and
ASSOCIATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND OTHER ISSUES

by
VAN ELMORE

for the
INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISE ASSOCIATION’S
1999 LEGAL SYMPOSIUM

The Internet has no territorial boundaries. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, as far as the Internet is concerned, not only is there perhaps no there there, the there is everywhere where there is Internet access.

INTRODUCTION

Many franchise systems are now using the Internet for different purposes. Franchisor Web sites may advertise regarding franchise sales, provide a vehicle for communications between franchisees in chat rooms and bulletin boards and permit the downloading of software and other information. A well drafted legal page can help to limit liability and to prohibit copyright and trademark infringements and can also help regarding defamation issues. In addition, careful consideration regarding Web site content, policies and enforcement can further diminish risks to the franchisor.

COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK NOTICES

Recent amendments to the U.S. copyright law mean that a copyright notice is no longer required. However, such notices should be included as part of each Web page as a result of the following:

The notice informs the public that the style, art work and text expressions contained in the Web site are subject to copyright law

This notice removes the possibility that a copier could claim that he did not know that the information was subject to copyright. This is referred to as the innocent infringer defense.

Approximately twenty countries do require that a copyright notice be applied to copyrighted works in order to preserve the copyrights. Since the Internet is international, the notice should be applied to preserve rights in these countries.

Similarly, trademark symbols such as J and K should be used to notify the public that a particular word, phrase, design or combinations thereof constitute a trademark. If a U.S. trademark registration has been acquired, the 7 symbol must be used. In addition, proper trademark use is of particular importance on Web sites. Word or phrase trademarks should never be used as nouns or noun phrases. They should only be used as adjectives. They should be distinguished from surrounding text by bolding and larger font size. All types of marks should be consistently used only as registered and as previously displayed. Singular and plurals should be consistent and all designs must be consistent. Remember, that the Web pages are available for the public or the franchise community, in the case of password protected areas, to view. Incorrect trademark use on the Internet can be used as evidence that the trademark owner has not treated the words or phrases as trademarks and that therefore the mark has been abandoned.

In regard to trademark infringement, the franchisor should subscribe to a trademark watching service which includes Internet searches. The trademark owner is responsible to police infringements of its marks.

The franchisor should be cautious that it does not use meta tags on its Web site, that is invisible words and phrases that Internet search engines find, if those meta tags are the trademarks of others. Generic meta tags should be permissible, however.

Finally, if the Web site refers to trademarks owned by other entities, the Web site legal page or a footnote on the Web page itself should indicate the trademark owner and that they do not endorse the franchisor’s products or services and that the trademark owner is not affiliated with the franchisor.

RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF WEB SITE MATERIALS

The Web site legal page should prohibit the reproduction, distribution, republication or retransmission by visitors of any of the materials posted at the site without the prior permission of the Web site owner. Visitors should acquire the right to download a copy of the materials on a single computer for personal, non-commercial home use. However, this permission should be subject to agreement not to remove trademark, copyright or other proprietary notices.

LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY AND DISCLAIMERS

The Web site legal page should exclude liability for consequential damages incurred by Web site visitors. This exclusion should specify the elimination of any liability for the following which may arise from the use or inability to use information and software at the Web site:

• Loss of data
• Loss of use
• Lost profits
• Lost savings
• Loss of goodwill

In addition the legal page should provide a cap for all damage liability, which is not excluded. Usually the cap is equal to the list price of the program or other material downloaded by the visitor. In the event that materials or software are downloaded for free, the sole remedy can be limited to cessation of use of the site by the visitor. Additional provisions regarding software downloaded by franchisees as part of the system will be discussed below.

All of the language regarding the exclusions and damage caps should be in bold caps. If the Web site sells goods for personal, family or household purposes, some states regulate the ability of the seller to limit liability associated with the sale of these items. The FTC requires that if sales of this nature are taking place, that a warning be added to the limitation section that the limitation may not be enforceable in all jurisdictions.

The Web site legal page should contain a warning that the text and graphics appearing at the Web site may include technical inaccuracies, typographical errors, and out-of-date information and that therefore the visitor uses and depends upon such material at the visitor’s own risk. This should be followed, in bold caps, that all documents, audio, video, software and other data are provided AS IS without warranties of any kind. Once again, in regard to software, additional comments will be made below.

All implied warranties should be disclaimed in the Web site legal page. The disclaimer of all implied warranties, including warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose need to be in bold caps. As above, if the Web site is selling consumer goods of the nature described above, then an additional statement regarding the possible inapplicability of the disclaimers regarding warranties in some jurisdictions should also be added.

