Who Has to Comply with Coppa?

COPPA, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, has been around since 1998. The intent is to protect the minors under the age of 13 from having their privacy violated on the internet. It limits collecting data on children, including analytics used to advertise to them. For a long time, COPPA compliance was the domain of large corporations and companies that wanted to sell things to young children. But the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC, has issued clarification that YouTubers and small creators must comply with COPPA as well. So without the resources of a larger organization how can you know if COPPA applies to you?

The definition of collecting private information on children is broad. It applies to web cookies and anything that YouTube collects for personalized advertising. If someone is watching your YouTube channel Google is collection information on them. Under a settlement agreement with the FTC Google must stop collecting this information on channels directed at children, and these channels must take steps to make sure this data is not collected.

But what does it mean to have a YouTube channel directed at children? The FTC does not want to provide a clear answer. They cite a number of factors, from subject matter, to the use of celebrities that “appeal to children,” to the actual age of those watching.

This raises more questions than it answers. The FTC has kept their criteria broad to give themselves the greatest amount of regulatory power possible. Are video games subject matter that appeals to children, even though many adults play them? What if you post mature content discussion adult themes but children happen to watch it in large numbers despite you not marketing to them? What if your videos have a cute aesthetic that appeals to everyone, including children? The broad brush that the FTC paints with makes this difficult for a creator to approach on their own.

The penalties for violations are serious, with the maximum fines in the tens of thousands of dollars.

What California's New Independent Contractor Law Means for Your Business, Even if You're Not Uber

Last month California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 5 into law. Beginning next year, the world of California employment will look completely different. Parts of the law apply retroactively, changing the landscape now as well. While the law targeted gig economy companies like Uber and Lyft, it will have a profound effect across most California businesses. So what does the new law actually say and how will it affect your business?

Prior to this new law, businesses and the government had a lot more leeway to argue whether someone was an employee or an independent contractor. There were a number of factors, and courts had some discretion in weighing them against each other. The new law is much more strict. For someone to be considered an independent contractor, they must meet three requirements. If any of the three don’t apply to a worker, then that worker is an employee. The three factors are:

A. The company does not control the time, method, or manner of the worker’s job performance.
B. The worker performs work that is not part of the company’s usual business.
C. The worker performs work in this field for other companies.

If the worker and business fail any of these three criteria, California will consider the worker an employee. This will throw many businesses into chaos. The film industry, game development, and music production will be affected by the new rules. This is something that companies must address as soon as possible. Companies should be developing procedures to ensure that workers are appropriately covered, that contractors have the proper paperwork to protect the company and the contractor, and to check which of the numerous exemptions may apply to them.

Contact The Law Firm of Dillon McCarthy for assistance in navigating this complex new aspect of your company or production.

Katy Perry Loses "Dark Horse" Copyright Infringement Case

A Los Angeles jury has found Katy Perry liable for copyright infringement involving her 2013 hit Dark Horse. Christian rapper Flame, whose real name is Marcus Gray, accused Perry of using the beat from his song Joyful Noise in her song.

While Perry and her legal team claimed that the song used only common musical elements, the jury found a substantial similarity between the two. The Ninth Circuit, which includes California, uses a substantial similarity test to determine copyright infringement. The producers and writers of the song were all found liable, with damages to be determined.

If you have a song that you need protected or suspect that someone has infringed the copyright on your own work, contact the Law Firm of Dillon McCarthy for an intellectual property attorney who will put you first.