Very Interesting Situation (Online)

[Hurt_Tiger]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio.

This one is tricky.

A little over three years ago, I, as my avatar in a virtual world, was the subject of what is almost certainly libel per se by a major news agency, in a piece that was almost certainly done in haste because the reporter's cover had been blown.

Most people condemned this hit job, but I was cautioned that because my real name was never mentioned, I may not have a case. Further complicating this, there had been no actual damages incurred.

However, this piece has made its way to YouTube, where people known as griefers (called such because their only goal is to cause people grief) have occasionally trotted out the link to it, in an effort to have my avatar removed from places I enjoyed spending time. This had always resulted in failure, up until just very recently.

This time, the link wasn't pasted just to the local chat; it was posted in a public forum for software bug reports in a concerted effort to get something done. Something was done, as an hour after the second posting, I found my account terminated. Armed now with actual damages, I'm considering pursuing a case, if for no other reason than to prove the termination unjustified and having the account restored.

At the moment, I'm pursuing the matter through their appeals channel, although the information I've learned about their processes leads me to believe this is unlikely to change anything.

There are several questions complicating this matter:

1. When does harm to an online avatar's reputation become harm to the person behind it? Does something that causes a loss to the person behind the avatar have to happen first?
   
2. I'm in the United States. The agency is in the UK. Can an action be brought here?
   
3. Because of the nature of YouTube and the internet in general, can it be argued that it is in constant publication?
   
4. As I'm given to understand, Ohio's SoL (a very fitting acronym, by the way) is one year. When does it start, and am I, well, the second meaning?
   
5. Does retransmission of the piece via hyperlink constitute a new original publication?
   
6. If the previous answer is yes, how can I obtain real-world information for the person or persons responsible from the company that runs this virtual world?
   
7. What could be done if the company is unable to provide the above? I have to confess that this company isn't very good about ensuring they collect accurate, identifiable information.
   
8. If a defamation action against the latest original publishers is successful, can that be a springboard into tackling the real source of the piece, even if it is past the Statute?

I know I'm not being very specific about this, but the nature of the happening is that giving them on any one part would be enough to know, and I'd prefer to not have to talk about it very much yet.

 

[quincy]

To answer your second question first, if you were defamed by someone in the U.K., you would need to file any defamation action against this person in the U.K. under U.K. laws. Go to http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/31/contents for information on U.K. defamation law.

For free legal advice, you can use google to locate an advice forum in the U.K. or you could try http://www.juris-forum.co.uk.

To answer your third, fourth and fifth questions, Ohio's statute of limitations for defamation is one year from the date of first publication. The first publication rule applies to publications on the internet. If the YouTube video first appeared over a year ago, even if it is "trotted out" on occasion now, you would not be able to sue over its contents in Ohio, although you may be able to get it removed from the site by following the complaint procedures in place to get objectionable material removed. You should review the U.K. link provided above for information on how the U.K. handles online defamatory material and republications.

Finally, for your first question, it is not an easy task to prove that an online persona has established a reputation of its own and that the online persona has been defamed enough to support an award of damages. If the online persona can be connected to a real life person, then a defamation suit brought over the defamatory material published about this online persona/real life person would have a better chance of success. If you have built up a reputation online that is shown to have value, however, it is certainly possible to have this online persona harmed enough by defamatory comments to support a defamation suit and an award of damages. These are not common suits and it is unlikely that you would prevail in such a suit. A review by an attorney of all of the facts would be necessary to determine whether you have any action worth pursuing.

I am thinking that the situation you have described here pretty much makes you SOL (second meaning).

 

[Hurt_Tiger]

Hmm. Looking through the first link provided, it appears that it is also one year there, with exceptions. However, looking at those exceptions, it appears I don't qualify.

Problem is, I have tried to flag the video, and the other mirrors of it that have shown up as inappropriate. They never responded.

The other thing that perhaps I should have mentioned is that those links pasted into the public forum come with their own statements that could be actionable.

Does this extra information change anything?

 

[quincy]

Does this extra information change anything? Under the right circumstances and with the right facts it could.

But it is unlikely to change your bottom line - which is that any defamation suit will not be worth the HIGH expense of pursuing nor will any defamation suit likely be successful even if you should decide to spend the multi-multi-thousands of dollars it would take to pursue the matter in court (at least based on what you have posted here). A court is not likely to look at defamation of an avatar or having an account terminated as reputational injury worth monetary compensation.

Your best option is to continue pestering YouTube to have the video pulled.

 

[Hurt_Tiger]

What are these right circumstances and/or right facts?

I can say that one is a statement of something that is the result of a criminal conviction, and is clearly false. The other is an accusation of extreme deviancy.

I have attempted to flag the videos for a multitude of reasons, all equally valid: Promoting Hatred or Violence (passes the first test), and Invades My Privacy (as I was filmed without consent). Neither of these claims were enough.


And the general vibe I get from these responses, and indeed from pretty much every other thread here, is that the wronged party is to just 'lie down and take it'. What is this all about?

 

[quincy]

A wronged party should not just lie down and take it, if they have a case with merit and if the case with merit is worth the financial cost of pursuing. Those are two big "ifs" that generally do not exist in the situations posted here. Not every wrong can (or should) be righted with a lawsuit.

You are looking to bring a suit over the defaming of an avatar, the defamation of which occurred three years ago. It really does not matter what defamatory statements (accusations of criminal acts, deviant acts) have been made about this avatar at this point. You have passed the time within which you can file a defamation suit in both Ohio and in the U.K.

And, even if you were still within the statute of limitations period for more recent postings about your avatar, you would have the almost insurmountable challenge of showing that this avatar has a reputation with value and the reputational injury suffered by the avatar is worth monetary compensation. In addition, you would have to do all of this proving in a U.K. court under U.K. defamation laws.

For a case posted here that you may be interested in viewing, to see not only the time and effort and money - and the personal costs - involved in a defamation lawsuit, check out the numerous threads started by jci63 in this section. He took his case all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court (they refused to hear it). His personal life and his finances suffered tremendously as a result of his determination to not just "lie down and take it," even though it seemed rather clear (at least to me), as more information about his case was disclosed, that his case had little merit and the outcome would be what it wound up being.

What you are talking about with a defamation suit with merit, Hurt_Tiger, is many thousands of dollars (the average estimated cost to be in the neighborhood of $500,000 when you have attorneys involved) and often several years worth of time battling the matter out in court. A case without merit will be given short shrift by the courts, but there will still be time and money involved prior to its dismissal (Google attorneys, for instance, sought $97,000 for filing a single motion to dismiss - although they were only awarded $25,000 by the trial judge).

So, do I think you have anywhere near the type of case that is worth the time and expense it will take to pursue? Not based on what you have posted here. But I suppose I have been wrong in the past.

For a better determination of the pros and cons of filing suit (one of the cons perhaps being that you have no suit ), you will need to go over all of the facts with an attorney in your area.

Good luck with whatever decision you decide to make.