who the like belongs to. And why is a like any different from, say applauding by clapping once at a theater performance. Actors don't own the 'clapping sounds' made by their fans, I presume, nor do Justin or Selena own the "I love Justin" or "I love Selena" doodled in 13yr old's school books (just an example, folks).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Having it revoked by the Liker is different from being transferred to a third party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is all a like is, a recommendation. I would also bring into this argument the notion of businesses in America paying a premium to acquire the "goodwill" of another company while buying is ownership.
I think likes should be treated as property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you cannot buy the goodwill gained by other entities. It's a logical impossibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claque
I'd imagine that it's in their contracts, detailing how much applause a star gets (or appears to get) whether from actual (paid or unpaid) audience members, or having the sound dubbed in post-production. As modern stage microphones are directional and essentially only record the speaker's voice, the "applause" you hear on TV is always mixed in from separate recordings. Therefore, even when the audience is "real", the show's producer has essentially full control of applause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also: What if I had Liked both? Does the official page now have two "Likes" for me? Depends on how the transfer was implemented, sure. But if it was a naive implementation that did grant an extra Like, what happens if I later "Unlike" the page?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why has not BET or Facebook sent a message to all likees that there likes have been transferred to BET? Therefore allowing them to control whether or not there original like should be converted or not.
There would now be a case by the actual likees against Facebook for conversion.
Especially in light of this
"At any time, moreover, the user is free to revoke the “like” by clicking an “unlike” button. So if anyone can be deemed to own the “likes” on a Page, it is the individual users responsible for them...."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
After all, don't we have to get permission to 'utilise or transform' every single little individual element of reality that we interact with or share?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goodwill?
Often when a business is sold or changes hands, some amount of money is line-itemed/attributed to 'Goodwill'. Could facebook likes be considered in the same light?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]