Day of Mobile is an all day event for mobile developers and enthusiasts that will take place at IIT on March 6, 2010. The overall goal of the event is to better prepare both Chicago’s application development community and companies with mobile initiatives for the upcoming mobile revolution. We will cover a myriad of different topics relative to mobile development and strategy such as platform SDKs, cross platform development, multimedia, CMS/SMS, mobile business models and many more. The event will begin with a breakfast at 8AM and conclude after a keynote speech and hackathon awards ceremony at 4PM. Throughout the day, there will be talks running concurrently with one another in two adjoining ballrooms.
 
Daliah’s presentation is titled: The Legalities of going Mobile

Here is the abstract:
Software development for mobile applications creates a whole slew of new legal issues both for the developer creating the mobile application and the businesses bringing the application to market. In her presentation, Daliah will highlight some of these key legal issues, addressing, for example, new copyright and trademark licensing concerns, the use of open source in mobile development, and how to negotiate non-traditional revenue sharing models. Ample time will be devoted to Q &A.
 
For more info visit: www.dayofmobile.com

Daliah Saper’s article titled:  “Designer” Jewelry vs. “Inspired-by” Jewelry: Intellectual Property Infringement and Unfair Competition Considerations was recently republished in the ABA’s Winter 2010 issue of the Intellectual Property Law Committee Newsletter.

The article analyzes copyright, trademark, and unfair competition law as applied to “inspired-by” jewelry designs and provides practical tips to avoid legal problems in these areas.

 To read the text of the article as it was originally printed in the Journal of the  Dupage County Bar Association click here.

With the recent release of Buzz, Google’s new social media and networking platform, Google has been forced to face down a storm of criticism over alleged privacy violations.  The primary point of concern raised by critics was the application’s “auto-follow feature,” which automatically uploaded and shared email contact information that many users preferred to keep private.  Google’s Buzz is just one example of privacy concerns presented by the rapid growth of “cloud computing services.” These services, such as web-based email and online social databases, store information in a central hub—or “cloud”—that is accessible by users with varying degrees of access to the information.  As a result, by merely participating in these services, users often put their information at risk for privacy violations.

When users upload information to online cloud services, there is an expectation by consumers that they will be able to control the privacy of that information.  However, problems with unclear default settings and insufficient security options often expose information that was meant to remain private.  While Google, as one example, maintains that files and confidential information uploaded to its various platforms will be stored securely, consumer protection groups have called for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Google’s security safeguards.  One of the FTC’s principal areas of concern is privacy and identity protection, giving them the power to regulate any business that runs the risk of engaging in deceptive or unfair trade practices with confidential information.  Therefore, when companies like Google promise security safeguards that prove to be ineffective, the FTC ultimately has the authority to shut those services down.

The publication of personal information by websites also exposes internet companies to potential lawsuits from private consumers.  When a company discloses an individual’s private information to the public, that individual can bring a tort claim for invasion of privacy or publication of private facts.  However, in most cases the information exposed must be of the kind that would be highly offensive or harmful to a reasonable person.  Additionally, if the information is of legitimate concern to the public then the plaintiff will have difficulty recovering damages.  Furthermore, a website often cannot be held liable for giving further publicity to what an individual has already made public.  Social media sites use this safeguard to argue that a great deal of the information uploaded by consumers has already been exposed to some portion of the public.  Thus, users should be extremely diligent in safeguarding and uploading their information to social media sites.  Once the information reaches the public, the user’s ability to protect the privacy of that information is greatly diminished.

While Google has corrected the “auto-follow feature” and other aspects of Buzz that caused the consumer uproar, the ever-expanding popularity of social media and “cloud computing services” will likely continue to raise these privacy concerns in the future.  It is important to keep in mind that users are not without available protections.  If you have any questions or concerns over whether your privacy rights have been violated, please contact Saper Law at 312.527.4100.

With the recent conclusion of the Illinois primaries and statewide elections around the corner, media channels and airwaves have been a breeding ground for assaultive comments and statements between candidates. Television viewers and radio listeners have been bombarded with an onslaught of negative attack campaign ads and political statements that barrage one candidate while heralding the next as a savior.  Many people are wondering how politicians and their supporters are able to publish these ads; certainly some of the ads cannot represent the whole truth. But the question then becomes when do such statements rise to the level of actionable defamation?

 

What is defamation?

