Jones Day Sues Over Website Posting Attorney Home Purchase Info

Bob
Sep 12, 2008 5:50 AM CST

There is a difference between a public record and a publicized record, but I still don’t see any potential recovery here. 

Also, Service Mark infringement?  I don’t think anyone is going to confuse Blockshopper with Jones Day.

Flag this comment

MJB
Sep 12, 2008 9:26 AM CST

I had never heard of BlockShopper.  It seems like a useful site.  Thanks Jones Day.

Flag this comment

NCLawyer
Sep 12, 2008 10:28 AM CST

I think a law firm is probably entitled to market itself based on the lawyers who actually work there.  I’m not sure BlockShopper has the right to market itself by saying, “see who bought homes in these neighborhoods.”  I wouldn’t want my name, picture and address on some real estate site.

Flag this comment

greg
Sep 12, 2008 10:52 AM CST

With regard to your comment, Steve:

My friend’s law firm did post his photo on their site, but most firms that I know of will not post your photo if you request them not to. So he had a choice in that matter. With BlockShopper, he did not have such a choice, and probably doesn’t know that his photo is posted (I haven’t talked to him about that yet). Moreover (a nice legal word), even if someone sees your photo on the firm site, it’s much different than knowing your home address (though a true nutcase could probably follow you home from work, it’s less likely than just showing up at your doorstep IMHO).

Flag this comment

Mark Sanchez
Sep 12, 2008 11:10 AM CST

Tell me that “I don’t want” is not the legal argument we are using here.  My 3 yr old is learning the unjustifiability of this claim. 

As attorneys, do we really have to remind ourselves what “Public” means?  And that Publishing Public information is redundant?

Flag this comment

homeowner
Sep 12, 2008 3:22 PM CST

Newspapers regularly publish home sale data.  You don’t even have to go to Lexis Nexis.

Flag this comment

UseTheSource
Sep 12, 2008 5:01 PM CST

What interests me is what could JD possibly gain out of this?  Diebold like handling results of unpopular info?  Seems like a waste.
Perhaps a new enforement of the internet, like the TSA, is coming.  Copyright cops, and copyright czar is coming, perhaps some think the war on the internet is the next war on terrorism/fear?
EFF and many computer experts are a new powerful force, with jedi style tricks and values.  While some sites are in bad taste of openly taunting people and potential incite to act, those sites have been taken down over time.
Is posting attorneys info like what happened to doctors who performed abortions?
Correlation of data to information of public records is going to be interesting.  Google, and a lot of others, might have a interest in this case.  Personally, I think real estate is simple financial data2info that is a matter of fact. Republicans should set a better example if they want to keep their political cover over time and to the world.

Flag this comment

mfredric
Sep 13, 2008 10:19 AM CST

There may be a difference in perception between ‘public’ versus ‘publicized’ records, but it is a distinction of absolutely zero legal significance.
>
As others have already suggested above, this is just like the reaction of the copyright owners who are upset that the costs of reproduction have more or less trended to zero—They used to not worry so much about people copying their stuff when one had to buy a record pressing plant and set up a sales force on the street in order to engage in economically meaningful reproduction and distribution, but that’s all changed now.
>
Just so this transformation of public records from something accessible only after you go down to the courthouse, wait in line, deal with a crabby person behind the counter and pay $0.50 a page to copy, into something that’s on the web 24/7.  The nature of the documents hasn’t changed a whit, but the cost of access has dropped to zero.  Then, add the wonderful ability of the computer to sift, aggregate, mix publicly available data from two different sources, and suddenly everbody on the street can get the level of intelligence that used to cost others real money to get.
>
In the end, there’s no law against the use of public data—That’s the nature of public data.  These guys are just angry that the costs of using it and analyzing it have dropped to near-zero, and thus (in today’s example) the ability to get intel on one’s neighbors is no longer the province of just the rich but all of us.
>
As we said in grade school—Too bad, so sad.

(I haven’t even addressed the obvious 1st Amendment issues—This particular site is a news reporting service reporting legimate news of publicly known events, which trumps any argument of TM infringement, publicity (particularly when the news service uses the very photo you choose to post on a public website to promote yourself!), etc. To suggest prior restraints are appropriate in this case is absurd.)

Flag this comment

john troll
Sep 14, 2008 8:43 AM CST

Every so often the riff raff forget their place. They say or do something in the mistaken belief that their actions or views matter.

When that happens they must be reminded that we are the masters of the universe. We run things. And we are not pleased when the details of our lives are revealed without our permission.
So measures must be taken. Do they bring shame on the legal profession? Do they bring violence to legal doctrines used to justify patently imroper actions?
No matter. Because the riff raff will not be allowed to interrupt the natural order of things.

Flag this comment

associate
Sep 15, 2008 10:14 AM CST

Copying and using my work picture in the course of your business without my permission will get you sued for copyright infringement.

Flag this comment

nipsey
Sep 16, 2008 10:33 AM CST

associate, i am not a lawyer and stumbled across this article.  if you were involved in a newsworthy event and the local newspaper wanted to report on it, could they not use your work picture in the article under fair use? Arent newspapers full of such fair use? Where do the pictures of people just accused of some crime come from?  Now, what is the difference here?  To many home sales are newsworthy events, in fact as mentioned they are usually reported in papers (sans pictures).  What would prompt you to sue? Because you think you can? I dont get it.

Flag this comment

Emjaycee
Sep 18, 2008 2:45 PM CST

“BigLaw Associate” (post #5) said: “I agree that there is a significant difference between “public record” and “publicized information” . . . The difference in convenience of access and breadth of dissemination is very real and significant.” 

Well, I agree with you, BigLaw, but apparently the California State Bar doesn’t.  The Board of Govs here recently rushed thorugh a new rule making the mere ACCUSATION (not conviction) of alleged ethical violations by lawyers freely available on the state bar’s website. So while the case drags on, the good name of the lawyer (who is supposed to be presumed innocent) is publicly dragged through the mud.  The Bar’s lame excuse is that this information has been “publicly available” since 1985, so they’re not doing anything but making it easier for the public to obtain this info.  (Previously, you had to call the Bar offices and pay for them to copy and mail you the paperwork.)  But I think BigLaw is right when he says “The difference in convenience of access and breadth of dissemination is very real and significant.”  To claim otherwise, as the state bar does, is to stick one’s head in the sand and ignore reality.

Flag this comment

nipsey russell
Sep 23, 2008 7:30 AM CST

@ #24:  to build on what #25 said, what is your point?  That its ok that “common folk’s” “good names” be dragged through the mud by making public when they are accused of something (“while their case drags on”)....but once the same is applicable to lawyers there is some fundamental breakdown of the system.  Boo-hoo!

Flag this comment