Court To Guy Who Sued News Stations Over His Facebook Live Video: Pay Their Legal Fees... And Maybe Sue Your Lawyers

from the eyebrows-raised dept

If the name Kali Kanongataa doesn't ring a bell, he was the man who sued roughly all of the news for copyright infringement earlier this year. The whole episode stemmed from Kanongataa having put the birth of his child up on Facebook through the site's live streaming function in 2016. Many, many news organizations used snippets of the video in their reporting on the viral nature of the video, which had been viewed over 100,000 times. Kanongataa ultimately lost those suits on obvious Fair Use grounds and the various news organizations subsequently petitioned to be awarded attorney's fees, which the court ultimately granted.

Well, Kanongataa has since petitioned the court to vacate or reduce those attorney's fees awards on two grounds. First, Kanongataa claims his financial situation is such that these awards would bankrupt him. As the court notes however, denying the request, Kanongataa only claimed this and failed to provide any sort of evidence of his financial situation.

The difficulty here, however, is that the plaintiff has submitted no evidence at all as to his financial circumstances only an unsworn statement in a memorandum by his lawyer, which does not cut it. As Judge Chin illustrated in the Muller case, reductions in fee awards based on an unsuccessful party's limited means typically, or at least often, are made in response to evidence rather than airy claims.  And this is not unique to fees under the Copyright Act. A party resisting an award of costs under Rule 54 on the basis of inability to pay, for example, bears the burden of proving the extent of its financial resources.

While Kanongataa's subsequent claim that NBC specifically inflated the amount of time billed for its defense was also denied, the real gem in the court's written response is in a later portion on the matter of Kanongataa's financial situation. Where the court again highlights that Kanongataa submitted absolutely zero evidence for his financial situation, the court footnotes the following:

The Court expresses no view on whether and to what extent plaintiff may have recourse against his attorney for the attorneys' fees awarded here in View of any attorney advice to pursue this case and the failure to submit evidence of plaintiff's financial condition.

The court can preface this footnote any way it wants, but this sure reads like a heavy-handed hint to Kanongataa that he may want to look into recouping costs through his attorney for even bringing this case before the court in the first place, never mind failing to properly advise him on his claims of financial strife. This pretty clearly reads like a court that knows this is a case that never should have made it past the idea stage in Kanongataa's head, with clear implications that his attorney should have advised him against, or refused to even assist him with, putting any of this in motion.

One wonders exactly what sort of faces Kanongataa's attorney made upon reading this.

Filed Under: attorneys' fees, birth, copyright, facebook live, fair use, kali kanongataa, streaming
Companies: facebook

Actual Lawyer Thinks That Criminalizing Showing Murder On Facebook Will Prevent Murders On Facebook

from the where-did-you-get-your-law-degree? dept

Earlier this week, we wrote about the silly take at Wired, more or less suggesting that it was somehow Facebook's issue that a troubled individual took a video of himself randomly killing an elderly man and then uploaded the video to Facebook. Unfortunately, others have had similar takes, including the New Yorker's Steve Coll, whose piece is mostly balanced and admits that it's basically impossible for Facebook to prevent this thing... but then at the end ignores all that and says, effectively, "Well, Facebook's big so it has no excuse not to do something."

That is a fair and restrained assessment, but Facebook cannot expect to plead growing pains or a lack of resources for much longer. At the end of last year, the corporation reported holding almost thirty billion dollars in cash and marketable securities; its annual profit exceeded ten billion dollars for the first time. Facebook can afford to slow down and take on more of the risks associated with curating content—the risks of not doing so being increasingly glaring. Its engineers might, in addition to their habitual writing of improved algorithms, consider the durable oath of a profession that has long wrestled with the kinds of ethical quandaries that arise from innovating in the pursuit of the greater good: first, do no harm.