LINKING

It may be desirable to provide hyperlinks to other Web sites. The legal page should make the disclosure that the Web site owner does not control and does not regularly review materials posted on the linked sites and further that the Web site owner does not necessarily endorse all of the materials appearing on the linked sites and the decision to visit the linked sites is at the visitor’s own risk.

The links should take the visitor to the other site. The link should not bring the other Web site into a frame at the franchisor’s Web site. The cited cases involved copyright infringement claims arising from Aframing. In addition, the link should take the visitor to the very first page of the other Web site. This is often referred to as the Home page. The link should not take the visitor to subsequent pages at the linked site. This is referred to as deep linking. Litigation has arisen from deep linking because the linked site claimed that the practice interfered with its contractual relationships with advertisers located on the skipped pages.

REGARDING WEB SITES THAT PERMIT POSTINGS BY VISITORS

Many franchisor Web sites permit franchisees to post information at the site. This is often accomplished on bulletin boards and chat rooms. Most of these are in areas of the Web site requiring password entry. These areas are therefore not usually accessible to the public.

The franchisor may be found to be directly, contributorily or vicariously liable for franchisee postings on these bulletin boards or chat rooms. Visitors should be prohibited from uploading any material that infringes on any copyright, trademark or other proprietary right, including the rights of privacy and publicity.

COPYRIGHT ISSUES

In a 1997 case, Webbworld, Inc. was found directly liable for copyright infringement and the two owners of the corporation were found to have vicariously infringed the copyrights of Playboy Enterprises, Inc. Webbworld operated a Web site that contained copied pictures from Playboy magazines. Webbworld obtained the pictures by downloading them from adult news groups, where the pictures had been posted by various members of the news group. The court granted a summary judgment against Webbworld. Webbworld argued that it acted merely as a conduit between the news group and its own paying subscribers. The court disagreed because Webbworld obtained the images, discarded associated text and altered the information so that the images appeared in different sizes. Unlike Internet service providers and Bulletin Boards, Webbworld repackaged and sold images and maintained total control over the content of the site. One owner, who owned 100% of the shares, was found to be personally liable for vicarious infringement. He controlled the infringing actions of another and stood to gain from those actions. This owner handled legal and financial aspects of the business but he had the right and ability, as president, to control the day-to-day operations. The second owner, who had day-to-day control of operations, including the selection of news groups as sources of material, and who received 50% of the profits, was also found to be vicariously liable. One individual who was a part-time customer service representative and who received a portion of the profits, but had no authority over or ability to control infringing activities, was not liable.

In another 1997 case Playboy triumphed again. In this instance, the defendant corporation and its president, as an individual, were found liable for direct and contributory copyright infringement. The defendants operated a BBS that reproduced Playboy’s copyrighted photographs and made them available to paying customers. The court found that defendants had directly infringed the copyright owner’s exclusive rights to distribute and display its works. The court was persuaded by the fact that defendants encouraged subscribers to upload images by giving them credit for postings and by the fact that defendants then moved the subscriber postings to the general file. The defendants were found liable of contributory infringement because they encouraged the uploading of infringing images, benefitted from having an increased number of images available, and because they had at least constructive knowledge that infringement would occur on the Web site.

Finally in the banner year for such cases, a business that hosted another entity’s Web site dodged liability. In this instance the National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) hired Northwest Nexus, Inc. to host its Web site and to provide access to Web users. An agent of NAFED obtained files containing plaintiff’s copyrighted clip art by responding to an E-mail message from an unknown source which said that clip art was available to anyone who wanted it. The agent then placed the clip art on the NAFED Web site. NAFED was found to be directly liable for infringement of plaintiff’s exclusive reproduction and distribution rights. Northwest was found not to have had enough volition for direct liability, however. In addition, Northwest did not receive financial benefit from the infringement and therefore no vicarious liability was found. There were still questions regarding contributory infringement by NAFED because it was unclear whether Northwest knew material on the site was infringing and there were factual issues concerning whether and to what extent Northwest monitored or controlled the site.

Some of the exposure for franchisors for copyright infringement relative to postings by franchisees may have been diminished by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA).

This act limits the monetary damages that covered service providers may have to pay for copyright infringements, if the infringements meet the descriptions under the act, to $0. This would protect the service provider from all monetary damages including attorneys fees, court costs and other monetary payments. Service providers may still face suit and injunctive remedies.

