Roanoke Times suing former Va Tech beat writer for access to Twitter account

[cjericho]

If he was handed the account and acknowledged it was company property, how does he have a leg to stand on?

And the guy before him apparently used the account and turned it over when he left? Definitely looks like it wasn't an amicable departure.

 

[JackReacher]

Who created the account? If Tucker did, his testimony is critical. Did he create it as a personal account or with an understanding that it was the VP's account?

Did the RT include in the filing as an Exhibit the acknowledgment it says Bitter signed saying the account was properly of the paper? That's also critical.

This is a fascinating case with little precedent. You always think settlement in civil cases, but what would that even look like in this instance?

Emails about this topic to/from Bitter and the RT and also Tucker and the VP/RT should shed some light.

 

[da man]

If Bitter loses, it won't be enough that he turns over the account. He'll have to pay some damages for using the account to promote the Times' competition.

 

[Mwilliams685]

It'll be interesting to see how they figure out damages, if they do. Do you go off of tweet views? Clicks? How do you determine what either are worth?

 

[JackReacher]

If Bitter loses, he'll have to pay whatever damages the court decides, the BH Media atty fees ($$$$) and maybe the $150k BH says it would cost to recreate the account?

I can't remember, but I think BH is using a DC law firm. If so, that's $500/hr at least.

Yikes.

 

[cake in the rain]

Did the RT include in the filing as an Exhibit the acknowledgment it says Bitter signed saying the account was properly of the paper? That's also critical.
.

Yes, you can view that in the Deadspin article. Critically, the handbook section never even uses the word "social media" or "Twitter." It certainly doesn't spell out the intricacies of account ownership. It's a boilerplate paragraph about company property that we've probably all signed.

It's a laugher of a case that the paper has no chance of winning. They are wasting money and embarrassing themselves.

 

[JRoyal]

Yes, you can view that in the Deadspin article. Critically, the handbook section never even uses the word "social media" or "Twitter." It certainly doesn't spell out the intricacies of account ownership. It's a boilerplate paragraph about company property that we've probably all signed.

It's a laugher of a case that the paper has no chance of winning. They are wasting money and embarrassing themselves.

A couple of things -- the handbook definitely uses the terms social media, though in the section that would be most pertinent it refers to "communication" on "social accounts." Legally, that covers Twitter. Facts are important.

If he had started the account himself, he would probably have a case. I started my Twitter separate from work and use it for some work stuff but a lot of non-work stuff. He didn't. He took it over from the previous beat writer and used it to promote his work for the Times. I think that's the key. He was provided the account by the company. If he had come with his own account and the former beat writer said, "Hey, follow the new guy, he's gonna be great," then he'd have a case to keep it. He didn't. Even if it started with fewer followers, it came from the company initially. And the company employee handbook spells out that all communication from company-owned social media accounts are the property of the company. Since he inherited the account from the company, that's a company account.

You're right that it's a laugher of the case. You're wrong in who is on the winning side.

 

[JackReacher]

Have we seen a copy of the handbook?

The acknowledgment receipt Bitter signed (and that was presented as evidence) says he agrees to abide by the policies described in the handbook.

I'd love to read that handbook.

Edit: Nevermind, based on JRoyal's post.

 

[Cosmo]

Have we seen a copy of the handbook?

The acknowledgment receipt Bitter signed (and that was presented as evidence) says he agrees to abide by the policies described in the handbook.

I'd love to read that handbook.

Edit: Nevermind, based on JRoyal's post.

I wish I remember exactly what it said, but alas, it's been nearly three years since I left a BH paper, and probably like way longer than that since I read the actual employee handbook.

 

[cake in the rain]

A couple of things -- the handbook definitely uses the terms social media, though in the section that would be most pertinent it refers to "communication" on "social accounts." Legally, that covers Twitter. Facts are important.

If he had started the account himself, he would probably have a case. I started my Twitter separate from work and use it for some work stuff but a lot of non-work stuff. He didn't. He took it over from the previous beat writer and used it to promote his work for the Times. I think that's the key. He was provided the account by the company. If he had come with his own account and the former beat writer said, "Hey, follow the new guy, he's gonna be great," then he'd have a case to keep it. He didn't. Even if it started with fewer followers, it came from the company initially. And the company employee handbook spells out that all communication from company-owned social media accounts are the property of the company. Since he inherited the account from the company, that's a company account.

You're right that it's a laugher of the case. You're wrong in who is on the winning side.

Deadspin says it posted the "full suit." If that's true, I can't speculate why BH Media would not include its most convincing piece of evidence -- the portion of the handbook addressing social media -- in its filing, but perhaps you know since you seem very close to it.

On a side note, I think it would be fun for the U.S. Department of Labor to look at the time stamps on all these tweets. Surely, the company was monitoring its official company account to ensure that its employee was using company equipment to do his job no more than five days and 40 hours per week during the course of his employment.

I'm sure BH lawyers have already compared Bitter's timecards to his tweet activity. I can only hope they match up exactly. Surely, with such a strictly monitored company account, his supervisors would have noticed if he was using company equipment outside of his designated hours and immediately put a stop to such activity.

Maybe that will be in the next filing.

 

[JRoyal]

Deadspin says it posted the "full suit." If that's true, I can't speculate why BH Media would not include its most convincing piece of evidence -- the portion of the handbook addressing social media -- in its filing, but perhaps you know since you seem very close to it.

On a side note, I think it would be fun for the U.S. Department of Labor to look at the time stamps on all these tweets. Surely, the company was monitoring its official company account to ensure that its employee was using company equipment to do his job no more than five days and 40 hours per week during the course of his employment.

I'm sure BH lawyers have already compared Bitter's timecards to his tweet activity. I can only hope they match up exactly. Surely, with such a strictly monitored company account, his supervisors would have noticed if he was using company equipment outside of his designated hours and immediately put a stop to such activity.

Maybe that will be in the next filing.

I work for a BH paper. I was looking at the employee handbook when I posted. As for the time he worked, that's another issue entirely separate from the Twitter account and has no relevance to the case at hand.

This isn't a case of the writer getting screwed out of a Twitter account by the company. This is a case of the writer doing something he never should have when he took the beat. Most writers I know bring a Twitter account with them when they come to a new job. Do that, and the account is yours when you leave. Take one from the paper, and you basically hand the paper all the followers you build up. When they offered him the former beat writer's account, he should've said the Times should just make it a "RoanokeTimesVaTech" account and use it to promote all their coverage, and let him use his own account. He made a bad decision.

 

[JRoyal]

I wish I remember exactly what it said, but alas, it's been nearly three years since I left a BH paper, and probably like way longer than that since I read the actual employee handbook.

I hadn't read much of the handbook before today, to be honest, and I've been here in Tulsa for 13 years, and BH has owned us since 2010, I think (maybe 2009). I'm guessing they've revised that section a few times over the years, and I'm expecting a pretty hefty revision of the social media policy and communications accounts sections after this. It'll be interesting to see what it includes if they do change it.