One recurring topic concerning the transfer has been the legal liability.

Honestly, I don't see the major hurdle that would be. As far as I can see, there are only two possible legal threats:

1. copyright issues

2. legal action taken against the site from within or without (other than copyright)


We have had copyright issues here. As it turns out, all that happens when a DMCA is filed against the site is that we need to comply with NING's demand to take down the material in question (regardless of the frivolity or seriousness of the claim) and file a counter claim. We already have experience with that. As long as we are not making any profit on the site, there can't be any kind of further claim ensuing from a DMCA.

The other perceivable legal action possible is any kind of "suing" for real or hallucinated mistreatment of individual users. Basically, the site can't be held responsible for insults or threats members endow each other with. Harassment, occurring or fantasized, falls under the same pov, it's a thing between individuals and at max, VH would be asked to give out the material in question.

Discrimination could be a point (members have spoken about suing VH for that) but honestly, do you see anyone following through with that kind of threat, that would be based on what??

But maybe I'm not seeing everything there is to this point. 

Views: 1010

Comment by Drone on February 20, 2012 at 5:38am

Vloasis = Vloggerheads 3.0

Why not, it seems to be everything everybody can agree with and come together for. Maybe they can do a democracy there if you really need to.

Vloasis = Future for Vloggerheads?

Comment by Victoria on February 20, 2012 at 5:52am

Marcel ~ I'm trying to figure out what the actual liability is.....I found this interesting.  Apparently, all content ultimately belongs to Ning and even if T& P wanted to "sell it" to an individual (should we not find a group option), is there anything to sell?  (except for the domaine  url ?)


Comment by Sedona Leigh on February 20, 2012 at 7:33am

the strongest countermeasure to any potential liability (aka inaction on the part of the website) is good record keeping.

Comment by Scissortool on February 20, 2012 at 8:30am

An individual could purchase a rider to their private insurance policy or an additional policy covering any liabilty from the website at a reasononable rate. I purchased business insurance when I owned a gift shop and had a million dollar policy for a couple hundred dollars a year through allstate ins.. Any insurance agents out there??

Comment by Judith on February 20, 2012 at 10:02am

Why would someone be willing to take on the legal liability for this site and yet hand over the actual running of the site to others, wouldn't be a smart move in my opinion.

Comment by Sedona Leigh on February 20, 2012 at 10:20am

Vital.  Has anyone successfully sued?  Any Tom, Dick, Harry or yutz can sue for defamation, libel or copyright infringement....but other than media corps nailing file sharers that make a profit, who has been successful at this game?  I can't find anyone.

Comment by Victoria on February 20, 2012 at 11:58am

people go after youtube because they believe YT has deep pockets.  if we structure VH to have limited liability or business insurance, we've used foresight.  Sedona is correct, we must maintain records and be able to document the he/she/it said stuff that happens around here.  (as well as adhere to TOS standards without bias.)

Comment by Sedona Leigh on February 20, 2012 at 12:14pm

@Vital.  I didn't find any content where he said he ended up in a courtroom.  I did see where he said he called a lawyer and the lawyer told him the libel case was 100%bs

Comment by Marcel on February 20, 2012 at 12:21pm


I don't know anything from personal experience about vloasis, therefore the question: what exactly would make it VH 3.0? And from my question you can see that the "everybody" you mention at least doesn't include me. 

Comment by Marcel on February 20, 2012 at 12:23pm


Your examples are exactly what I mentioned: individuals take each other to court - not the site. YouTube was attacked by Viacom and for good reasons: they were starting to make money on content that didn't belong to them! 


You need to be a member of VloggerHeads to add comments!

Join VloggerHeads

© 2014   Created by Marcel.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service