Shakespeare’s Juliet famously wondered, “What’s in a name?” With a 21st century twist, one could ask: What’s in a Twitter handle?
That’s the issue before the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California this month when it hears a case between PhoneDog (a website providing cellphone news and reviews) and ex-employee Noah Kravitz. While working at PhoneDog, Kravitz wrote tweets under the handle @PhoneDog_Noah — similar to the way I do as @EBNews_editor.
No big deal — that is, until Kravitz left the company but continued to tweet under the name. That’s where PhoneDog had a problem, claiming that it owned both the Twitter account and Kravitz’s 17,000 followers, according to Workforce Management senior editor and blogger Ed Frauenheim.
Even more, PhoneDog asserts that the follwers are worth $2.50 a month, and that Kravitz owes the company $340,000 for the eight months he used the @PhoneDog_Noah handle after he left.
Who knew 140 characters could be so complicated and expensive?
For his part, Kravitz claims that PhoneDog asked him to continue tweeting after he left the company, Frauenheim writes, and also points out that “the account itself is the exclusive property of Twitter, not PhoneDog. The account's followers, on the other hand, are humans and … humans in the United States are not ‘property’ and cannot be owned.”
As I’ve said many times before, I’m not an attorney and, with a few exceptions, I generally punt on taking a stance on legal issues. So, staying consistent, I put the question to you readers: Who’s right? Can employees tweet freely using a company name? Can an employer truly own a Twitter account? More importantly, could sound policy have prevented this whole debacle? Share your thoughts in the comments.
Already Registered?
If you have already registered to Employee Benefit Views, please use the form below to login. When completed you will immediately be directed to post a comment.
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
9 Comment(s)
Posted by: Toolman11 | May 8, 2012 5:08 AM
Think about it first "Keep up the good work!naples florida flower shops"
Regards, Tool Parts
Report this Comment
Posted by: Toolman11 | May 8, 2012 3:58 AM
Have fait on that "Thank you for your post it proved helpful for me."
Regards, Porter Cable C2002R
Report this Comment
Posted by: star09 | May 3, 2012 3:24 AM
Potential beta test users (professionals that maintain a medical office) may register now for getting invited when beta is ready.
Regards, Write My Essay
Report this Comment
Posted by: internet marketing | April 26, 2012 7:16 AM
It's perfectly obvious that it's a personal account and there's no valid AND legal grounds that the employer must claim its ownership. That is just unacceptable. ---------------------------------------------------- Internet Advertising
Report this Comment
Posted by: jack45 | April 2, 2012 10:59 AM
I do not understand how this can happen at all. This is their personal twitter account and thats it. How can they do this. Unsure why they think this. Toronto windows and doors
Report this Comment
Posted by: keyra_hunt | March 21, 2012 3:51 AM
Honestly, I firmly believe that this is a little too much. I don`t see why an employer should be claiming something like that, as long as the employee doesn`t harm the company`s image by social media activity. Even so, I assume the consequences shouldn`t look this way. There are ways of calling him to justice, depending on the gravity of his acts. Maybe a San Francisco criminal defense attorney or anyone specialized in the legal field could tell us what measures should there be taken against the guilty person and what are the consequences for him.
Report this Comment
Posted by: leon r | February 14, 2012 3:52 AM
Its his own choice. And i like the way you started your blog by giving example. And by putting the line whats in the name? Thanks for sharing this post. I will share with my friends too. reverse cell phone lookup
Report this Comment
Posted by: Matthew C | January 10, 2012 9:11 PM
A social media policy for twitter handles listed under a much more broadly addresed term like "social media assets (such as twitter handles)" would have stopped this in its tracks.
Report this Comment
Posted by: Jeff K | January 5, 2012 2:59 PM
While I am also not an attorney, my gut tells me that similar to how a company does NOT necessarily own its own domain name, unless it is registered first, my guess it is the same here. Further, how the company can justify placing a "value" of $2.50 per head is questionable.
I am guessing that if it goes to trial, the company will lose, and that most likely it will be settled out of court with NO negative consequences to Kravitz.
Report this Comment
Add Your Comments...