That's one of those things that sounds good to someone who hasn't thought through the actual consequences of what they're saying. When you argue that Facebook should "slow down" and "take on more risks associated with curating content," you're arguing that Facebook should censor more content. Think of how that plays out in reality. Because we know already: every time Facebook takes down "good" content, the same media folks start bitching and screaming about how Facebook is so bad at moderating content. Remember Facebook blocking Napalm Girl? While Coll didn't address that issue himself, just months ago, he raved about the importance of Napalm Girl and how adults need to see this kind of thing to "pause and reflect upon the costs of war." But, apparently having them confront murder is a step too far.

But... that is not the worst take on this whole thing. So far, that award goes to Danny Cevallos, a legal analyst for CNN and apparently a real practicing criminal defense attorney. His argument is not to blame Facebook... but to criminalize posting murder videos to Facebook. It's not often that you see a criminal defense attorney arguing for more crimes, but here we are.

To be fair to Cevallos, he's not the first to come up with an idea this dumb. As online video became more popular, and as stories emerged of people (often young kids) filming themselves doing stupid things online, various grandstanding politicians have often argued that filming crimes should be illegal, arguing (often without any evidence) that the only reason these people were doing stupid/illegal things was because of the draw of being able to film them and post them online. This reached a fever pitch a few years ago when a legislator in South Carolina picked up on an exaggerated moral panic about the idea of the "knockout game" -- in which people filmed themselves punching unsuspecting people -- and wanted to pass a law saying that it was illegal to film a crime.

That's more or less where Cevallos goes, though he'd limit it to just murder videos:

Use the law to deter this sort of depraved predator. We can criminalize the criminal's act of broadcasting his crime.

In for a bit, Cevallos digs in deep:

When it gets into the realm of a horrendous crime like the recent shooting, what is to be done? As heretical as it is for a criminal defense attorney like myself to say, deterrence could help. More criminal legislation: enhancements, penalties, mandatory minimums.

And how the crime and its victims are legally framed is key. Whether it's murder or simple assault, acts of violence that are also posted online create additional victims in the audience: the public at large. Broadcasts of intentional violence intimidate a civilian population, just as terrorism does.

What?!? Now he's comparing broadcasting a murder tape as terrorism? Who exactly is intimidated? Will it horrify people? Yes, absolutely. But that's not illegal, nor should it be.

Also, there's this. How the hell is this actually a deterrence? What kind of person will say "Well, I was going to shoot that guy and broadcast it on Facebook, but since broadcasting it is illegal, I guess I won't." Really. Who? If you're going to murder someone, you've already kinda committed to breaking basically the most serious law we have. Somehow, I doubt that the additional charge of "Oh, and he put it on Facebook," is going to change the incentives much.

And, then, of course, Cevallos starts digging deeper with a really terrible First Amendment analysis (especially for a media company like CNN to publish). All it's missing is the explicit use of the bullshit "fire in a crowded theater" trope.

The challenge here is that criminalizing Facebook broadcasts of one's crimes does potentially infringe upon one's freedom of speech about those crimes. The US Supreme Court held that the original Son of Sam law ran afoul of the First Amendment, because the suppression of speech was not narrowly tailored enough.

However, the First Amendment has plenty of limits, and today, almost all the states and the federal government have laws prohibiting those criminals who plan to profit from their crimes from doing so. The ability to profit still shouldn't be constitutionally-protected.

Pretty simple rule of thumb: your First Amendment analysis is bad and you should feel bad if it's basically limited to "Well, there are exceptions to the First Amendment, so surely the exception I want should be fine." Hell, it's near the top of Popehat's famous "censorship tropes" in discussions of free speech.

But Cevallos isn't done. After already carving out a new exception to the First Amendment, he then also argues that posting your own murder video maybe would fit under the very limited and extraordinarily narrow "obscenity" exception to the First Amendment:

It's a tougher question whether "killing videos" could be additionally penalized as obscenity. This is because the term "obscenity" generally applies to depictions of sexual acts. The Supreme Court has held that violence alone is not obscenity.