The DMCA defines a service provider as follows:

k) DEFINITIONS‑

(1) SERVICE PROVIDER‑ (A) As used in subsection (a), the term
service provider means an entity offering the transmission,
routing, or providing of connections for digital online
communications, between or among points specified by a user,
of material of the user’s choosing, without modification to
the content of the material as sent or received.

(B) As used in this section, other than subsection (a), the term
service provider means a provider of online services or
network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, and
includes an entity described in subparagraph (A).

To qualify for the exemption, several additional conditions must exist as follows:

The transmission of the material must have been initiated or directed by someone other than the service provider.

The activities covered by the exemption must be carried out though and automatic technical process and not by any selection of material by the service provider.

The service provider must not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to another person’s request.

The service provider must not make any copy of the material ordinarily accessible to anyone other than the intended recipients and must not keep any copy for longer than reasonably necessary for the service provider’s transmission, routing, or connection.

The service provider must not modify the content of the material as it transmits it through its system.

In addition, in order to qualify the service provider must do the following:

The service provider must place a notice on the Web site regarding the identity and contact information for the agent to receive notices from copyright owners of a copyright infringement. The agent can be an employee of the company, or someone outside the organization. The agent should be someone in a position to respond quickly to any notices of claimed infringement. The service provider must post the name, address, phone number, and email address of the agent in a publicly accessible place on the Web site.

The service provider must notify the U.S. Copyright Office of the agent=s identity and contact information. The Copyright Office just issued interim regulations about this registration. The Copyright Office will not provide forms. Instead, you must label the registration prominently as “Interim Designation of Agent to Receive Notification of Claimed Infringement.” You then need to provide the following information:

The full name and legal address of the service provider;

All the names under which the service provider is doing business;

The name of the designated agent;

The full address, including a specific number and street name, of the agent. A post office box will not be sufficient except where it is the only address that can be used at that geographic location;

The agent’s telephone number, fax number, and email address.

This Interim Designation must be signed by an appropriate officer or representative of the service provider. The signature must be accompanied by the printed or typewritten name and title of the person signing the Interim Designation, and the date of the signature.

The Interim Designation may be filed with the Public Information Office of the Copyright Office, Room LM‑401, James Madison Building, Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave., SE, Washington, D.C. It also can be mailed to Copyright GC/I&R, PO Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, D.C. 20024. The designation must be accompanied by a filing fee of $20.00. The interim regulation does not state to whom the check should be payable, but other Copyright Office fees are payable to the Register of Copyrights.

If the information in the Interim Designation changes ‑‑ if, for example, the agent is replaced ‑‑ the service provider needs to file an amended Interim Designation with the Copyright Office, with another $20.00 fee.

Each Interim Designation can apply to only one service provider. The Copyright Office considers related companies, e.g., parents and subsidiaries, which are also service providers to be separate service providers which must file their own Interim Designations.

Once the Copyright Office issues final regulations (after a notice and comment period), you will have to file another Designation, and the filing fee probably will be higher. Because several months may pass before the Copyright Office promulgates final regulations, service providers should file an Interim Designation to qualify for the protection of the DMCA’s safe harbors.

The service provider must adopt a written policy providing for termination of subscribers and account holders who are repeat offenders. The policy must be posted on the Web site.

In the event that the service provider receives notice, which meets the act’s requirements from a copyright owner of an infringement or if the service provider becomes aware of the apparent infringing nature of the material, then the service provider must expeditiously remove or block the material. The service provider must then notify the user of the removal and blocking. The user then may provide the service provider with a counter notice. The service provider then notifies the owner of the counter notice. If the owner does not notify the service provider that the owner has filed suit, the service provider must replace the material or unblock it within 10 to 14 business days of receiving the counter notice.

No cases have been discovered which interpret this statute. The statutory definitions and the low cost of compliance indicate that franchisors should avail themselves of this limitation on copyright infringement monetary damages.

DEFAMATORY POSTINGS BY FRANCHISEES

Earlier cases in this area of law represented a split of authority on the issue of service provider liability for the defamatory postings on their sites. The Chubby case involved a periodical titled Rumervill USA. This periodical was available from the service called Journalism Forum. Rumervill USA was produced by Cameron Communications, Inc. pursuant to contract. Therefore, CompuServe did not review or edit the periodical prior to posting it for subscribers. The court found that CompuServe was like a bookstore or library and that in choosing to post the periodical made a decision like the bookstore to carry a book. Such a decision did not, however, acquire editorial control over the periodical and CompuServe was therefore not liable for defamatory statements contained therein.