 

To put the scenario in context, it is helpful to have a basic understand of what the concept of defamation is.  Defamation is the communication of a false claim or statement of fact about another person that harms that person’s reputation. The statement does not need to be made to a large group of people; you can be liable even if you make the statement to just one other person (other than the person that the statement is about). There are two types of defamation. The first is libel or written defamation, including things written on Internet websites, blogs and message boards. The second is slander or spoken defamation.

 

 

What is a “false statement of fact”?

 

A false statement of fact is a false statement that can be proven true or false – such as “John stole my computer from my house,” or “Mary had an affair with the boss to get her promotion” – and which a reasonable person, in the context provided, would understand as being asserted as a true and verifiable statement. Obviously, if a statement is true, it cannot be defamatory.

 

What about statements of personal opinion?

 

Opinions, even if they reflect negatively on someone, are protected by the First Amendment and are not defamatory. However, just calling a false statement of fact an opinion is not enough to gain First Amendment protection. For instance, if you say, “Based on the evidence, in my opinion, it’s clear that John stole my computer from my house,” then a court might determine that, because you were backing up your statement with evidence, that you were actually making a statement of fact. If that statement is false and hurts John’s reputation, then you could still be liable for defamation.

 

How is this affected by the context of a political campaign?

 

It is important to keep in mind that claims for defamation are usually balanced against a person’s First Amendment protection on free speech.  Importantly, the First Amendment was enacted during a time where government censorship on debate and criticism of the political process were a large concern. Therefore, the First Amendment’s principal guarantee of free speech is perhaps strongest when dealing with public debate on political issues.  Thus, in the context of political campaigns, public officials are often required to meet a higher standard of proof than ordinary citizens.  Most courts require public officials to prove to that the defamatory statement was made with the person’s actual knowledge of its falsehood or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

 

 

When does political “spinning” of statements during an election rise to the level of actionable defamation?

 

Most courts take the view that when a person runs for public office, he puts his character in issue so far as it relates to his fitness and qualifications for office.  Accordingly, the politician’s prior conduct and actions are often fair game for comment. But campaign ads are famous for spinning the truth and such “spinning” of the facts typically walks a fine line to being false. 

 

For example, in the recent Massachusetts race to fill the seat of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democratic Party sent a mailing letter out in opposition to the then Republic Candidate, Scott Brown. The ad stated “1,736 women were raped in Massachusetts in 2008. Scott Brown wants hospitals to turn them all away.”  Did Scott Brown ever tell hospitals to turn raped women away? Probably not, but a reader of the four-page mailer might have taken the statement as a fact.  In actuality, the ad was referring to an amendment that now U.S. Senator Scott Brown voted in favor of when he was in the Massachusetts Senate.  The failed amendment would have allowed highly religious workers at hospitals to avoid providing contraception to rape victims. Is the statement defamatory?

 

The first consideration is whether the statement is objectively verifiable as false.  This statement clearly walks a fine line. On one hand, Sen. Brown did vote in favor of a bill that may allow hospital workers to refuse to provide contraception to rape victims.  However, did this bill affect “all” of the 1,736 women as claimed by the ad? The answer is no. To further make the situation difficult, the ad’s language “Brown wants” may be seen as referring to Sen. Brown’s state of mind.  Recall that the public official is required to prove knowledge or reckless disregard for the truthfulness of the statement. Therefore, even if the ad is viewed as a false statement a fact, the politician would still have to overcome these hurdles at trial.

 

Ok, so a statement is a “false statement of fact,” what other legal challenges does a public official face?

 

In addition to the heighted knowledge requirement for statements made against public officials, the politician is hard pressed to fit political statements under the basic defamation framework.  Statements made during political campaign receive the best chance of falling into one or more of the five categories of statements considered defamatory per se.  Defamatory per se statements are those from which it is clear from the statement itself that it is defamatory.  The per se categories most likely to encompass political attack ads are the categories for words that imply an inability to perform duties of office or employment, or statements implying a lack of ability in the person’s trade, profession or business.  However, even these categories present unique challenges to a politician claiming that he has been defamed by a political statement.  Political defamation cases often require courts to determine whether a political campaign can be considered the politician’s “profession” or “business.”  Court positions can vary widely on this topic from state to state and it is important to consult an attorney for state specific advice.

 

If political defamation lawsuits are so hard to prove, why bring them? 