On the other hand, obscenity may extend to deviant acts that are not sexual, and images of extreme cruelty alone could possibly be obscene, as evidenced by a case involving videos of animal cruelty. Indeed, "animal crush videos" — which are every bit as horrific as they sound — may be outlawed, even if sexual activity is not depicted.

Again, the legal analysis is... lacking any substance whatsoever. It's basically "Well, animal crush videos can be outlawed, so sure, murders on Facebook too."

Criminalizing the broadcast of crimes like Robert Godwin's shooting death is doable. It won't prevent these attacks, but it will deter them.

It will deter them... based on what evidence exactly? Just in your head?

Finally after all that nonsense, Cavallos points out just about the only accurate thing, and hilariously calls it "perverse": the fact that what these videos do is provide all the evidence law enforcement needs to prosecute individuals for the crimes they're committing on video:

The perverse upside is that social media creates a treasure trove of evidence: the criminals of social media may harm the society that views them, but they often assist the authorities in prosecuting them.

Yeah, that's not "perverse." That's why the rest of your article makes no sense. The video is evidence of a crime. Layering on another, much lesser crime just for posting the video doesn't deter crime. It deters people making it easier to catch, arrest and convict themselves of committing crimes. CNN needs better legal analysts.

Filed Under: danny cevallos, deterrence, facebook live, filming crime, murder, streaming
Companies: facebook

Moral Panics: Don't Blame Facebook Because Some Guy Posted His Murder Video There

from the get-a-grip dept

As you've probably heard by now, on Sunday a horrific act of violence happened when a clearly disturbed individual apparently decided to (1) randomly murder an elderly man walking down the street, (2) film the entire process from searching for the guy, approaching him, talking to him and then shooting him, and (3) upload it to Facebook for people to see. The police initially reported that he streamed the murder live, but it was later clarified that, while he had streamed some other commentary live earlier in the day, the murder was filmed separately and then uploaded. Still, as happens all too often in these situations, people are immediately jumping to the moral panic stage and asking, as Wired did quickly after, what kind of responsibility Facebook should take. The title of the article says that Facebook "must now face itself" for streaming the murder -- but then seems to have trouble explaining just what it needs to face (perhaps because... there isn't anything for it to face).

And when the manhunt is over, and the grieving begins, so too will Facebook’s soul-searching.

Facebook is not the first media company to struggle with the prospect of unwittingly broadcasting violence shortly after being uploaded. When news anchor Christine Chubbuck killed herself on live TV in 1974, the station was unable to stop the event from airing, but never showed the footage again. The number of viewers who actually saw the event was minimal. Facebook has taken similar steps, pulling Stephens’ video shortly after it was posted. “This is a horrific crime and we do not allow this kind of content on Facebook,” the company said in a statement. “We work hard to keep a safe environment on Facebook, and are in touch with law enforcement in emergencies when there are direct threats to physical safety.”

Uh, right. So... what else does anyone expect Facebook to do? It's not like it can magically stop murders. Or stop people from initially uploading or streaming a murder video. Yes, it can (and does) take those down, and it can (and does) block re-uploading. But to pin this on Facebook seems... really, really weird. It's almost as if whenever there's a murder people want to find someone or something else to blame other than the person doing the killing.

The article kind of admits, later on, that expecting Facebook to do anything is impossible... but that just raises the question of why write a whole article asking what Facebook should do if the answer is "uh, it can't and shouldn't do anything."

Facebook, of course, is a decentralized system, with millions of freelance “reporters” with unfettered access to the public. By the time the company removed the video, thousands had already watched it, and it lives on in other corners of the internet. Meanwhile, the company has resisted calls to use its algorithms to censor videos like this before they are ever posted–not just because it does not want to be accused of violating speech rights, but also because training computers to identify real-time or recent murder is hard. Facebook has long relied on an army of humans to scour videos uploaded to its site. With videos, and especially Live videos, that job goes from hard to impossible—not even Facebook employees can watch a video before it posts.