Contrastingly in the Prodigy case, a posting was made to Prodigy’s Money Talk bulletin board. This posting stated that Stratton, a securities investment firm, had Acommitted criminal and fraudulent acts. Prodigy employed journalism majors to review and sort posted material. The students also created content guidelines an used special content screening software programs to screen postings. The court decided that Prodigy was exercising significant editorial control and was, therefore, distinctly different from an electronic news distributor such as the CompuServe case. The court found that Prodigy was a publisher and not just a distributor and therefore Prodigy was found subject to a greater degree of liability.

These two cases represent the different types of analysis that pulled service providers in two directions until recently. Once again, as with copyright issues described above, a statute seems to be providing some uniformity. More recent cases seem to apply the statute and find that the service providers were not liable for the defamatory postings of other users found on the service provider’s Web site.

In the Zeran case, an American Online subscriber posted a message which informed that Naughty Oklahoma T-shirts could be purchased by calling Mr. Zeran’s telephone number. The posting described the sale of shirts featuring offensive and tasteless slogans regarding the April 19, 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Mr. Zeran, who knew nothing of this and who was not selling such T shirts, was inundated with angry telephone calls, including death threats. He had a home based business and could not readily change his phone number. His home was under police surveillance. Mr. Zeran sued AOL for unreasonable delay in removing the defamatory posting, refusing to post retractions of the defamations and for failing to screen for similar postings thereafter. The district court granted judgment in favor of AOL based on the fact that the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) barred Zeran’s claims. Zeran appealed on the basis that ‘ 230 leaves intact claims where the service provider had notice of the defamatory material.

The court affirmed the lower court decision stating:

The relevant portion of ‘ 230 states: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” 47 U.S.C. ‘ 230(c)(1).2. By its plain language, ‘ 230 creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third‑party user of the service. Specifically, ‘ 230 precludes courts from entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publisher’s role. Thus, lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions ‑ ‑ such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content ‑ ‑ are barred.

The court also clarified that part of the purpose of ‘ 230 is to encourage service providers to inspect the postings on their sites, as follows:

Congress enacted ‘ 230 to remove the disincentives to self‑regulation created by the Stratton Oakmont decision. Under that court’s holding, computer service providers who regulated the dissemination of offensive material on their services risked subjecting themselves to liability, because such regulation cast the service provider in the role of a publisher. Fearing that the specter of liability would therefore deter service providers from blocking and screening offensive material, Congress enacted ‘ 230’s broad immunity “to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material.” 47 U.S.C. ‘ 230(b)(4). In line with this purpose, ‘ 230 forbids the imposition of publisher liability on a service provider for the exercise of its editorial and self‑regulatory functions.

The second case following the Zeran case is the well publicized Drudge case. In this case, Matt Drudge, a journalist who writes the Drudge Report, which is found on AOL, wrote that he had received information that Mr. Blumenthal, a White House assistant to President Clinton, had a spousal abuse past. Mr. and Mrs. Blumenthal sued Mr. Drudge and AOL for defamation. AOL filed a motion for summary judgement and it was granted. The summary judgment motion was granted Despite the fact that AOL paid Mr. Drudge for his report, advertised the availability of the report on AOL and had a contract with Mr. Drudge which permitted AOL to require changes to the content of the report and to remove content. The court quoted the pertinent portions of the statute as follows:

Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

In Section 230(c)(2) of the Communications Decency Act, Congress provided:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of ‑‑

(A) Any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

47 U.S.C. ‘ 230(e)(2). The term”information content provider” is defined as “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.”

The court did not like this result. The court indicated that if felt that since AOL had a contractual right to edit content, that AOL should be held to at least the responsibility of a distributor.

Another interesting case regarding the CDA is the Mainstream Loudoun case. In this instance a group of citizens of Loudoun County, Virginia sought to enjoin the public library from using a pornography blocking software on the Internet access computers in the library. The library moved for summary judgment based on the CDA. The court found that it was not clear whether the CDA covered a government entity such as the library but stated, Even if ‘ 230 were construed to apply to public libraries, defendants cite no authority to suggest that the tort-based immunity to Acivil liability described by ‘ 230 would bar the instant action, which is for declaratory and injunctive relief. It should be considered in weighing this decision that the case also presented several constitutional issues which the court may have wanted to address. On its face, however, it appears that the CDA may not protect against declaratory or injunctive remedies.