 

It is important to keep in mind that there is no typical defamation case.  The statements involved and the ability to prove their veracity will necessarily vary. In some cases, conduct may be so outrageous, that it may be relatively easier to recover damages.  On the other hand, there may be a strategic element involved to a political defamation case.  Defamation suits can be used to scare various media sources from originally publishing ads or may prevent further dissemination of attack ads.  Defamation law suits may even be used as a way to publicly challenge the offensive allegations in a campaign ad.  At the end of the day, when the public official’s image is on the line, filing suit may be a strategic victory.

 

If you have further questions about defamation law, as it applies to political campaigns or public figures, feel free to contact our offices: 312.527.4100.

 

 

 

 

Directed by Malachi Leopold, “22 Years From Home” tells the story of Kuek Aleu Garang, one of the Lost Boys of Sudan.

At the age of 6, Kuek was separated from his family during the Sudanese Civil War.

In the spring of 2009, Kuek journeyed back to Sudan to reunite with his family for the first time in 22 years

LEGAL GUIDANCE FOR YOUR BUSINESS:
Tips for Starting and Running Your Small Business
 
This workshop addresses the legal challenges that a small business person confronts when starting and expanding a business. Brian Fons will cover business entity selection, formation, and maintenance, while Daliah Saper will explain the difference between trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and patents. Workshop attendees will also learn about the legal implications of social media, ie online defamation, intellectual property infringement, and social media policies.
 
 Course outline  
 Choosing a Legal Entity for Your Business
  · Sole Proprietorship
  · Corporation - Separate legal entity
    o S-Corporation
    o C-Corporation
  · Limited Liability Company (LLC)
  · Wage Reduction example
    o Sole Proprietors pay 15.3% of all income to Feds for withholding
  · Piercing the Corporate Veil
    o Rare situation
    o Tips on avoiding “piercing” the veil.
  · Leases and contracts
  · Naming your business
  · Other insights
Trademarks and Copyrights
  · What are the steps to getting a trademark registration?
  · What is a Copyright? What Kinds of Works are protected?
  · When Can I get away with NOT asking for Permission?
  · What is a “Work Made for Hire”
Social Media
  · Employee Policies
  · What can you do when you don’t like what is written about you.
 
Visit These Sites to Preview This Topic:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzvCP5uydp0
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiH-6Ihs44Q
 
 
Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Time: 8:45 am - 12:30 pm (Registration begins at 8:30 am) 
Location: SCORE Chicago Main Office, Citicorp Center, Suite 1150, 500 W. Madison (at Canal) in downtown Chicago
 
Price:  $60 prepaid online now   $70 at door.  SAVE $10 by pre-registering on-line!
 
Speakers
 
Brian Fons is President and Regional Counsel of Corporate Creations Chicago L.L.C., a Corporate Creations regional office opened in 1997 in the Lincoln Park area of Chicago. Prior to starting a Corporate Creations regional office, he worked as a Vice President of Corporate Creations International Inc. in Miami, Florida. He obtained his J.D. degree in 1996 from the University of Miami Law School, and he obtained his B.A. degree from the University of Wisconsin.

 
Daliah Saper is a member of the Illinois Bar and both the General Bar and Trial Bar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. She has handled high profile cases and has been featured in several publications including: National Jurist Magazine, Chicago Lawyer Magazine, Chicago Reader, P2Pnet.net, StyleExpose.com, and SBTV.com. She has repeatedly received the honor of being named a “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers magazine and was recently nominated for the prestigious ATHENA Young Professional Leadership Award. In addition to conducting Seminars at Saper Law on a monthly basis, Daliah is a frequent lecturer, panelist, and instructor for organizations around the city and the country. (For Daliah’s latest speaking engagements, please visit www.saperlaw.com.) She is on the faculty of PLI, Practicing Law Institute, is an adjunct professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, and has been selected by Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society to be a member of Harvard’s new Online Media Legal Network (OMLN).

On February 16, 2010 Daliah Saper will once again be a featured lecturer at Score Chicago’s New Product Development Workshop. Daliah’s presentation will cover trademark, copyright, trade secret and business law.

For more details visit: www.scorechicago.org

Overview:

We all want to convert our ideas into profit. Learn what it takes to introduce your new product into market. Find how to get financing; how to license your idea as a product to others; how to outsource the production; how to market and sell your product.