Currently, Facebook relies on other Facebook users to flag videos that need to be taken down. But that means that someone has to watch the horror before others can be spared it. The onus falls to the viewers, not the company, to determine what is appropriate, what should be shared, and what should be flagged for removal. Traditional media companies have finely-wrought guidelines and policies to help them make these decisions, but Facebook depends on us to do it.

But even after basically admitting that this is an impossibility, the article still then says:

And now it might very well be time for the company to roll up its own sleeves and get to work.

And get to work doing what exactly? Again, Facebook isn't going to stop a murder. And I don't care how good the AI gets, it's unlikely any time soon to say "hey, that video is some person killing another person, don't stream that." There is no sleeve rolling to do on the Facebook side of the equation and even exploring this question seems silly. Yes, senseless murders and violence lead people to go searching for answers, but sometimes there are no answers. And demanding answers from a random tool that was peripherally used connected to the senseless violence doesn't seem helpful at all.

Filed Under: facebook live, murder, platforms, responsibility, video
Companies: facebook

Man Who Used Facebook Live To Stream Birth Of Child Loses Bid To Sue All The News For Copyright Infringement

from the abort! dept

The saga of Facebook Live marches on, I suppose. The social media giant's bid to get everyone to live-stream content that mostly appears to be wholly uninteresting has nevertheless produced some interesting legal stories as a result. The latest of these is the conclusion of a string of lawsuits filed by a man who used Facebook Live to stream the birth of his child over copyright infringement against many, many news organizations that thought his act was newsworthy.

It was in May of 2016 that Kali Kanongataa accidentally publcly streamed his wife birthing the couple's son. He had intended for the stream to only be viewable to friends and family, but had instead made the stream viewable by pretty much everyone. Even after realizing he'd done so, Kanongataa kept the stream public, leading over 100,000 people to view the video -- including some folks in several news organizations, who used snippets of the stream in news stories about the couple's decision to stream this most intimate of moments.

And then came the lawsuits.

In September, Kanongataa filed suit (PDF) against ABC and Yahoo for showing portions of his video on Good Morning America as well as the ABC news website and a Yahoo site that hosts ABC content. He also sued COED Media Group and iHeartMedia. In October, he sued magazine publisher Rodale over a clip and screenshot used on the website for its magazine Women's Health. Last month, he sued Cox Communications.

In November, ABC lawyers filed a motion (PDF) calling their client's use of the Kanongataa clip a "textbook example of fair use." ABC used 22 seconds of a 45 minute video in order to produce a news story that would "enable viewers to understand and form an opinion about the couple's actions."

ABC's motion, embedded below, goes on to patiently explain to the court and, presumably, to Kanongataa's crack legal representation, that the entire point of the Fair Use defense was to allow small amounts of works to be used for the purpose of commentary and in news stories. Were lawsuits like this one to be victorious, news in the era of the image would come to a screeching halt. And, since the stories generated by these news organizations centered on the newsworthy nature of a couple streaming this sort of thing in the first place, use of such clips and images was perfectly in line with Fair Use usage in their reports.

The presiding judge, Lewis Kaplan, appears to have understood this correctly, having tossed the lawsuit against ABC and the other defendants.

Judge Kaplan's order shuts down Kanongataa's lawsuit against ABC, NBC, Yahoo, and COED Media Group. A lawsuit against CBS and Microsoft was dropped in November, possibly due to a settlement. The case against Rodale is still pending and is also being overseen by Judge Kaplan. Kanongataa's lawsuit against Cox was filed in a different district and remains pending in the Eastern District of New York.

This really is about as textbook a case of Fair Use as there could possibly be, leading us to wonder what in the world the legal team Kanongataa had hired was thinking in filing this in the first place.