Finally regarding the CDA, is the case of Jane DOE, mother and legal guardian of John Doe, a minor v. AMERICA ONLINE, INC., a foreign corporation, and Richard Lee Russell. In this Florida court of appeals case, Jane Doe sued AOL because Richard Lee Russell allegedly used an AOL chat room to sell child pornography which consisted of pictures and videos involving her eleven year old son. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision that the CDA protected AOL despite the fact that AOL subjected its users to Terms of Service and Rules of the Road provisions which gave AOL the right to remove content and to terminate user rights. The appellate court affirmed that the CDA covered actions which are filed after the enactment of the statute, despite the fact that the actions took place before the statute was enacted. In addition, the court affirmed that the CDA preempts the various Florida statutes regarding child pornography and obscenity that Jane Doe attempted to use. The appellate court did certify three questions to the Florida Supreme court. These were whether the CDA is retroactive, whether the Florida statutes were preempted by the CDA and whether the CDA barred the suits even if AOL had knowledge of the actions of its user’s activities.

Whether this statute would protect a franchisor or not is uncertain. The statutory definitions arguably apply to the franchise Web site and the protections should therefore follow. This would also arguably apply to offensive material in addition to defamation. The lesson for franchisors in regard to the CDA and the DMCA is that although review of the postings is permissible, it is not permissible to edit. Such editing arguably makes the franchisor a co-author and infringer. The best course therefore appears to be that postings that the franchisor reasonably believes to contain copyright infringements, defamatory or offensive material should be removed in total, with appropriate notice to the franchisee. In addition, repeat offenders should lose their privileges.

OBSCENE MATERIAL

Many states and the US Government have criminal statutes regarding the promotion of any type of obscene material. Two California individuals are now in a Tennessee prison as a result of their participation in Internet related obscenity transmission. Since most franchise Web sites will not have a need for any type of material that could be considered to be obscene, postings of this nature should be immediately removed and the franchisee notified. Repeated violations of this nature should result in removal of posting privileges.

Some foreign countries, for example in the Middle East or in the Pacific rim, may have definitions of obscenity that would make some types of franchise Web sites subject to sanctions. From a practical matter, this should only be of concern if franchise system representatives are traveling to these countries.

VISITOR INDEMNIFICATIONS

The Web site legal page should require that all visitors, franchisees and the public, indemnify the franchisor for all damages suffered as a result of the visitors’ on-line behavior, including trademark and copyright infringements, obscenities, posting of offensive material and defamations. This provides some enforcement muscle to the prohibitions.

FRANCHISOR’S RIGHTS AND PROCEDURES

Despite the provisions of the CDA and the DMCA, the Web site legal page should state that the Web site owner does not regularly review the contents of the material posted to its Web site. However, it should also be stated that the Web site owner has the right, but not the obligation, to remove user postings in the event that the franchisor becomes aware that the postings contain trademark or copyright infringements, defamations, offensive material or obscenities.

Further the legal page should state that the franchisor may use any and all of the information posted to the Web site for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, in any manner that the franchisor decides in its sole judgment is appropriate, without compensation to the provider of the information.

WEB SITES THAT PROVIDE FOR THE DOWNLOADING OF SOFTWARE

Any software that is available for download at the site should be subject to its own pop-up software license prior to downloading. It is recommended that this include a screen for entry of name, franchise location and password and have an assent button that must be pushed prior to the beginning of downloading. If a fee is charged, credit card information can also be entered here. This license should govern the acquisition and use of the software.

The legal page at the Web site should clarify that all software is governed by its own license. In addition, this page should prohibit downloading of software to the prohibited countries where the U.S. has placed an embargo, including Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Syria, Libya, Yugoslavia and North Korea. In addition, downloading should be prohibited to everyone on the U.S. Treasury Department’s Specially Designated Nationals list and the U.S. Commerce Department’s Table of Denial Orders. In the event that the software available on the site involves encryption, the franchisor should contact the U.S. Department of Commerce regarding restrictions in that regard. Please note that although the White House has recently reduced the controls on up to 56 bit encryption programs, many encryption systems do fall under the restrictions on the export of encryption software. Therefore, they cannot be posted for downloading without first acquiring an individual export license or government review from the Department of Commerce.

In addition, these same regulations apply to franchisor employees traveling abroad with a lap top if that lap top computer contains encryption software. Finally in regard to encryption software, franchisors should ensure that foreign nationals working for the franchisor here in the U.S. or its territories do not use, or gain knowledge of, encryption software.

THE YEAR 2000

The Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act of 1998 provides for the exclusion of statements regarding Y2K readiness and potential problems as evidence to prove the truth or falsehood of the statement. The Act does not otherwise change liabilities for Y2K failures or problems.

Under the act, Year 2000 Statements are almost any statement about Y2K. They may be oral and they may be about another entity’s Y2K circumstance, a vendor for example. Such statements include capabilities of a business or its products, about its tools or techniques, about its status or plans to verify, test, or remediate products or services internally or those of a partner or customer or other entity in possession of its products, or other information useful to anyone seeking to discover, avoid, or correct a year 2000 processing problem.

