Bindi Irwin, the daughter of the late Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin, has been lighting up the dance floor on “Dancing With the Stars.” But, she’s also run into some problems with her contract on the show–a judge won’t let her legally receive the money she’s earned from the show unless she can prove her father is dead.

A judge rejected @BindiIrwin‘s #DWTS contract, demanding proof her dad is dead (no, really) https://t.co/mcnCm37Orm pic.twitter.com/eXAuJmNIR8

— TV Guide (@TVGuide) November 5, 2015

Irwin, 17, is a minor. Technically speaking that means that any money she earns as a result of her performance on the show goes to her parents. Her surviving mother, Terri Irwin, has already signed a release that entitles her daughter to the money in her own right. But an L.A. Superior Court judge is saying that she needs to provide the same release from her father–or proof that he died.

Irwin’s incredibly famous father, Steve, passed away as the result of an accident with a stingray in 2006. His death was widely covered and is under no circumstances a point of contention. While it won’t be hard for her to prove that he is, in fact, deceased, the entire bizarre case is making headlines due to the highly publicized nature of his death. As TMZ put it: “It’s unclear if the judge is unaware Steve died in 2006, or if she’s just a stickler for a death certificate.”

Public reaction to the news has been mixed–while some are highly sympathetic for the young woman who lost her father at a very young age, others are pointing out that it’s a basic legal requirement that she should have no problem fulfilling.

Either way, there’s a lot of cash on the line for Irwin. By just appearing on the show, she’s guaranteed $125,000, and then gets more money for each week she successfully avoids elimination. Making it through Weeks 3 and 4 gave her another $10,000 each week, Week 5 was $15,000, Weeks 6 and 7 were worth $20,000 each, and Weeks 8 and 9 are worth $30,000 apiece. Given that she’s made it through Week 8, so far she’s racked up $230,000. If she makes it through this week she’ll earn another $30,000, and Weeks 10 and 11 are worth $50,000 each.

Irwin’s close relationship with her late father has, at points, been an important reference on the show. During the Week 4, she choose the song “Every Breath You Take” for a contemporary dance dedicated to her father with show partner Derek Hough.

While this blip with her contract is certainly unfortunate and definitely odd, Irwin is clearly a young woman with a lot of talent–she’ll probably continue to go far on the show and keep racking up that cash.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bindi Irwin Needs to Prove Steve Irwin is Dead to Receive DWTS Money appeared first on Law Street.

Every now and then Facebook updates its policies. And immediately after that, I notice a series of statuses from my “friends” on Facebook. It’s a sort of notice alerting readers to the fact that the poster believes they have copyright over their own content. I’ve seen a few versions, but the average Facebook copyright status pretty much goes as follows:

Today, November 30, 2014 in response to the Facebook guidelines and under articles L.111, 112 and 113 of the code of intellectual property, I declare that my rights are attached to all my personal data, drawings, paintings, photos, texts etc… published on my profile. For commercial use of the foregoing my written consent is required at all times. Those reading this text can copy it and paste it on their Facebook wall. This will allow them to place themselves under the protection of copyright.

By this release, I tell Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, broadcast, or to take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The actions mentioned above apply equally to employees, students, agents and/or other staff under the direction of Facebook. The contents of my profile includes private information. The violation of my privacy is punished by the law (UCC 1 1-308 – 308 1 – 103 and the Rome Statute). Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are invited to post a notice of this kind, or if you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you have not published this statement at least once, you will tacitly allow the use of elements such as your photos as well as the information contained in your profile.

There are sometimes slight variations in wording, but that’s pretty much what these statuses look like every time. I’ve seen so many in my news feed over the last week that I thought it was time for an important PSA. This status means nothing.

Seriously, it’s the equivalent of typing gibberish into your status. First of all, when you sign up for a website like Facebook, you have to agree to all sorts of terms of use. I know most of us click through those kinds of things without thinking–and understandably so. If we actually read the policies of everything we encountered on the internet in a year, it would take the average American 76 work days. Seventy-six probably very boring work days.

So obviously, most of us don’t read the terms and conditions and privacy policies, and that’s fine. But they do still exist, and they serve to protect both the company–in this case Facebook–as well as the users who implicitly agree to them when they create an account.

Essentially what the BS status says is that even though you post things on Facebook, you still own any intellectual property you post. For example, the copyright to a picture. That’s how the law currently works; however, because you are a member of Facebook.com you agree that Facebook can use your content. As Facebook’s legal terms read:

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License).

