
Yelp reviewers claim to be employees in lawsuit - alexlitov
http://cir.ca/news/yelp-reviewers-employment-lawsuit
======
codezero
The only time (as far as I am aware) that a similar lawsuit was successful was
when AOL had to pay out $15 million to their moderators.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_Community_Leader_Program](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_Community_Leader_Program)

Some key reasons they were able to win were:

    
    
      1) they had training
      2) they had supervisors
      3) they had to file reports and meet goals
    

If they were operating autonomously, or even given some incentives (at the
time they were given free AOL which was not a flat rate, so it had significant
value), then the risk is low, but some of the things AOL did in running this
program put them at risk.

Even with the very specific things AOL did that bit them later, the lawsuit
still dragged on for a long time.

Yelp is unlikely to be at any risk at all here unless they were treating these
reviewers like employees. Just contributing content is definitely not enough
to put them at risk, and if the people are bitter about their contributions
they have the right to remove them (I think).

~~~
DanBC
[http://www.yelp.com/static?country_=US&p=tos](http://www.yelp.com/static?country_=US&p=tos)

> You alone are responsible for Your Content, and once published, it cannot
> always be withdrawn.

> We may use Your Content in a number of different ways, including publicly
> displaying it, reformatting it, incorporating it into advertisements and
> other works, creating derivative works from it, promoting it, distributing
> it, and allowing others to do the same in connection with their own websites
> and media platforms ("Other Media"). As such, you hereby irrevocably grant
> us world-wide, perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, assignable,
> sublicensable, transferable rights to use Your Content for any purpose.
> Please note that you also irrevocably grant the users of the Site and any
> Other Media the right to access Your Content in connection with their use of
> the Site and any Other Media. Finally, you irrevocably waive, and cause to
> be waived, against Yelp and its users any claims and assertions of moral
> rights or attribution with respect to Your Content. By "use" we mean use,
> copy, publicly perform and display, reproduce, distribute, modify,
> translate, remove, analyze, commercialize, and prepare derivative works of
> Your Content.

They follow that with

> As between you and Yelp, you own Your Content. We own the Yelp Content,
> including but not limited to visual interfaces, interactive features,
> graphics, design, compilation, including, but not limited to, our
> compilation of User Content and other Site Content, computer code, products,
> software, aggregate user review ratings, and all other elements and
> components of the Site excluding Your Content, User Content and Third Party
> Content. We also own the copyrights, trademarks, service marks, trade names,
> and other intellectual and proprietary rights throughout the world ("IP
> Rights") associated with the Yelp Content and the Site, which are protected
> by copyright, trade dress, patent, trademark laws and all other applicable
> intellectual and proprietary rights and laws. As such, you may not modify,
> reproduce, distribute, create derivative works or adaptations of, publicly
> display or in any way exploit any of the Yelp Content in whole or in part
> except as expressly authorized by us. Except as expressly and unambiguously
> provided herein, we do not grant you any express or implied rights, and all
> rights in and to the Site and the Yelp Content are retained by us.

Which is, I think, an effort to distance themselves if someone posts "I
totally saw the chef drop the steak on a dirty floor and put it on a plate"
type lies.

~~~
codezero
Thanks. I didn't realize they don't allow content to be withdrawn, that's
interesting, but doesn't affect the contents of the lawsuit as far as I can
tell, in fact, two of the primary complaints were that their content was
removed after they were banned.

~~~
saraid216
(Oblig. Disclaimer: IANAL) Keep in mind that a TOS is a cover-your-ass
mechanism, not a contract. Parts of it _can_ be struck down as part of a legal
decision; until a clause is tested in court, it's basically bluster.

------
jmduke
The precedent of such a suit would be staggering; I can't count on two hands
the number of major Internet companies that derive the vast-majority of their
content from user-generated content.

Kinda weird to be fiercely on the side of a company I dislike, but I hope Yelp
doesn't have to spend too much money on pointless legal fees here.

~~~
segmondy
You write as if the suit has a chance. The suit has no chance, none, zilch,
zero. They were not forced to write the reviews. Imagine me and you suing
ycombinator, because our post on HN adds value to the site. How absurd.

~~~
jmduke
I certainly hope you are correct (and would believe you to be), I just have
zero domain knowledge of the law in this scenario and wanted to resist making
such an assertion.

~~~
contextual
I almost fell out of my chair when I read this. What a breath of fresh air!
Zero domain knowledge doesn't prevent most HN users from just making something
up on the spot and spewing it as fact.

------
mkhalil
"...textbook example of a frivolous lawsuit" \- Yelp

Agreed.

But let's just say, they win. Would this force sites like Instagram, Twitter,
and Facebook to go the YouTube route and pay the really popular ones?

\--well anyone can make money on YouTube, but unless your popular, your not
going to make anything significant--

People already do this with sponsored tweets and pics, but it's not Twitter
that's actually paying them.