As defined by the Act, Year 2000 Readiness Disclosures are written, or posted on the Web site, are labeled on its face with the magic words Year 2000 Readiness Disclosure, and the disclosure must deal with the franchisor’s own products and services. There are two exceptions to the evidentiary exclusions regarding disclosures. The first is when the disclosure expressly places a customer on notice of the maker’s inability to fulfill the requirement of an existing contract and the second is when a company attempts to use the labeling of potentially harmful Y2K information as a disclosure to thwart a party’s effort to bring suit.

The Act also describes statements regarding other entity’s readiness. The republication should be clearly labeled as a Y2K statement consisting of a republication of statements received from a third party, clearly identify the source and should state whether or not the contents have been verified as to their accuracy. This republication is normally considered to be a statement, however if it relates to one’s own products or services (for example if it deals with software required by a franchisor but which is sold by a third party) then the republication should be labeled as a Y2K Readiness Disclosure. It is interesting to note that Y2K statements and disclosures will not alter existing contracts.

Y2K warranties and/or disclaimers should be contained in the individual software licenses. These should be labeled as Year 2000 Readiness Disclosures. However, an additional Y2K statement may be included in the Web site legal page. The Act’s intention is to permit disclosure, of what the circumstances are relative to certain products and services vis-a-vis the Y2K issue. Y2K statements are not covered if they are made to the SEC, to banking regulators, or in the course of offering securities. It is interesting to note that there is no such exclusion for such statements made in conjunction with offering franchises. It is therefore recommended that all UFOC and other documents that contain Y2K information about the franchisor’s products and services, be labeled with the magic words, Year 2000 Readiness Disclosures. In order to add substance to the protections available, the franchisor may wish to have a corporate ratification of the Y2K disclosure. This ratification need not be posted.

The franchisor may decide to place a statement of this nature in its Web site legal page. This could be limited to the Y2K readiness of the Web site itself. Any such disclosures must be labeled with the phrase Year 2000 Readiness Disclosures in order to qualify for the evidentiary protections afforded by the Act. There is no requirement that the Web site legal pages include a Y2K statement. If one is made, it must be truthful. If the statement would not be reassuring, the franchisor may decide to leave it out. If a statement is made, it must be consistent with the UFOC disclosure. A sample is included in the attached legal page. This statement is in regard to software at the site. Careful consideration must be used in regard to these disclosures and each situation will be different. If the franchisor perceives a large risk regarding Y2K failures, it should consider insurance coverage for this problem.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR WEB SITE LEGAL PAGES

The home page of the Web site should include a notice that legal restrictions and terms of use apply to the Web site. Visitors should be directed to the legal page and should not be able to leave the home page without a warning that the provisions of the legal page govern their visit. A more conservative procedure is to require a visit to the legal page before any subsequent pages can be accessed. The most conservative approach is to require entry of a name and date and the use of an assent button at the legal page. Franchisors may decide to have less rigorous procedures for public visitors and more conservative approaches for franchisee password users. The terms and conditions regarding franchisee use may be communicated by the legal page, by the franchise agreement or in a separate written agreement.

ISSUES REGARDING PRIVACY

Many Web sites now contain a notice, similar to a legal page, regarding privacy for visitors. The current status of the Internet permits Web site owners to gather certain data regarding the site’s visitors. This information if often referred to as a cookie. The cookie is actually placed into the visitors computer and then can be read back at various Web sites in order to gather data. The franchisor may wish to make a privacy statement regarding the use of cookies and other data, such as information that the visitor may enter at the site. This privacy page statement should also include a statement that minors are encouraged to obtain parental approval before supplying any information, such as names and E-mail addresses.

RIGHTS OF PUBLICITY

Franchisors may wish to use photographs of individuals on their Web sites. Consideration must be given to acquiring the appropriate licenses and releases, for Internet use of such photographs. In the first instance, the photographer has a copyright in the photograph and therefore a work for hire assignment should be acquired in that regard. This assignment should include a blanket assignment or should specifically identify the Internet as one of the permitted uses assigned. In addition, the subject of the photograph, regardless of whether it is a professional model or an employee (unless the employee was specifically hired as a model) should provide a model release. Once again these model releases should provide for use in all mediums for commercial purposes or should specifically identify use on the Internet for commercial purposes. In the event that the franchisor wishes to use the photograph or other identifying feature, such as an autograph, of a famous individual, then the model release or license to use that on the Web site may need to be acquired from an agent or other licensing entity for that celebrity.