Date: February 16, 2010

Location: SCORE Chicago, 500 West Madison, Suite 1150, Chicago
Time: 8:35 – 4:00 pm.
Cost: $75 pre-paid online; $85 at the dooor

Agenda:
8:30 AM Sign-In
8:45 AM Welcome, Al Grossman, Workshop Moderator
9:00 AM Daliah Saper, Saper Law Offices, Trademark,
Copyright and Business Law
10:15 AM Dick Kerndt, BranMark Strategy Group, Marketing
Consultant
11:15 AM Eric Waltmire, Erickson Law Group, Patent Law and
Licensing Information
12:15 PM LUNCH* and NETWORKING BREAK
1:30 PM Keith Alsberg, Square One Product Development
2:30 PM Al Grossman, SCORE Counselor, CON-TECH Lighting®
President & Founder (retired), Presents A Case Study
3.30 PM Round Table Q&A for all participants (ask your
Questions of the experts)

*Box lunch included

Phone for questions: (312) 353-4540

As a litigator, a large part of Daliah Saper’s practice at Saper Law centers on cases involving defamation and slander. On January 19, 2010, Chicago Public Radio, WBEZ 91.5 FM, invited Daliah Saper and Geoffrey Stone, a professor of law at the University of Chicago, to be guest speakers on the topic of political slander.

The discussion question presented by WBEZ related to the barrage of arguably defamatory campaign advertisements being disseminated in anticipation of the February 2, 2010 primaries. Specifically, WBEZ wanted to know: When do statements made in the context of an election rise to the level of actionable defamation? For example, would Illinois Congressman, Mark Kirk, have a good defamation case against opposing candidate Andy Martin for Martin’s ads proclaiming that: “there is a solid rumour that Kirk is a homosexual.”? Similarly, what is the chance that Dorothy Brown, Democratic candidate for Cook County Board president, will win her recently filed defamation lawsuit against Metropolitan Water Reclamation District President Terrence O’Brien? Brown is claiming 1.25 million in damages for this statement: “Ethically challenged Dorothy Brown forced employees to give her cash gifts.”

As speakers on WBEZ’s Eight Forty-Eight program, Daliah and Geoffrey provided WBEZ listeners with a short lesson in defamation law and discussed how to analyze potentially defamatory statements made in the context of a political campaign. You can listen to the interview here.

If you have questions about defamation law as it relates to public figures, celebrites, or just regular businesses and individuals, contact Saper Law at 312.527.4100 or email us directly using the contact form.

Super Lawyers is a listing of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The magazine, featuring articles about attorneys named to the Super Lawyers list, is distributed to all attorneys in the state or region, the lead corporate counsel of Russell 3000 companies and ABA-approved law school libraries.

The Super Lawyers selection process involves a survey of all attorneys in a particular state and rates candidate nominations on a variety of factors including: Representative clients, Experience, Honors and awards, Special licenses and certifications, Position within law firm, Bar and or other professional activity, Pro bono and community service, Scholarly lectures and writings,and Education and employment background. Global Strategy Group (GSG), one of the nation’s leading market research and consulting firms, conducted an independent assessment of the Super Lawyers selection process and concluded that the process is scientific and objective.

On Tuesday January 26, 2010 Daliah Saper will give a presentation to Chicago based artists about the various legal procedures involved with starting a business. Details below:

In the Business of Art + Forming Your Corp or LLC
Start Your Business NOW!
This is the time to start the year off with your business mind no matter what type of business you’re interested in launching. This is a big plus for those interested in starting a for-profit art or creative services business.
Bring your questions

Saper Law Offices
500 North Dearborn
Suite #1200
Chicago
6 pm – 8 pm
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Limited Capacity

Informational session with attorney Daliah Saper
She will discuss for profit business formation + trademarks + copyrights + contracts and other important aspects related to starting your own creative/art related business

Marketing Maven Daisy de la Cruz will share information about marketing your art business

Hosted by: Lisette Calderon, connoisseur PR Group
http://art.meetup.com/268/calendar/12324409/

Register now for January’s Seminar at Saper Law: Key Provisions in a Sales Rep. Agreement

Does your company manufacture, distribute, or sell products and/or services by utilizing a sales force?

Are you a sales professional, selling for a company on either a base salary plus commission basis or as an independent contractor?

Not sure what terms you should be negotiating in your sales representative agreements?

Concerned that your agreement is not comprehensive enough in case there is a dispute?
 
