Illinois Updates Eavesdropping Law, Ambiguities Remain

Illinois has recently enacted a revised version of the Eavesdropping Act. (720 ILCS 5/14, et. seq.) Prior to 2015, Illinois was a “two-party consent” state. The Act prohibited recording police and other public officials without their consent. There were several prosecutions under the old version of the law. The new law makes it legal to make such recordings in public without consent.

Under the old law, the statute had the effect of barring the recording of loud arguments on the street, political debates in the park, or even public interactions between citizens and police officers. While the new law attempts to create a balance between privacy and the need to preserve the details of conversations with authorities, it is being criticized for creating a new set of problems.

Chief among the concerns from both criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors are the definitions of “surreptitious” and “reasonable expectation” of privacy.

For example. although the statute protects one right o secretly record one’s conversations, the reality is that with today’s ubiquity of cell phones, even if someone has a cell phone out on the table or is checking a cell phone during the conversation, it may be unclear whether that person is also using the cell phone to record a conversation.

Furthermore, the concept of a “reasonable expectation of privacy” is problematic. Critics say that ultimately this opens the door for a debate about whether one’s expectation of privacy was a reasonable or not.

Lastly, some have criticized the Act for creating a fast track for police to conduct surveillance on citizens private communications without a warrant. The law allows police to get a approval from a local states attorney under a broad set of circumstances as opposed to having to go in front of a judge and show probable cause.

Given these ambiguities in the law, many believe that it will take time and lawsuits in order to clarify some of the boundaries of these issues.

Copyright, Fair Use & Media

Digital Media

Digital Media

Media Creation & Consumption is Challenging Traditional Legal Notions.

At a time when #media creation & consumption has transformed, two recent cases, both involving Fox News Network on opposite sides of the “fair use” defense to copyright infringement, highlights the evolving and dynamic legal challenges facing business and content creators. In each case, Fox News loses on Summary Judgment.

Photographs, Fair Use & Social Media

The first case, North Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. Jeanine Pirro and Fox News Network, LLC, involves what many recognize as the “now iconic photograph of the firefighters raising the American flag on the ruins of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.” The photograph – which bears a striking resemblance to Joe Rosenthal’s World War II photograph of the Iwo Jima flag-raising – has become a similarly striking symbol of American patriotism.

That similarity was not lost on a production assistant for a Fox News program “Justice with Judge Jeanine” who posted the two images, unaltered, on the show’s Facebook Page, along with the phrase “#neverforget,” allegedly to commemorate the twelfth anniversary of the attack.

The case is noteworthy for its analysis of the “fair use” defense in a social media context. While the Copyright Act grants authors certain exclusive rights, including the rights to reproduce the copyrighted work and to distribute those copies to the public (17 U.S.C. § 106(1), (3)) one often quoted and widely misunderstood limit to those rights is the doctrine of “fair use,” which allows the public to draw upon copyrighted materials without the permission of the copyright holder in certain circumstances. The fair use doctrine is an after-the-fact defense to infringement, not a pre-emptive justification to use another’s work without permission.

Educated in journalism and media studies, the production assistant acknowledged that she understood a copyright to be something that is owned by someone else although she had no training in copyright law either in college or during her tenure at Fox News. She had been working at Fox News for approximately three years, had previously sought legal advice regarding use of photographs on the broadcast, but never in connection with posting images to the program’s Facebook page.

The key take-away for businesses and digital marketers alike is the need for vigilance when using third-party content on social media. Employee education and training on what copyright protects, what it doesn’t, and how it works may help prevent your business form facing a similar situation.

Media Monitoring, Digital Content & Copyright Fair Use

The second case, Fox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc., involves a company that monitors and records all broadcasts by more than 1,400 television and radio stations twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week. This content is indexed and organized in a searchable database that allows subscribers to search terms, determine when, where, and how those search terms have been used, and obtain transcripts and video clips of the portions of the television show that used the search term.

Fox News Network, LLC sued to enjoin TVEyes from copying and distributing clips of Fox News programs. TVEyes asserted that its system and services are permitted under the doctrine of “fair use.”

The court found that TVEyes service was a fair use. Unlike other services that simply “crawl” the Internet, culling existing content available to anyone willing to perform enough searches to gather it, the indexing and excerpting of news articles, where the printed word conveys the same meaning no matter the forum or medium in which it is viewed, the service provided by TVEyes is transformative. By indexing and excerpting all content appearing in television, every hour of the day and every day of the week, month, and year, TVEyes provides a service that no content provider provides. Subscribers to TVEyes gain access, not only to the news that is presented, but to the presentations themselves, as colored, processed, and criticized by commentators, and as abridged, modified, and enlarged by news broadcasts.

The key take away for technology companies that rely on content is what the court says about features of the Services (as opposed to the technology itself, e.g. the software/platform): the issue of fair use is for the full extent of the service, TVEyes provides features that allow subscribers to save, archive, download, email, and share clips of Fox News’ television programs. The parties have not presented sufficient evidence showing that these features either are integral to the transformative purpose of indexing and providing clips and snippets of transcript to subscribers, or threatening to Fox News’ derivative businesses.”

In other words, evidence that certain features are essential to the use of a service, may be sufficient to show how the features (service) exist above- and-beyond what stale or static content can show.

