Proprietary Rights – Next steps and further readings

The paper “Social media influence: a new frontier in proprietary rights?” offers a range of actionable insights and benefits tailored to various stakeholders engaged with social media, legal frameworks, and digital asset management. Here’s how different groups could benefit:

1. Legal Professionals

• Benefits: Enhanced understanding of how traditional legal frameworks can adapt to modern digital phenomena.
• Actionable Insights: Guidance on structuring agreements and trusts that incorporate social media metrics as assets, potentially leading to innovative legal services.

2. Social Media Companies

• Benefits: Strategic insights into the valuation of social media influence and its potential recognition as a proprietary asset.
• Actionable Insights: Development of new business models that leverage social media influence as a measurable and legally protected asset, enhancing partnerships with content creators.

3. Content Creators and Influencers

• Benefits: Greater awareness of how their online influence can be quantified and potentially protected under the law.
• Actionable Insights: Better negotiation strategies for contracts that reflect the true value of their social media presence and influence, leading to more favorable terms and protections.

4. Marketing Professionals

• Benefits: A deeper understanding of the intersection between social media metrics and legal considerations.
• Actionable Insights: Ability to design and implement marketing strategies that are not only effective but also compliant with evolving legal standards regarding digital content and influencer partnerships.

5. Policy Makers and Regulators

• Benefits: Informed perspectives on current trends and challenges in digital media that could influence policy development.
• Actionable Insights: Development of regulations that support the innovative use of digital assets while protecting the rights of all stakeholders involved, ensuring a balanced approach to intellectual property in the digital age.

6. Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders

• Benefits: Insights into the commercial and legal implications of digital assets.
• Actionable Insights: Strategies for incorporating social media assets into business models, potentially leading to new revenue streams and competitive advantages in the marketplace.

7. Consumer Advocates

• Benefits: Understanding of how social media influence is quantified and utilized, providing a basis for advocating for consumer rights and transparency.
• Actionable Insights: Frameworks for ensuring that consumers’ digital interactions and personal data are used ethically and transparently by companies, especially in marketing and advertising.

8. Tech Developers and Startups

• Benefits: Clarity on how emerging legal considerations around social media assets can influence product development and business strategies.
• Actionable Insights: Ideas for developing technologies and services that support the management, measurement, and protection of digital influence, aligning with legal standards and contributing to industry innovation.

Further Readings

Cases

• New Balance Athletics, Inc v The Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited [2019] EWHC 2837 (Comm)
• Alan Bates and others v Post Office [2019] EWHC 606 (QB)
• Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] A.C. 567
• Cooper v PRG Powerhouse [2008] EWHC 498 (Ch); Re EVTR [1987] 6 WLUK
• Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615) Chan. Rep. 1, analysed by D. Ibbetson, ‘The Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615)’ in Landmark Cases in Equity, C. Mitchell and P. Mitchell (eds) (Hart Publishing, 2012)
• FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45
• Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 A.C. 102 at 127
• Graham-York v York [2015] EWCA Civ 72
• Harrison v Tew, The Times, 30 November 1988, CA
• Hunter v Moss [1994] 1 W.L.R. 452; North v Wilkinson EWCA Civ 161; [2018] 4 W.L.R. 41; Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd v Fattal [2010] EWCA Civ 408; [2011] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 647
• Hunter v Moss [1994] 3 All ER 215
• Inland Revenue Commissioners v Broadway Cottages Trust [1955] Ch. 20
• Ion Science Ltd v Persons Unknown (unreported) 21 December 2020
• Knight v Knight (1840) 3 Beav 148, 9 LJ Ch 354
• Lister & Co v Stubbs (1890) 45 Ch. D. 1, confirmed in Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd (In Administration) [2011] EWCA Civ 347
• McCaig v Glasgow University Court (No.1) (1904) 12 S.L.T. 145 and M’Caig v University of Glasgow (1907) S.C. 231
• McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424
• Paragon Finance plc v Thakerar & Co [1999] 1 All ER 400
• Paul v Constance [1977] 1 All ER 195
• Re Allen [1905] 2 Ch 400
• Re Baden’s DT (No. 2)
• Re Hay’s ST [1982] 1 W.L.R. 202 with respect to the same class of ‘residents of Greater London’
• Re Polly Peck International plc (No 2) [1998] EWCA Civ 789. See also the dicta of Lord Sumption in Angove Pty Ltd v Bailey [2016] UKSC 47
• Re Vinogradoff [1935] WN 68
• Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 A.C. 432
• Swift v Dairywise Farms Ltd [2000] 1 All E.R. 320
• Templeman J in Re Manisty’s Settlement [1974]
• Vorotyntseva v Money-4 Ltd [2018] EWHC 2598 (Ch) AA v Persons Unknown [2020] 4 WLR 35 at [55–61]
• Wang v Darby [2022] Bus LR at [55]
• Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669