Filed Under: copyright, facebook live, fair use, kali kanongataa, news, reporting
Companies: abc, coed media, cox, iheartmedia, rodale, yahoo

Did The NY Times Give Up Its Journalism Standards The Second Facebook Threw A Few Million Its Way?

from the seems-like-a-problem dept

Last month, we discussed how Facebook was apparently forking over truckloads of cash to various media companies to get them to use Facebook Live, the company's new livestreaming video platform. This arrangement struck us as odd -- and potentially an FTC violation, in that these media companies are basically promoting and endorsing Facebook's product, after getting paid millions of dollars, without ever disclosing the payments and the relationship. That seems... questionable. Apparently the two largest recipients of the cash were Buzzfeed and the NY Times, who each got over $3 million to stream these videos. Buzzfeed, for its part, has embraced the ridiculousness of this situation with Buzzfeedian gusto, putting on stunts like livestreaming exploding a watermelon with rubberbands. But that's kind of what you'd expect from Buzzfeed.

The NY Times, on the other hand, is a bit of a different beast. The newspaper likes to pride itself on being serious, careful, thoughtful journalism. And while that's often a lot more what the people there tell themselves than reality, it does raise some questions about what the NY Times is doing with that $3+ million and how journalistic it is. Apparently, I'm not the only one to wonder about this, as the NY Times recently appointed public editor, Liz Spayd, is concerned about what the NY Times is doing here as well.

here’s the problem. After watching countless hours of live video in the past few weeks, I have hit upon many that are either plagued by technical malfunctions, feel contrived, drone on too long, ignore audience questions or are simply boring, by I imagine most anyone’s standards.

Too many don’t live up to the journalistic quality one typically associates with The New York Times. Take one produced at the Republican convention, where we’re on the floor chatting up delegates. The idea is right, but the sound cuts in and out for three long minutes and becomes so grating that one Facebook viewer messaged: “WOW. THE AUDIO IS HORRIBLE!” Another added: “Unwatchable,” and one humorously said, “RIP headphone users...” Another video on raging fires in Canada shows the narrator staring off-screen while the sound keeps breaking up. Not a single flame ever appears. One viewer, April Simpson, sent in this comment: “It would be a much more effective interview if you could roll in some of the amazing video of the fire. Seriously, nyt contact me — I could help you with all of this.”

And in a category all its own, there is a video of an editor with two reporters who are pitching their stories in hopes of getting good play on the home page. It’s an odd meeting — of a type I’ve never seen nor heard of in my 30 years in newsrooms. And it turns out it was more of a simulation to show the kinds of conversations that take place in a newsroom. In other words, it was posed.

Now, to be clear, I think there's value in experimentation -- and if you don't fail with your experiments, you're probably not experimenting enough. But when Facebook is throwing millions at publications like the NY Times, some of these don't feel so much like "experimenting with this neat new technology" but more like "oh, fuck, we need to make more videos because we promised Facebook in exchange for all this cash." Indeed, Spayd suggests the quantity over quality approach is a part of the problem here:

On the one hand, it has before it a compelling new form of journalism, a young and eager audience, and the crown prince of social media opening up its checkbook. On the other hand, if you’re producing about 120 videos a month, implementing good quality control can take a back seat.

And, when the paper's editor defends all these videos under the "this is how we experiment" banner, Spayd responds, rightly, that there are ways to experiment that still live up to the kind of quality standards the NY Times likes to think it has:

But this particular experiment veers significantly from The Times’s past approach to new journalism forms. The newsroom has shown that innovation doesn’t have to equate with poor quality. Whether it was with interactive graphics, virtual reality or podcasts, The Times is a model for innovating at a thoughtful, measured pace, but with quality worthy of its name.

This time, that’s not the case. It’s as if we passed over beta and went straight to bulk.