You Don’t Have to Muddle Through

When it comes to understating evolving technology legal risks, your business can’t simply muddle through. The professionals at the Adler Law Group can help you adopt conduct risk assessments, provide employee training and methodologies for approaching these challenges by setting objectives, determining scope, allocating resources, and developing practices that will efficiently and effective manage risks, while keeping pace with the business.

For a free consultation, call us at (866) 734-2568, send and email to or visit our web site

Whose Social Media Account Is It Anyway?

As a result of the rapid shift in marketing from unilateral one-to-many communications, to the multilateral, many-to-many or many-to-one conversations enabled by Social Media, employees and employers are struggling to manage accounts that are used for both work and personal purposes.

This new phenomenon has benefits, but it also creates a number of legal challenges. For employees, it may result in greater efficiency, more opportunities for authentic customers engagement and the ability to stay on top of the most current grands and business issues. For employers, it presents opportunity to reap substantial benefits from lower communications and customer support costs. For in-house counsel, it raises a host of legal and practical issues with few easy solutions and significant liability and regulatory risks.

First, there are hardware issues. Smartphones, tablets and other personal electronics often have social networking capabilities built in. in addition, they contain contain both personal and business data. Because these devices are always on and always connected, they are more than just personal property. They have become essential business tools. For both sides of the workplace equation, employers and employees must understand where the privacy lines fall between personal versus work-related information.

Second, there are data issues. Employers must balance their needs to monitor employee usage, employees’ privacy concerns, and the risk of liability for theft or exposure of data if a device is lost or stolen, or from lack of proper safeguards on account usage. For in-house counsel tasked with drafting policies to address these risks, , Prior to implementation of any policy, the legal team needs to educate front line employees and management on reasonable expectations of privacy and security and the harms that the organization seeks to prevent.

Lastly, recent cases such as the Cristou v. Beatport litigation, highlight the struggle to define and control the beginning and end of employee social media accounts, ownership and protection of intellectual property and the post termination risks that arise from the absence of appropriate policies.

As we prepare to start a new year, the time is ripe to establish security and privacy policies governing creation, maintenance and use of employees’ social media accounts for work functions. In-house counsel must lead the charge to educate, inform and train employees about privacy, security and evidence-recovery implications associated with use of social media.

A complete collection of the 38 federal acts governing U.S. information privacy law.

A complete collection of the 38 federal acts governing U.S. information privacy law.

1. Bank Secrecy Act
2. Cable Communications Policy Act
4. Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act
5. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
6. Communication’s Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
7. Computer Security Act
8. DNA Identification Act
9. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
10. Drivers Privacy Protection Act
11. Economic Espionage and Protection of Proprietary Information Act
12. Electronic Communications Privacy Act
13. Electronic Signatures in Global National Commerce Act (ESIGN)
14. Employee Polygraph Protection Act
15. Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA)
16. Fair Credit Reporting Act
17. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
18. Federal Computer Crime Act
19. Federal Privacy Act
20. Federal Trade Commission Act
21. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
22. Freedom of Information Act
23. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
24. HIPAA Regulations
25. Identity Theft Assumption and Deterrence Act
26. Medical Computer Crime Act
27. OECD Privacy Guidelines
29. PIPEDA Privacy Act
30. Privacy Protection Act
31. Real ID Act
32. Right to Financial Privacy Act
33. Safe Harbor Privacy Principles
34. Telecommunications Act
35. Telephone Consumer Protection Act
36. Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA)
37. Veteran’s Affairs Information Security Act
38. Video Privacy Protection Act

Managing Compliance Obligations For Electronic Communications

Financial Services is one of the most heavily regulated industries. As electronic communications devices and platforms proliferate, message retention and oversight is a top priority for many compliance officers. A recent survey of compliance professionals in the financial services industry identified the following key issues:

    Firms are working smarter, not harder to manage the growing compliance burden.

As the types of messages that Financial services firms are required to monitor and store continue to increase, firms are re-evaluating and updating supervision and retention procedures. Key areas of compliance concerns are

    New regulations
    New communications channels (e.g. social media, text messaging)
    New communications devices (e.g. smartphones and tablets)
    Increased scrutiny/enforcement by regulators
    Inefficiencies of the supervision process
    Mobile devices and communications are emerging as a top concern.

Like many other industries, Financial Services firms are facing the “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD) challenge: growing use of smartphones and tablets as well as adoption of mobile-specific communications like text messaging. This presents a challenge to conventional compliance practices which has not gone unnoticed by regulators. Last year, FINRA issued Regulatory Notice 11-39, stating that firms are required to retain, retrieve and supervise business communications regardless of whether they are conducted from a work-issued device or a personal device. This presents a challenge to companies that must separate business and personal communications in order to ensure regulatory compliance.

    Social Media and other online communication channels present new concerns.

Use of Social Media is on the rise in the Financial Services industry. However, policies and procedures for supervision and retention lag behind the pace of adoption. In terms of the most requested message types during examination! Email was first, followed by Website pages (including
RSS feeds, blogs, wikis) with Bloomberg or Reuters messages and instant messages ( tied for third place.


While regulatory examiners are increasing their oversight and moving from a check-the-box approach to compliance to scrutiny of the messages themselves, financial services firms are getting more savvy about their approach to compliance. In addition, as the opportunities for new types and channels of electronic communications increase, so too are the archiving and supervision technologies allowing firms use of these emerging communication tools with a greater sense of security.