The right of publicity is a state law which is founded in tort and which has been codified in state statutes in approximately 15 states. The right of publicity is a relatively new legal theory. With the growth of entertainment and sports celebrities and the associated desire to use their personalities in conjunction with the sale of goods and services, this area of law has been growing. Originally this was an outgrowth of the right to privacy. As such, this right focused on the invasion of privacy that occurs when a person’s name or likeness has been invaded by use by another.

Increasingly, the right of publicity focuses on the right of famous people to make money off of their personas and the coincident right to prohibit others from doing so without consent. This evolution from a personal harm sounding in tort to a property right has also created a greater longevity for the right including a right that can be passed on after death. As of 1995 fifteen states had passed specific laws in relation to rights of publicity. Any commercial use, without consent, of a person’s photo or autograph is likely to violate the statutes.

There is one recent case from the 11th Circuit which applies a first sale exemption to the right of publicity. In this case an Alabama company, Vintage Sports Plaques, purchased trading cards from licensed card manufacturers and distributors and without altering the cards, framed them in acrylic. Vintage then labeled each plaque with an identification plate referencing the player and the team. Although Alabama does not have a right of publicity statute, the court found that Alabama’s governing law regarding the right of publicity was the newer type which focused on the property right of the celebrity. Vintage did not pay any royalty and had no contract with any of the sports stars. The court found that the first sale doctrine applied and that there was no violation of the stars’ rights of publicity. Whether this case will be followed in other jurisdictions, for example California which has a right of publicity statute, is uncertain.

This finding would not apply to posting a previously purchased poster, for example, of a celebrity on the Internet. The ability to resell a poster or to display one single poster for resale may be covered by this finding. However, the previously purchased poster would be copied originally when it is placed on the site and would be copied again and again each time it was uploaded into each visitor’s browser and each time it was downloaded on to a visitor’s hard drive.

In the event that the franchisor uses animations or movies on the site, these also require appropriate copyright ownership. If the franchisor is using music on the site, licenses may need to be paid to ASCAP or BMI.

FRANCHISOR AND EMPLOYEE INTERNET POLICIES

The franchisor should appoint someone, or make that someone part of a Web site team, that is familiar with the legal issues involved with Web sites. The initial, and periodic review, should address the content of the site itself, such as code and graphics, and associated third party consultant agreements. It is a good idea to place digital watermarks in the Web site code, as in licensed software, in order to catch infringers. Passwords and password owners lists should be carefully guarded and labeled and treated as trade secrets. These items should not be placed on laptops that leave the main office. Passwords should be periodically changed, particularly after franchisees are terminated or employees leave. The franchisor should regularly archive the entire set of Web pages to document copyright and trademark use.

A programmer level person should be periodically checking to make sure that hackers are not spoofing your identity on your site or have changed your site in any other way. Open files, for example those used for tech support, should be closed with a password in order to prohibit hacking. Site access and software downloads should require identification, password entry and license assent.

Employees should agree to an Internet policy. This should caution against passing trade secrets. It is suggested that employees be required to deactivate cookies in their browsers. It should not be permissible to do any of the following:

Host Web pages from the employee’s computer

Become involved in software copyright infringements by acquiring pirated software

Borrowing from other Web sites

Deactivating or bypassing firewall protections

CONCLUSION

Web pages provide a great new opportunity for franchisors to increase market awareness, sell franchises and service their franchisees. It is important, however, to insure that legal issues in regard to these Web sites are given proper consideration and treatment.

SAMPLE FRANCHISOR INTERNET LEGAL PAGE

INTERNET SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING

TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY.

By using this Web site, you agree to these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, you should leave this site.

LIMITATION ON USE

Material from this site may not be copied or distributed, republished, uploaded, posted, or transmitted in any way, without the prior written consent of Franchisor.

EXCEPT: you may download one copy of the material on one computer for your personal, non‑commercial home use only, provided you do not delete or change any copyright, trademark, or other proprietary notices. Modification or use of the materials for any other purpose violates Franchisor’s rights. The material in this site is provided for lawful purposes only. If you download software from our site, the software is licensed to you by the software license agreement associated with the downloaded software. You will be unable to download the software, unless you agree to the terms and conditions of the pop-up license agreement for that software.