Lots of legal mumbo-jumbo, I know–but here’s what that means. All sorts of different licenses exist on the internet with regard to content that you can use. Here at Law Street, for example, we need to make sure that images you see at the top of our posts are able to be used–we don’t go out and take pictures ourselves most of the time, same as other news organizations. So we use photo-sharing sites like Flickr to find a picture with a license that allows us to use it, as long as we credit the creator. Essentially what Facebook is saying is that all of the content you post can be used by them because they now have a license that allows it. In order to sign up for Facebook, you agree to this. That’s a concession you make to use their product.

So, essentially the status means nothing because both laws and the policies created by Facebook already spell out what can and cannot be done with your photos. Let’s move on to address the fact that what the status does is try to retroactively amend a contract without negotiating. Think of it this way: imagine that you move into a new apartment and sign a lease with your landlord. The lease includes a provision that allows your landlord to show your apartment to prospective new tenants. But after signing that contract, you put up a sign on your door saying your landlord can’t do that. Such an action would absolutely not stand up in court–and that’s pretty much what this Facebook status is.

Listen, I get it. We don’t want anyone else to have ownership or the ability to use our pictures. But that’s how Facebook’s policies are written, and we have agreed to them by creating Facebook accounts. So please, stop posting the status. It really doesn’t do anything, I promise.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Please Stop Posting the Facebook Copyright Status appeared first on Law Street.

The grunge-pop diva we all know and love (or love to hate), Kesha, filed a lawsuit this week against her long-time producer claiming that he sexually and emotionally abused her for years. The producer, Lukasz Gottwald — “Dr. Luke” — was the one who discovered her at age 17 and convinced her to drop out of high school to pursue a career in music.

According to Kesha, the abuse started early and for the last ten years has kept her from moving to a different label, having control over her own music, and caused her to develop an eating disorder and subsequently enter rehab. She cites at least one count of rape following the consumption of a date rape drug, and alleges that Gottwald sexually assaulted her multiple times while forcing her to drink alcohol and take drugs. Gottwald has since filed an opposing suit, claiming defamation and breach of contract.

This is not the first time Kesha and Gottwald have been the subject of controversy. In 2013, around the time Kesha’s documentary “My Crazy Beautiful Life”  came out, fans started a petition to release Kesha from Gottwald’s control. The petition claims that  “Dr. Luke is controlling Ke$ha like a puppet, feeding her what she doesn’t want, and her creativity is dwindling and affected negativity (sic)” and that Kesha had little to no creative control over her most recent album.

In the short time since the lawsuits became public, skeptics have asked why Kesha waited so long to complain, or if she is just doing this to get out of her contract, and even saying she is lying because how can a sex symbol accuse someone of sexual assault?

These negative allegations aside, the majority of Kesha fans have shouted their support for the singer’s case, using the Twitter hashtag #StayStrongKesha.

An argument could be made for the idea that Kesha is making it all up to get out of her contract, but I just don’t think this is the case here. Her complaint has pages and pages filled with detailed and disturbing accounts of assault that span years. Accusing someone of sexual assault and rape are serious allegations that are not taken lightly, and if the victim is found to be lying the consequences are severe. Kesha is a smart woman, and by many accounts a near genius who was bound for lofty academic achievement before joining the music industry. Her intelligence does not protect her from being taken advantage of, since even the smartest men and women can be overwhelmed when in unfamiliar territory. It seems Kesha’s “mentor” knew this.

Saying that Kesha is lying because of her style, her sex symbol status, or her music is an argument that has no basis in logic. It stems from the idea that because someone dresses a certain way, or shares their sexuality more than others, they can’t cry “rape” when sexual predators target them.

It will be interesting to see how this case plays out, but Kesha and Gottwald obviously have some sort of toxic relationship that needs to end. Regardless of whether her claims are true or not, they need to be taken seriously. It doesn’t matter how famous a person is, or how long they waited to speak up; sexual assault is never okay and victims of it should be supported. Reacting negatively to cases like this discourages people in similar situations from coming forward, and encourages a society in which rape is covered up. Unfortunately, due to her fame and Gottwald’s counter case, Kesha’s fight has just begun.

Both Kesha’s lawsuit and Gottwald’s counter suit can be found here.

—

Morgan McMurray (@mcflurrybatman) is a freelance copywriter and blogger based in Savannah, Georgia. She spends her time writing, reading, and attempting to dance gracefully. She has also been known to binge-watch Netflix while knitting scarves.

Featured image courtesy of [rocor via Flickr]

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kesha Lawsuit: Victim Of Assault Or A Bad Contract? appeared first on Law Street.