January’s seminar at Saper Law focuses on the topic of Sales Representative Agreements.  Daliah Saper, Principal Attorney at Saper Law, will lead the presentation using case studies and sample contracts. Her discussion will address payment and commission structures, non-compete and confidentiality agreements, territorial and geographical boundaries, intellectual property ownership, as well as the Illinois Sales Representative Act.

Cost $15 with online registration: http://salesrep.eventbrite.com
$25 at the door
Lunch will be provided

$4.99 to watch the live webcast  Follow these instructions to register:

Key Provisions in a Sales Rep. Agreement @Rvibe

January’s seminar at Saper Law is a must-attend for any company or individual involved in sales.  Sign up today before space runs out!

The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin recently interviewed Daliah Saper for its article on Employers’ use of Social Media to make hiring and firing decisions:

Employers using Internet to learn about employees face risks

By Jerry Crimmins
Law Bulletin staff writer
December 31, 2009
Vol.155, Issue 255

In a case of the Internet strikes again, lawyers are warning employers about the risks they run in the new fad of probing potential and current employees through such social networking sites as Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn.

Read more of the article here:
http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/news/get_story_text.cfm?id=100007615&SessionID=

Scheduled guests will be marketing reps and creatives from the:

and more

Payment $3.00 Online or $5.00 at the door.

Please note: this will not be a political or ethical discussion and will be moderated to keep it tightly focused on marketing. 
For  more details click here: http://www.meetup.com/chicagomarketing/calendar/11637946/?a=cr1p_grp&rv=cr1p

By way of backround: Since 1990, Chambers has published the world’s leading guides to the legal profession and has built a reputation for in-depth, objective research. Chambers  has a team of 100 highly qualified full-time researchers who conduct thousands of interviews with lawyers and their clients worldwide. Working with our editors, they identify and rank the world’s best lawyers (i.e. those who perform best according to the criteria most valued by clients – such as technical expertise, business acumen, prompt delivery, value for money).

Daliah Saper was recently quoted as a Social Media Law expert in Elizabeth Leonard’s article for FORUM magazine.  The full text of the article is reprinted with permission below. To read the article online go to:  http://www.associationforum.org/resources/digital-forum.asp
A pdf’ed version may be accessed by clicking here:  forum-magazine-article

 OPEN THE DOOR TO SOCIAL MEDIA

BY ELIZABETH BORRE LEONARD

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009 FORUM 55

As many association professionals know, nonprofits often restrict employee access to social networking sites and sometimes prohibit it alto­gether. Never mind that popular sites like Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr and Twitter already have become staples in the modern mainstream marketing mix; many nonprofit executives continue to question the value of social media, wor­rying about the potential impact of hypo­thetical misinformation when it’s spread via social networks. As the Metropolitan Chicago Healthcare Council recently discovered, the risks are real. But so are the rewards.

THE PROBLEM WITH SOCIAL MEDIA

During the first half of 2009, media reports of social media blunders became all too common. Some people have even lost their jobs over short — but not so sweet — tweets. There was a woman in California, for instance, who unintention­ally sabotaged a job offer when she care­lessly tweeted about getting a new job with a “fatty paycheck,” then lamented over the longer commute and admitted to “hating the work.” In the end, the com­pany rescinded its job offer.

Daliah Saper of Saper Law, a Chicago-based firm that practices social media and Internet law, warns that while social networks may seem harmless to employees, their employers must beware. That’s because evolving workplace ethics and — in some industries, such as health care, where there are rules like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) governing communications — legal mandates have shed a new spot­light on employee correspondence, even when that correspondence takes place on social networks.

“Simple actions such as complaining about a long day at the office have taken on an Internet-based tint,” Saper says. “Those status updates published to hun­dreds of connected people about the tri­als of the day could get you in trouble.”

The problem isn’t only with employ­ees, according to Saper; it’s also with the social networks themselves, as there is no one on the other end of a typical social network policing improper or ille­gal activity. “If [a health care employee] posts a photo of a patient, Facebook certainly won’t instruct them to take it down,” Saper says. “If you are not aware of the problem and you haven’t correctly trained your employees, you could be liable for a number of claims resulting from your employees’ postings.”

MCHC, a membership and service association representing more than 140 hospitals and health care organizations in northern Illinois, has been studying social media for many years. In 2007, at the request of its member hospitals, MCHC hosted a blogging session to address a topic still considered taboo by hospitals: executive blogging. The ques­tion hospitals were asking them — and are still asking today — was, “Should we be participating in health care discus­sions on blogs?”