Does anyone believe that this would play out this way if Facebook hadn't added 3 million reasons for the NY Times to go for bulk? I think that's the bigger story here. Spayd mentions the cash in passing, but doesn't spend much time on it. It still seems like the real issue. I get that the NY Times is a business and that it needs to make money, but usually there's a separation. Here, when a private company is paying for a specific type of coverage that is promoting their own technology -- and the NY Times isn't disclosing it, while pumping out lots of low quality content, it should raise a lot of questions about why that's okay.

Filed Under: experiments, facebook live, money
Companies: facebook, ny times

Police Get Facebook To Kill Livestream Of Standoff Which Ended With Suspect Being Shot To Death

from the controlling-even-the-cameras-they-don't-own dept

A 23-year-old woman, and mother of a 5-year-old child, is dead. She was killed by police officers who came to serve a warrant for failure to appear charges stemming from a March 11th traffic stop. That this ever escalated to the point where bullets started flying is incomprehensible. Then again, much of what the woman, Korryn Gaines, did was incomprehensible.

Gaines apparently considered herself a "sovereign citizen," which meant she chose not to recognize whatever laws she felt weren't worth following -- like registering her vehicle, insuring it, and equipping it with valid plates. Instead, she chose to make plates of her own out of cardboard that made some sort of statement about her sovereign citizen status. The traffic stop on March 11th escalated into an altercation with officers, resulting in more charges being added to the traffic violations.

When the SWAT team arrived August 2nd, Gaines warned the officers she would shoot them if they did not leave.

At about 9:20 a.m., officers knocked on the door repeatedly with no answer, despite hearing a man and woman inside, as well as a crying child, Johnson said. When officers were able to open the door using a key, they saw Gaines sitting on the floor pointing a 12-gauge shotgun at one of three officers and a 5-year-old near her.

Courtney was quickly arrested after running out of the apartment with a 1-year-old boy. Then around 3 p.m., Gaines pointed her weapon at a tactical officer and said, “If you don’t leave, I’m going to kill you,” according to authorities.

At that point, officers fired one round and Gaines fired two rounds in return, Johnson said. Authorities fired their weapons again, fatally striking her. The child was also struck by a round during the exchange but did not sustain life-threatening injuries.

The twist here is that Gaines was livestreaming the standoff, right up until law enforcement asked Facebook to kill the stream. Facebook complied, and possibly the only record of the incident not controlled by law enforcement disappeared with it. The police issued a statement explaining their actions.

“Gaines was posting video of the operation, and followers were encouraging her not to comply with negotiators’ requests that she surrender peacefully,” a spokesperson for the Baltimore County Police Department said. “This was a serious concern; successful negotiations often depend on the negotiators’ ability to converse directly with the subject, without interference or distraction during extremely volatile conditions.”

While the assertions made here may be true, the fact that law enforcement can make third-party recordings disappear is highly problematic. While the full statement shows the Baltimore County PD has asked Facebook to retain the video as evidence and will be seeking a search warrant to access the recording, the fact is that the recording will now be in the hands of law enforcement, rather than the public.

If any video of the standoff was captured with body cameras, it will be a long time before it's made public -- if it ever is. While very few recordings are truly objective, the one recording of the standoff whose existence can be confirmed is now (mostly) gone. And the unanswered question is whether or not the situation would have been handled differently if the officers knew the public was watching.

Facebook's compliance with the request is understandable. I'm sure it has no interest in becoming a live portal for police shootings. It similarly vanished away another live video of a killing by a police officer in Minnesota a few weeks ago, resulting in it harvesting some backlash before it reinstated the recording.

Facebook should be far more hesitant to comply in the future. And if law enforcement doesn't like the new status quo, it has nothing but itself to blame. When creating recordings of incidents like these is left to law enforcement, there's rarely anything to show for it. For one, the recordings remain in hands of law enforcement and are only handed over to the public after lengthy delays and with much reluctance.

For another -- despite the fact that nearly every vehicle and every officer is equipped with some sort of recording device -- when citizens are killed, there's often no recording of the incident to be found, no matter how many cameras were on the scene.