I wonder why YouTube decided it's a good idea (obviously it was/is).

~~~
dclowd9901
There's not even a point in going down that hypothetical. This is beyond
stupid. It would be like suing your favorite restaurant for not paying you for
telling everyone how much you like it.

------
thehme
This suit has no merit. If it did, then every FB, Twitter, Google, Amazon,
etc. user would have to start getting paid at sign up. It doesn't make sense.
The point of rating/reviewing a service/product is that you want to share the
ups and downs with other people, so they make an educated selection. I
personally enjoy reading reviews of restaurants and always give a place a
chance if there are few unfavorable reviews. I also like writing my own
reviews and even though I might have once thought that I should be paid (like
a good wine connoisseur) I know that that I would've never reviews anything
from the start, if getting paid was the goal.

This blog post reminded my of that one commercial (has anyone see it?), which
I find very annoying, about joining someone's list. Perhaps these Yelp users
should pay to review as they don't quite deserve the Yelper title.

------
brnstz
You might say this is frivolous lawsuit, and I'd agree. The plaintiffs have
zero chance of winning, there is no coercion, there is no semblance of
employment.

But.

Take a moment to think. What is the value of a website like this, without the
user-generated content? A Yelp with no reviews, no photos, etc. is just a
phonebook. Alternatively, a restaurant review with no platform, no audience is
just a journal entry. It's symbiotic.

Maybe that's obvious. Ok, so. Yelp gets paid. Why don't the reviewers get
paid? Too easy to game? Too impractical? Because people will do it for free
anyway?

Musicians and exhibitionists will do it for free, too. That doesn't mean they
are creating no value. It would be good if Yelp reviewers could be paid. It
would be good if it were possible to pay people for the value they create
voluntarily.

~~~
scarecrowbob
Here's a larger point from the mid twentieth century: what is the real value
of a broadcast TV network with the viewers? IN a sense, the product the
network produces is ad views, with the work being done by the audience.

I'm not saying that the audience is an employee, just that the model of not
paying for value created by a crowd is large and old.

~~~
brnstz
Imagine a (very fictional) Yelp user who has 0 money, will never go to a
restaurant again in his life, or buy anything at all for that matter. But he
has perfect memory and can write excellent reviews of thousands of restaurants
he's been to in the past.

Does he have any value to Yelp as eyeball for advertisers? No. If Yelp's
audience consisted completely of people like him, no one would ever advertise
on Yelp again, no restaurant owner would ever pay Yelp for premium whatever
status thing they sell.

But our fictional user can write reviews that are consumed by other users. He
is providing real value to Yelp, as a non-eyeball.

In the television case, this guy is completely worthless.

Facebook is a simpler example, because most people are both supplying content
and seeing ads. If there were no content, no one would go there to see the
ads.

------
alexrson
"...textbook example of a frivolous lawsuit" \- Yelp

I have to agree.

------
bhahn
I wish the US legal system would make changes to discourage these types of
frivolous lawsuits. It seems like many suits are intended to force the
defendant to settle even though the suit itself has no merit.

I wonder if the # of frivolous lawsuits would go decline if the suing party
were forced to pay the defendant's legal fees if the suing party lost.

~~~
saraid216
It entertains me that we're so big on First Amendment rights, but the right to
petition for redress of wrongs needs to have conditions on it like "not
frivolous".

------
zequel
An aside, according to the lawsuit: Writers can receive "Elite" status and are
given titles such Duke, Duchess, Baron, or Baroness, the complaint states."

Really? Oh man, what people will do for "achievements"! Personally, I think
the lawsuit is bogus.

------
andrew_gardener
so if this lawsuit were to win, would this be the beginning of the end for
user generated content sites?

Not that I think they'll win. Its a bit of a stretch to call these reviewers
employees unless there is something missing from the article (I've never heard
of Yelp before so I don't know much about them).

------
walshemj
They probably Googled for lawyer and picked the one with the most 5* reviews
that he had paid for.

Or they met some drunk guy in a bar who said he was a lawyer is the other
option.

Bet the Judge will go into his chambers after this one and have a very good
laugh.

------
hippich
i will risk my karma here and say that if all sites were required to pay for
user's contribution, that would force sites to charge visitors for using
sites, and this might in turn would stop this crazy ads mania and convert
sites to subscription-only.

------
zonkey
The flip of this would be Yelp retroactively charging users for looking at
reviews. It's ridiculous.

------
trimbo
So what would Facebook be? Or Google?

------
kin
This is silly. The notion basically applies to every crowd-sourced service out
there.

------
goshx
OMG, I think we should all get paid for posting content to HN!

------
daveambrose
unrelated but when did Circa start publishing to the web, in addition to their
apps?

------
benhirashima
unbelievable. some people.

------
PhasmaFelis
Wow. That takes some balls.

~~~
goshx
and no brain.

