Should I pay a lawyer $1000 to fight a $3000 liability claim?
June 6, 2008 10:17 AM Subscribe
Am I personally financially liable for copyright infringement when the company I work for gets sued for the unauthorized use of a song in a commercial I produced?
Recently I was laid off from a job as a commercial producer for a small television station because of budget reasons. I returned last week for an exit interview and during the exit interview, my former boss flipped out at me because they were getting sued by a music publisher for unauthorized use of a song in one of our station promos.
My boss notified me that he was going to hold me liable for it because I produced the commercial. He claims that any money the station loses in the settlement, he is going to come after me for.
He still owes me two weeks severance, and he is threatening to fight my unemployment claim.
At the time I thought we were allowed to use unlicensed music in commercials that simply promote station functions (instead of pushing a product or a service). We had used many copyrighted songs many times before without any conflict. I have only learned recently that this isn't the case.
Am I liable, or should I fight this?
Recently I was laid off from a job as a commercial producer for a small television station because of budget reasons. I returned last week for an exit interview and during the exit interview, my former boss flipped out at me because they were getting sued by a music publisher for unauthorized use of a song in one of our station promos.
My boss notified me that he was going to hold me liable for it because I produced the commercial. He claims that any money the station loses in the settlement, he is going to come after me for.
He still owes me two weeks severance, and he is threatening to fight my unemployment claim.
At the time I thought we were allowed to use unlicensed music in commercials that simply promote station functions (instead of pushing a product or a service). We had used many copyrighted songs many times before without any conflict. I have only learned recently that this isn't the case.
Am I liable, or should I fight this?
I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, it depends on the structure of the organization. If the station itself is incorporated, then only certain people like executives are liable for the actions taken by the company. If it's a partnership, things get more complicated, but if you were a partner, you'd know. Things break down even more granularly in the case of proprietorships.
In all likelihood, there's no way you can be held personally liable for the actions of the company.
posted by TheNewWazoo at 10:39 AM on June 6, 2008
In all likelihood, there's no way you can be held personally liable for the actions of the company.
posted by TheNewWazoo at 10:39 AM on June 6, 2008
How are they proposing to fight your unemployment claim? Copyright infringement, negligence etc. do not appear to be a bona fide reason for denial of unemployment insurance benefits. As for seeking money from you, I see no legal reason why an employer can not sue an ex-employee for negligence, but it is pretty poor practice and sure makes it hard to get and retain employees. This sounds like a lot of bluster to me. Is your old boss even authorized by the station to take such action? As for withholding your last two weeks pay, that might run afoul of the law, but I am not sure. If you cannot afford a lawyer, being now unemployed, you might make a call to the NY State Department of Labor to see if there is anyone who can answer some questions for you on employment law. Good luck.
posted by caddis at 11:01 AM on June 6, 2008
posted by caddis at 11:01 AM on June 6, 2008
Second the lawyer suggestions. Most lawyers offer free consults to determine whether or not there's a case to be had. You may as well sit down with one if it doesn't cost anything.
I can think of any conceivable way you could be held liable. The American economy wouldn't be able to function if every employee could be held financially liable for their mistakes at work.
posted by BirdD0g at 11:02 AM on June 6, 2008
I can think of any conceivable way you could be held liable. The American economy wouldn't be able to function if every employee could be held financially liable for their mistakes at work.
posted by BirdD0g at 11:02 AM on June 6, 2008
"If the station itself is incorporated, then only certain people like executives are liable for the actions taken by the company."
Not really the same thing. It's likely that the owner of the infringed copyright couldn't come after OP (as you point out), but that's not the same as the radio station coming after the OP. The company's veil wouldn't need to be pierced because it would be the company filing the suit against a former employee.
This is a sticky situation and much of it would depend on how serious the OP thinks the station is about their threats. A free consultation would be a very good idea.
If you can't find one, it might be alright to do nothing for now and just keep a very close eye on them and only shell out for the lawyer when it becomes necessary.
posted by toomuchpete at 12:43 PM on June 6, 2008
Not really the same thing. It's likely that the owner of the infringed copyright couldn't come after OP (as you point out), but that's not the same as the radio station coming after the OP. The company's veil wouldn't need to be pierced because it would be the company filing the suit against a former employee.
This is a sticky situation and much of it would depend on how serious the OP thinks the station is about their threats. A free consultation would be a very good idea.
If you can't find one, it might be alright to do nothing for now and just keep a very close eye on them and only shell out for the lawyer when it becomes necessary.
posted by toomuchpete at 12:43 PM on June 6, 2008
IANAL, but I think it's very unlikely that you could be held personally liable in any way.
I wouldn't sweat it until (and unless) your boss actually sues you.
Now, on the other hand, withholding pay that you are owed is probably a crime.
posted by meta_eli at 12:55 PM on June 6, 2008
I wouldn't sweat it until (and unless) your boss actually sues you.
Now, on the other hand, withholding pay that you are owed is probably a crime.
posted by meta_eli at 12:55 PM on June 6, 2008
IANAL, but having sued several clients, I can tell you that it's the officers/directors of the company (and by that I don't mean "station director" or "programming director") who are responsible for the actions taken by their employees -- except if there's some sort of blatant criminal activity going on.
posted by acoutu at 1:00 PM on June 6, 2008
posted by acoutu at 1:00 PM on June 6, 2008
I can tell you that it's the officers/directors of the company (and by that I don't mean "station director" or "programming director") who are responsible for the actions taken by their employees (and this is not the only such misguided comment in the thread)
that is true, but irrelevant. it is not the copyright holder going after the OP, it is the station. There is no law stopping the station from pursuing legal action against its employees or ex-employees.