Community activists called on the city to release dashcam and body camera videos from a deadly police shooting last week, but police said a recording of the actual shooting is not available.

Police Supt. Eddie Johnson said the actual shooting was not recorded, although all officers on the scene were wearing body cameras.

[...]

Guglielmi said the body cameras of the two officers who fired into the vehicle were working, but the body camera of the officer who fired the fatal shot was not working.

[A] third officer opened fire, hitting and killing the unarmed 18-year-old. An autopsy revealed O’Neal died from a gunshot wound to the back.

Sure, that one could have been a fluke, but the PD is still refusing to release the video (which led to the three involved officers being stripped of their powers) for at least 60 days. At least there's some footage, even if the actual shooting wasn't caught on tape. In other incidents, there's nothing at all to see, despite there being plenty of potential "coverage."

The college student, John McKenna, was beaten and arrested for assaulting police officers. Cellphone video shot by numerous nearby students clearly showed that the officer attacked McKenna without provocation. When a security camera that should have captured the incident failed to produce any footage, police claimed it had been pointed in another direction. The officer in charge of the security cameras was married to one of the officers accused of beating McKenna.

[...]

Because of one of the agency’s consent decrees with the Justice Department, all of its police cruisers had been outfitted with cameras. Nine cruisers were at the scene of the incident. The county claimed in court filings that there was no video footage of the altercation because all nine dash cameras had coincidentally malfunctioned, or the tapes had been lost.

When it comes to recordings, law enforcement has proven repeatedly it's not up to the job. So, when officers approach third parties to shut down livestreams of volatile situations, these platforms should weigh law enforcement's track record of opacity against its supposed public safety concerns.

Filed Under: baltimore, facebook live, korryn gaines, livestream, police, recording police, sovereign citizen, swat team
Companies: facebook

Will The FTC Investigate People & Companies Paid By Facebook To Use Facebook Live?

from the seems-to-violate-their-standards dept

In the last few months, Facebook Live has certainly become "a thing." Launched just recently, it was suddenly everywhere -- from the pure (but very viral) joy of Candace Payne and her Chewbacca mask to the live streaming of the tragic aftermath of Philando Castile being shot by a police officer in Minnesota. Of course, it appears that part of the reason why Facebook Live is getting so much usage isn't necessarily that it's a better product than its competitors, but rather that Facebook has been generously throwing around cash to all sorts of people and companies to get them to use the platform. Last month, it was reported that Facebook was paying many millions of dollars to big media players in exchange for them promising to broadcast via Facebook Live:

According to a document recently obtained by the Wall Street Journal, the social networking giant has signed as many as 140 contracts worth a total of $50 million.

The list of media outlets being paid by Facebook includes traditional players such as CNN and the New York Times, the Journal says, as well as digital-only publishers like Vox, Mashable, and BuzzFeed. The celebrities who are being compensated for creating live video include comedian Kevin Hart and chef Gordon Ramsay.

Some contracts are worth smaller amounts, while 17 of the deals Facebook has signed are worth more than $1 million, according to the document obtained by the Journal. Two media outlets are getting paid more than $3 million to create live video—BuzzFeed and the New York Times, and CNN is not far behind, with a reported payment of $2.5 million.

Later in that article, it notes that BuzzFeed is getting $250,000 per month, for 20 Facebook Live videos each month. Good money if you can get it!

Then, a few weeks later, another report came out, noting that Facebook was trying to buy successful YouTubers and Vine users away from those platforms by giving them cash to use the platform as well:

For example, the Journal says it has seen documents that show Facebook is paying Vine star John Paul Piques $119,000 to post at least five videos on its live-streaming service over the next two months. That’s the equivalent of $24,000 per video. And he is just one of about two dozen other Internet celebrities and video stars who have signed similar deals.

The newspaper says the highest-paid independent video performer appears to be Ray William Johnson, who developed a following for a YouTube show called “The Equals Three Show,” in which he makes fun of viral videos. He could make as much as $224,000 over the next six months.

