http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_Community_Leader_Program
Some key reasons they were able to win were:
1) they had training
2) they had supervisors
3) they had to file reports and meet goals
Even with the very specific things AOL did that bit them later, the lawsuit still dragged on for a long time.
Yelp is unlikely to be at any risk at all here unless they were treating these reviewers like employees. Just contributing content is definitely not enough to put them at risk, and if the people are bitter about their contributions they have the right to remove them (I think).
> You alone are responsible for Your Content, and once published, it cannot always be withdrawn.
> We may use Your Content in a number of different ways, including publicly displaying it, reformatting it, incorporating it into advertisements and other works, creating derivative works from it, promoting it, distributing it, and allowing others to do the same in connection with their own websites and media platforms ("Other Media"). As such, you hereby irrevocably grant us world-wide, perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, assignable, sublicensable, transferable rights to use Your Content for any purpose. Please note that you also irrevocably grant the users of the Site and any Other Media the right to access Your Content in connection with their use of the Site and any Other Media. Finally, you irrevocably waive, and cause to be waived, against Yelp and its users any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to Your Content. By "use" we mean use, copy, publicly perform and display, reproduce, distribute, modify, translate, remove, analyze, commercialize, and prepare derivative works of Your Content.
They follow that with
> As between you and Yelp, you own Your Content. We own the Yelp Content, including but not limited to visual interfaces, interactive features, graphics, design, compilation, including, but not limited to, our compilation of User Content and other Site Content, computer code, products, software, aggregate user review ratings, and all other elements and components of the Site excluding Your Content, User Content and Third Party Content. We also own the copyrights, trademarks, service marks, trade names, and other intellectual and proprietary rights throughout the world ("IP Rights") associated with the Yelp Content and the Site, which are protected by copyright, trade dress, patent, trademark laws and all other applicable intellectual and proprietary rights and laws. As such, you may not modify, reproduce, distribute, create derivative works or adaptations of, publicly display or in any way exploit any of the Yelp Content in whole or in part except as expressly authorized by us. Except as expressly and unambiguously provided herein, we do not grant you any express or implied rights, and all rights in and to the Site and the Yelp Content are retained by us.
Which is, I think, an effort to distance themselves if someone posts "I totally saw the chef drop the steak on a dirty floor and put it on a plate" type lies.
Kinda weird to be fiercely on the side of a company I dislike, but I hope Yelp doesn't have to spend too much money on pointless legal fees here.
Not quite sure if I should charge a nickel or a dime.
Agree that (from what I read) the "suit" has no chance.
But the job of a good attorney is to find a leg to stand on.
An attorney has taken the case.
A leg to stand on has been presented. From a quick (I mean literally quick) scan it appears that Yelp pulled one of the parties "Elite" status as an example.
The action here appears to present a case to get benefit out of Yelp for their arbitrary actions against the complainant. A case does not have to be winnable in order to derive benefit (note what patent trolls do that has everyone up in arms).
While the people here are not employees there is something wrong going on in a community (HN falls into this category) where people put in time and effort and then "privileges" are pulled without recourse, appeal or clear lines drawn.
Agreed.
But let's just say, they win. Would this force sites like Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook to go the YouTube route and pay the really popular ones?
--well anyone can make money on YouTube, but unless your popular, your not going to make anything significant--
People already do this with sponsored tweets and pics, but it's not Twitter that's actually paying them.
I wonder why YouTube decided it's a good idea (obviously it was/is).
Does the act of encouraging people to comment on your site, where the services you comment on require investment of your money, somehow incur a debt on part of the review site to the reviewers? What if the review site has a monetary relationship with the sites being reviewed?
This blog post reminded my of that one commercial (has anyone see it?), which I find very annoying, about joining someone's list. Perhaps these Yelp users should pay to review as they don't quite deserve the Yelper title.
But.
Take a moment to think. What is the value of a website like this, without the user-generated content? A Yelp with no reviews, no photos, etc. is just a phonebook. Alternatively, a restaurant review with no platform, no audience is just a journal entry. It's symbiotic.
Maybe that's obvious. Ok, so. Yelp gets paid. Why don't the reviewers get paid? Too easy to game? Too impractical? Because people will do it for free anyway?
Musicians and exhibitionists will do it for free, too. That doesn't mean they are creating no value. It would be good if Yelp reviewers could be paid. It would be good if it were possible to pay people for the value they create voluntarily.
I'm not saying that the audience is an employee, just that the model of not paying for value created by a crowd is large and old.
Does he have any value to Yelp as eyeball for advertisers? No. If Yelp's audience consisted completely of people like him, no one would ever advertise on Yelp again, no restaurant owner would ever pay Yelp for premium whatever status thing they sell.
But our fictional user can write reviews that are consumed by other users. He is providing real value to Yelp, as a non-eyeball.
In the television case, this guy is completely worthless.
Facebook is a simpler example, because most people are both supplying content and seeing ads. If there were no content, no one would go there to see the ads.
I have to agree.
I wonder if the # of frivolous lawsuits would go decline if the suing party were forced to pay the defendant's legal fees if the suing party lost.
Me too. But it probably won't for three reasons:
1. The civil litigation business is immensely profitable for attorneys
2. The number of people / organizations sued is small enough that they don't have a loud enough voice
3. Anytime someone advocates for reform (ex: loser pays) they will trot out the one case that so clearly calls out for justice and state how the reform would keep justice from occurring in this case
Really? Oh man, what people will do for "achievements"! Personally, I think the lawsuit is bogus.
Not that I think they'll win. Its a bit of a stretch to call these reviewers employees unless there is something missing from the article (I've never heard of Yelp before so I don't know much about them).
Or they met some drunk guy in a bar who said he was a lawyer is the other option.
Bet the Judge will go into his chambers after this one and have a very good laugh.
I think tptacek and patio11 will back me up on this.
I don't know what that compensation should be and I know it goes against the grain of the way things work everywhere and that people participate voluntarily (and derive their own benefit from it) but a token of thanks (of the monetary form) would be a good idea.
(And I'm not suggesting that someone with my karma level qualifies.)
An attorney has taken the case."
That doesn't imply that the attorney who has taken the case is a good attorney. And he may just be doing it to get free publicity.
A really good point and I actually meant to mention that as a reason the case might have been accepted.
But that said even though I am generally a believer that any publicity is good as an attorney you wouldn't want to come off as a total laughing stock in order to get publicity. So while we definitely don't know if he is a "good attorney" we do know that he was able to get an attorney to take the case. I wasn't able to find much on the attorney. So he has (quick guess) everything to gain and not much to lose.
Of course I could offer as a counter to my argument the facebook case (Paul Ceglia) [1] [2] which was a total joke but he managed to get a prominent law firm to represent him in that case and they certainly screwed up on that one.
[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57541140/
[2] http://allthingsd.com/20110727/fourth-law-firm-withdraws-fro...