I can think of any conceivable way you could be held liable. The American economy wouldn't be able to function if every employee could be held financially liable for their mistakes at work.
They can, in some instances. However, it is exceedingly rare, except in really blatant acts such as theft from the company, that companies pursue legal action against employees. It is bad for business, it creates bad PR to both customers and potential and existing employees. However, even if they did pursue an action here, does it really seem likely that they would win? I guess the theory would be some form of negligence, but who was negligent, the employee who did not know copyright law details, or the supervisor who failed to ensure that his employee knew the rules about copyright, or the supervisor who presumably approved and then aired the allegedly offending commercial? Who would a jury likely side with?
Anyway, OP should consult with a lawyer, or at least contact the NY State Department of Labor, to find out about the wage law. I am pretty sure that it is a violation of law for an employer to withhold payment, even when there is a dispute, and that there are specific time limits for payment. See: 3. If employment is terminated, the employer shall pay the wages not
later than the regular pay day for the pay period during which the
termination occurred, as established in accordance with the provisions
of this section. If requested by the employee, such wages shall be paid
by mail. (Article 6 section 191) You can browse the laws and perhaps find more, but you really want someone who direct experience with these laws to consult you. Just reading the statute is not always enough.
posted by caddis at 2:37 PM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
that is true, but irrelevant. it is not the copyright holder going after the OP, it is the station. There is no law stopping the station from pursuing legal action against its employees or ex-employees.
I can think of any conceivable way you could be held liable. The American economy wouldn't be able to function if every employee could be held financially liable for their mistakes at work.
They can, in some instances. However, it is exceedingly rare, except in really blatant acts such as theft from the company, that companies pursue legal action against employees. It is bad for business, it creates bad PR to both customers and potential and existing employees. However, even if they did pursue an action here, does it really seem likely that they would win? I guess the theory would be some form of negligence, but who was negligent, the employee who did not know copyright law details, or the supervisor who failed to ensure that his employee knew the rules about copyright, or the supervisor who presumably approved and then aired the allegedly offending commercial? Who would a jury likely side with?
Anyway, OP should consult with a lawyer, or at least contact the NY State Department of Labor, to find out about the wage law. I am pretty sure that it is a violation of law for an employer to withhold payment, even when there is a dispute, and that there are specific time limits for payment. See: 3. If employment is terminated, the employer shall pay the wages not
later than the regular pay day for the pay period during which the
termination occurred, as established in accordance with the provisions
of this section. If requested by the employee, such wages shall be paid
by mail. (Article 6 section 191) You can browse the laws and perhaps find more, but you really want someone who direct experience with these laws to consult you. Just reading the statute is not always enough.
posted by caddis at 2:37 PM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
Doesn't the station have a legal department (or council on retainer at least)? If they do, then it seems like they are the ones at fault.
posted by Thoughtcrime at 2:56 PM on June 6, 2008
posted by Thoughtcrime at 2:56 PM on June 6, 2008
It's my understanding that work produced for-hire is owned entirely by the company that it's produced for. Thus they will are the ones liable, not you. They gave the go-ahead to publish it without due diligence, after all.
posted by GardenGal at 7:46 PM on June 6, 2008
posted by GardenGal at 7:46 PM on June 6, 2008
It's my understanding that work produced for-hire is owned entirely by the company that it's produced for. Thus they will are the ones liable, not you. They gave the go-ahead to publish it without due diligence, after all.
another comment that does not get it
posted by caddis at 7:47 PM on June 6, 2008
another comment that does not get it
posted by caddis at 7:47 PM on June 6, 2008
Don't be rude, caddis. It's not even your post.
Of course I understand that "it is not the copyright holder going after the OP, it is the station. There is no law stopping the station from pursuing legal action against its employees or ex-employees."
That is not what I am saying. I am specifically answering the poster's question of :
Am I liable, or should I fight this?
My post stated that legally, the station probably does not have a case against him if they failed due diligence before approving the commercial. At least that's the way I'd see it if I was in a jury. Thus he has grounds to fight the station's case against him, and he should.
As you say yourself:
who was negligent, the employee who did not know copyright law details, or the supervisor who failed to ensure that his employee knew the rules about copyright, or the supervisor who presumably approved and then aired the allegedly offending commercial? Who would a jury likely side with?
posted by GardenGal at 11:21 AM on June 9, 2008
Of course I understand that "it is not the copyright holder going after the OP, it is the station. There is no law stopping the station from pursuing legal action against its employees or ex-employees."
That is not what I am saying. I am specifically answering the poster's question of :
Am I liable, or should I fight this?
My post stated that legally, the station probably does not have a case against him if they failed due diligence before approving the commercial. At least that's the way I'd see it if I was in a jury. Thus he has grounds to fight the station's case against him, and he should.
As you say yourself:
who was negligent, the employee who did not know copyright law details, or the supervisor who failed to ensure that his employee knew the rules about copyright, or the supervisor who presumably approved and then aired the allegedly offending commercial? Who would a jury likely side with?
posted by GardenGal at 11:21 AM on June 9, 2008
« Older Is it a good idea to use superglue for covering a... | Non-Sharepoint Version Control for Word? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Now if you were a major executive or shareholder, it might be different.
posted by geoff. at 10:25 AM on June 6, 2008