This kind of thing doesn't always work well, for a variety of reasons, but it appears that maybe it's actually succeeding this time. It'll be worth watching to see how well things go after the money runs out.

Still, there's another question that is raised by these stories: are Facebook and all of these other companies and individuals running afoul of the FTC's social media guidelines? And might the FTC crack down? Now, to be clear, I'm skeptical about the FTC's rules because they create free speech questions. So far, the FTC's enforcement over its own guidelines has been, well, haphazard and seemingly arbitrary at best. However, the FTC did update its guidelines last year, and it seems like not disclosing these payments could create some problems, if the FTC decided to step in.

The guidelines themselves seem more focused on "endorsements," but the question here is whether or not merely using the platform to post new videos is considered an "endorsement." Under the current guidelines, the FTC has a fairly loose standard of how the situation impacts the credibility given to the person or company by their audience:

The question you need to ask is whether knowing about that gift or incentive would affect the weight or credibility your readers give to your recommendation. If it could, then it should be disclosed.

They also note that merely using a product could be seen as an endorsement:

Simply posting a picture of a product in social media, such as on Pinterest, or a video of you using it could convey that you like and approve of the product. If it does, it’s an endorsement.

You don’t necessarily have to use words to convey a positive message. If your audience thinks that what you say or otherwise communicate about a product reflects your opinions or beliefs about the product, and you have a relationship with the company marketing the product, it’s an endorsement subject to the FTC Act.

While it's not a direct parallel, you could see how this is pretty close to the situation at hand. People viewing these videos are getting the message that these media companies and individuals approve of Facebook Live -- and yet many have not disclosed that they have a strong financial incentive to use the product. It seems like they may be in trouble if the FTC ever decides to take a look.

The question, then, is whether or not the FTC will bother?

Filed Under: endorsements, facebook live, ftc, payments
Companies: buzzfeed, cnn, facebook, mashable

As Republicans Turn Off House Live Feed, Reps & C-SPAN Turn To Periscope And Facebook Live Video To Cover Sit In

from the we-all-are-the-media dept

So something fascinating happened in Congress today. No matter what your opinion is on gun control or the various legislative proposals around it that have been up for debate in the past week or so, it's hard to fathom what Congressional Republicans thought they were doing today in shutting off the live video feed from the House floor. A bunch of Democrats decided to hold a sit in on the House floor to push for a vote on some gun legislation. That's a bit of a stunt no matter how you look at it, but the Republicans shot back by helping that stunt get much more attention by not just gavelling the House out of session, but also turning off the live feed of the House floor that flows to C-SPAN and out to the rest of us. C-SPAN doesn't control the cameras and is at the whim of Congress to access that feed, so when the GOP shut off the feed, C-SPAN was left without. This isn't a stupid move that's limited to the Republican side of Congress, apparently. Eight years ago the Democrats did the same thing when they controlled the House and were upset about Republicans trying to focus on a particular issue.

Of course, we now live in a modern technological age, where everyone has the power to broadcast live video in the devices we all carry in our pockets. Thus, despite House rules that forbid any sort of broadcasting from the floor, Rep. Scott Peters started broadcasting from the floor. And even as the Sergeant at Arms tried to stop the broadcasting, more people on the floor started using Periscope, Snapchat and Facebook Live, leading to C-SPAN rebroadcasting those feeds.

C-SPAN claims it's the first time it's done this (and let's not even bother with the copyright questions related to all of this...). But it seems like yet another example of a form of the Streisand Effect. The sit in was designed to get attention, and it certainly would have no matter what. But shutting off the cameras and trying to shut down the entire process only seemed to drive that much more attention to what was going on, and modern technology helped let the story still come out, no matter what the "House rules" happened to say.

Filed Under: cameras, congress, democrats, facebook live, gun control, periscope, republicans, streaming, video
Companies: c-span, facebook, snapchat, twitter