MCHC took the plunge this summer when its president and CEO, Kevin Scan­lan, began blogging about health care reform and its impact on hospitals in the Chicagoland area. “We knew that what was headed our way in terms of health care reform via the Obama administra­tion was going to come down the pike at a fast and furious pace,” Scanlan says. “We also knew that our member hospi­tals were looking to us to get messages out into the community on how reform might impact their local hospital.”

In June, Scanlan and the public affairs team at MCHC launched a con-sumer-focused Web site, called Support-OurHospitals.com, and spent much of the summer blogging about health care reform and how the recession was nega­tively impacting hospitals.

OPEN SESAME

Julie Pesch, director of public affairs and communications for Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago and immediate past chairwoman of MCHC’s Public Affairs Committee, recalls how social media engulfed nearly every com­mittee meeting she chaired from 2007 to 2009. “Blogging was the main focus early on, but by the end of 2008 Twit-ter and Facebook conversations seemed to be everywhere,” Pesch says. “And while many of us preferred e-mail and phone to reach out to the media, all of a sudden we were pushed in a new direc­tion by health reporters toward sites like LinkedIn and Twitter.”

In early 2009, MCHC’s Public Affairs Committee noticed that its members were consistently running into a single obsta­cle: They were being denied access to social networking sites by their employers. Because they couldn’t log onto Facebook, YouTube or Twitter from their worksta­tions, some committee members began using their smart phones to sign into their personal social networking accounts and communicate with reporters.

For its members’ sake, MCHC’s Pub­lic Affairs Committee knew it needed to substantiate the value of social media while finding ways to mitigate its risks. Deborah Song, associate director of media relations for Rush University Med­ical Center and current chair of MCHC’s Public Affairs Committee, inherited this conundrum from Pesch and faced the even bigger task of establishing template guidelines that committee members could share with human resources exec­utives to begin the process of opening social networks to employees at work.

“We were aware of why hospitals were preventing their employees from getting on these sites, but we also knew that they were doing it anyway without sanction from their organization,” Song says. “We wanted to provide a roadmap for employees and their hospital orga­nizations that would allow members to take their social media strategies to the next level.”

GUIDELINES TO THE RESCUE

Over a three-month period, MCHC assembled a subcommittee of member public relations professionals to research and develop a sample guidebook for use in teaching employees to effectively use social media. Additionally, MCHC recruited Saper to provide legal advice. The result was MCHC’s Guide to Social Computing, a template of suggested language for organizations to use when they’re build­ing internal policies regulating the use of social media, or outlining consequences for employees who violate that policy.

MCHC gave its members a written social media resource, but it also took advantage of the opportunity to lead by example, using the guidelines it devel-oped for members to develop its own inter-nal policy for MCHC employees. Mary Anne Kelly, MCHC’s vice president of human resources and work force develop­ment, used that policy to give employ-ees a framework for appropriately using social media to the benefit of the asso­ciation, and for understanding what is inappropriate use.

MCHC’s own policy also expanded on the Guide to Social Computing with additional language spelling out MCHC’s right to monitor at any time all elec-tronic communications and social media postings to ensure that staff is engaged in a reasonable use of social media dur­ing work hours.

REWARDS VS. RISKS

The debate over social media continues at associations across the country, begging the question: Is the reward worth the risk?

To answer that question, MCHC advises associations and their members to take a slow and balanced approach to implement­ing social media. “Once we studied the issue and created guidelines to steer staff in the right direction, we realized that we still needed to assess our strengths and weaknesses in this area and make sure our team was well positioned to handle these sites,” says Caryn Stancik, MCHC’s vice president of communications.

To that end, MCHC organized its staff on a linear continuum of social media familiarity. On one end, it identified younger employees who grew up with Facebook and MySpace and could navigate the Internet with ease. Members of this group, it decided, needed clear direction on how to keep their private lives separate from their professional lives. On the other side of the continuum were MCHC’s more experienced employees, who typically arrived to the social media party one or two generations too late. Because they had little use for social networks in their personal lives and were less familiar — and sometimes had no experience at all — with these sites, members of this group needed basic education about what social networks are and how they work. Finally, both groups needed training to teach them the positive impact that social media can have on their work.

To give employees the social media training they need, MCHC’s public affairs department is currently revamping its internal training workshops — once tar­geted toward traditional media training — to effectively address social media strategy. The goal by year’s end is to create a team of brand agents that will advocate on behalf of MCHC’s member hospitals in metro Chicago.