Books

• Daniel Chandler and Rod Munday, A Dictionary of Social Media (1st Edition, OUP 2016)
• F.W. Maitland, Equity, Also the Forms of Action at Common Law: Two Courses of Lectures (Cambridge University Press 1929)
• James Penner and Henry Smith (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Property Law (Oxford University Press 2013)
• Joseph Raz, Practical Reason and Norms (Oxford University Press 1990)
• Robert Chambers, An Introduction to Property Law in Australia (Thomson Law Book 2001) at [115]; see now the 3rd edition (2013) at [13.90]
• Sagar, The Digital Estate (2018), §§ 4–85 to 4–95

Journal Articles

• Ben McFarlane and Robert Stevens, ‘The Nature of Equitable Property’ (2010) 4 Journal of Equity 1
• J. E. Penner, ‘The (True) Nature of a Beneficiary’s Equitable Proprietary Interest under a Trust’ (2014) 27 Can J L & Jurisprudence 473
• Lionel D Smith, ‘Trust and Patrimony’ (2008) 38 RGD 379
• IM Hardcastle, ‘Administrative Unworkability: A Reassessment of an Abiding Problem’ [1990] Conv 24, at [25]
• James Brown and Mark Pawlowski, ‘Re-thinking administrative unworkability in discretionary trusts’ (2021) 27(5) Trusts & Trustees 363

Reports

• Law Commission, ‘Digital Assets Call for Evidence’ (2021), ’Digital Assets Interim Update’ (2021), and ‘Digital Assets Consultation Paper’ (2022), all available at https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/digital-assets/ accessed 12 September 2022

Online Articles

• Mike Ozanian and Justin Teitelbaum, ‘The World’s Most Valuable Soccer Teams 2022’ (Forbes, 26 May 2022) https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2022/05/26/the-worlds-most-valuable-soccer-teams-2022-real-madrid-worth-51-billion-back-on-top/?sh=3dcb9f69286b accessed 23 June 2022
• Rachel Permutter, ‘Klout Is Shutting Down, but Here Are 5 Social Media Tools You Can Use to Replace It’ (The Entrepreneur, 25 May 2018) https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/313320 accessed 01 July 2022
• S Dixon, ‘Active social media users in the United Kingdom (UK) 2022’ (Statista, 22 July 2022) https://www.statista.com/statistics/507405/uk-active-social-media-and-mobile-social-media-users/#:~:text=The%20United%20Kingdom%20(UK)%20was,the%20population%20of%20the%20UK. accessed 05 September 2022
• Meta at position 34 on Forbes’ Global 2000 list with a market value of $499.86 billion < https://www.forbes.com/lists/global2000/?sh=690357eb5ac0.> accessed 05 September 2022
• ‘Click Through Rates by Position and Percent (2022)’ (SEO Inc, 27 May 2022) https://www.seoinc.com/seo-blog/much-traffic-comes-organic-search/ accessed 08 July 2022
• Knight, Christopher M. (n.d.), ‘Understanding SOV (Share of Voice),’ http://www.ezine-tips.com/listtips/list-business/20000302.shtml accessed 7 July 2022
• Mark Ritson, ‘The effectiveness factor that helped Lidl double its market share,’ https://www.marketingweek.com/ritson-lidl-share-of-voice-market-share/ accessed 11 July 2022
• Thomas Whipple and Lou Walcer, ‘How Estimates of Share Of Voice (SOV) Affect Advertising Budget Decisions’ (2011) 3 (7) International Business & Economics Research Journal 47
• Christina Vasiliou, ‘Earned Media Value: What it is and How to use it,’. https://www.creatoriq.com/blog/earned-media-value accessed 23 August 2022

Statutes

• Family Law Act 1996
• Trustee Act 2000