Elizabeth Borre Leonard is director of the Metro-politan Chicago Healthcare Council’s public affairs department. She may be reached at (312) 906-6142 or eleonard@mchc.com.

56 FORUM NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009

Stop by the Saper Law booth for some free legal advice about your startup or just to say hello!  Saper Law will also be giving away free passes to future seminars.

Scroll down for more details.

TECH cocktail Chicago 12 next Thursday, December 10th!

With the turkey comas just now subsiding and all of the extra plans that are inevitably coming up due to the impending holiday season we wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t know that TECH cocktail Chicago 12 is coming up on the 10th. That’s why we’re sending you this note in fact. This email contains all of the event details and the links to RSVP (that was one right there!). The event will surely be a great time and it will allow you to see some of the new and innovative Chicago area startups as well as catch up with old friends and meet new ones as we roll into the holiday season. Here are the key details:
What: TECH cocktail Chicago 12 - “a cocktail of tech people”
Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009 from 6:30 PM - 9:00 PM (CT)

Where:
John Barleycorn’s (Upstairs)
3524 N Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60657

Price: $10 (You must be 21+ to attend)

RSVP NOW!

Last year, on December 9, 2008, Saper Law Offices held its first ever Designer Roundtable event. Attendees ranged from jewelry and fashion designers to event planners and brand managers. Some attendees, including Steven Rosengard, former Project Runway contestant, brought their couture pieces or unique designs to showcase at the event. The roundtable discussion focused on a variety of business issues, both legal and operational. Daliah Saper served as the moderator and discussion leader for a number of key subjects, answering questions about business incorporation, the hiring of independent contractors vs. employees, filing copyrights and trademarks, and how to obtain business licenses. Other important issues discussed were accounting for sales tax, record keeping, and public relations strategies. Read more about last year’s event here.

By popular demand, Saper Law is once again hosting a Designer Roundtable event where attendees are invited to bring their unique pieces, or their pocketbook, to “sell, shop, or share.”

Like last year, this event is geared towards entreprenuers in creative disciplines, namely fashion design, jewlery design interior design, film, music, and art. The two hour event includes time to network, eat lunch, and peruse the make shift boutique. Come to learn from and talk to other professionals in creative enterprises!

Details:
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Saper Law Offices, LLC
500 N. Dearborn, Suite 1200
Chicago, IL 60654
Time: 11:30 – 1:30
Cost $10 with advanced registration: http://shopsellshare.eventbrite.com
OR pay $25.00 at the door.
Lunch will be provided.

November 4, 2009 — publicityclub

On November 16, 2009 from 8 am to 12 pm, Law Bulletin Publishing Co. and The John Marshall Law School are hosting an Attorneys in Transition event on the topic of starting your own law firm. The panelists will be: Daliah Saper, of Saper Law Offices; Cliff Scott-Rudnick, The John Marshall Law School; Jay Miller, a solo practitioner; and Russell Hartigan, of Hartigan & O’Connor; Walter Roth, of Meckler Bulger Tilson Marick & Pearson, and Professional Investment Consulting, LLC; Kevin Chern, of Total Attorneys; Mike Everly, of Avenue Business Center; Adam Radulovic, of XL.net; Sandra Bishop, of Executive Solutions; Donald Brown, of Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth; and David Glynn, of Law Bulletin Publishing Co.

On Tuesday, November 10, Daliah Saper will be speaking on a panel at Chicago Kent College of Law on Right of Publicity Laws.  More information below:

IPLS and SELS Panel Discussion: Right of Publicity: What is it? Who has it? Where and when can it be applied? 11:45 AM - 1:30 PM, Room 170

The Intellectual Property Law Society and the Sports & Entertainment Law Society host a panel discussion on Keller v. EA Sports. Is a video game company’s unauthorized use of a collegiate athlete’s likeness a violation of the athlete’s right of publicity?

Stop by to discover the answer to this question and so much more!! The panel participants include Daliah Saper, Saper Law Offices, J. Michael Monahan, Pattishall McAuliffe/Chicago-Kent adjunct professor, and Eldon Ham, Chicago-Kent adjunct professor. Lunch will be provided.

You may view Daliah’s presentation here:ftc_powerpoint

Some photos from the event can be accessed here: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=%23sdcchi&w=all&s=int