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

FRANCHISOR WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR INJURY, INCLUDING DAMAGE OR INJURY CAUSED BY ANY FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE, ERROR, OMISSION, INTERRUPTION, DEFECT, DELAY IN OPERATION OR TRANSMISSION, COMPUTER VIRUS, OR LINE FAILURE. FRANCHISOR WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR INJURY, INCLUDING SPECIAL, MULTIPLE, PUNITIVE OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR DAMAGES ASSOCIATED WITH LOSS OF DATA, LOSS OF USE, LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF SAVINGS OR LOSS OF GOODWILL THAT RESULT FROM THE USE OF, OR THE INABILITY TO USE THIS SITE OR SOFTWARE DOWNLOADED HERE FROM. THIS LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU IF APPLICABLE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. FRANCHSOR’S TOTAL LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ALL LOSSES, DAMAGE, AND CAUSES OF ACTION WILL NOT BE GREATER THAN THE AMOUNT YOU PAID TO ACCESS THIS SITE.

SUBMISSIONS

All remarks, suggestions, ideas, graphics, or other submissions communicated to Franchisor at this site will become the property of Franchisor. Franchisor will be entitled to use the submissions for any commercial or other purpose without compensation to you or any other person sending the submission. Personal information that you may choose to submit to this site is done so in your sole discretion. You agree that you are responsible for the material that you submit and that you have full responsibility for the reliability, appropriateness, originality, and copyright of your submission.

INDEMNIFICATION

You agree to indemnify Franchisor against any and all damages, costs, expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees and court costs, which may arise out of claims relating to your submissions to, or other use of, this site, including claims by third parties that your submissions to this site violate the third party’s trademark rights, copyrights, privacy rights, rights of publicity or other proprietary rights and claims that your submissions to this site contain obscenities, defamations or offensive material.

JURISDICTION

Franchisor controls and operates this site from its headquarters in ____________ , U.S.A. and makes no representation that these materials are appropriate or available for use in other locations. If you use this site from other locations you are responsible for compliance with applicable local laws. Some software from this site may be subject to export controls imposed by the United States and may not be downloaded or otherwise exported or reexported: (a) into (or to a national or resident of ) any country to which the U.S. has placed an embargo, including Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, or Yugoslavia; (b) to everyone on the U.S. Treasury Department’s Specially Designated Nationals list, or (c) the U.S. Commerce Department’s Table of Denial Orders. If you download or use the Software, you represent and warrant that you are not located in, or under the control of, or a national of any such country or on any such list.

DISCLAIMER

The material in this site may include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Franchisor may make changes or improvements at any time. THE MATERIALS, INCLUDING THE DOCUMENTS, AUDIO, VIDEO AND SOFTWARE, IN THIS SITE ARE PROVIDED “AS IS” AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE LAW. FRANCHISOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. FRANCHISOR DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE FUNCTIONS CONTAINED IN THE MATERIAL WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR‑FREE, THAT DEFECTS WILL BE CORRECTED, OR THAT THIS SITE OR THE SERVER THAT MAKES IT AVAILABLE ARE FREE OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS. FRANCHISOR DOES NOT WARRANT OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE USE OF OR THE RESULT OF THE USE OF THE MATERIAL IN THIS SITE IN TERMS OF THEIR CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE. YOU ASSUME THE ENTIRE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. THE ABOVE EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU, TO THE EXTENT THAT APPLICABLE LAW MAY NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES.

TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT

Franchisor or you may terminate this agreement at any time. You may terminate this agreement by destroying: (a) all materials obtained from this site, and (b) all related documentation and all copies and installations. Franchisor may terminate this agreement immediately without notice if, in its sole judgment, you breach any term or condition of this agreement. Upon termination, you must destroy all materials obtained from this site.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

These Terms and Conditions will be governed and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the State of _________, United States of America, notwithstanding any principles of conflicts of law. If any part of these Terms and Conditions is unlawful, void, or unenforceable, that part will be deemed severable and will not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining provisions. Possible evidence of use of this site for illegal purposes will be provided to law enforcement authorities. Submissions to the chat rooms and bulletin boards may be disclosed if, in Franchisor’s good faith belief, it is necessary to (a) comply with the law; (b) to comply with legal process; (c) to enforce these terms and conditions; (d) to respond to claims that any content violates the rights of third parties; and to protect the interests of Franchisor and others. This is the entire agreement between the parties relating to the use of this site. Franchisor can revise these Terms and Conditions at any time by updating these terms and conditions. This site may be linked to other sites which are not maintained by Franchisor. Franchisor is not responsible for the content of those sites. The inclusion of any link to such sites does not imply endorsement by Franchisor of the sites. The visitor goes to these linked sites at his own risk.

Due to the immediate nature of the Internet medium, Franchisor does not review, censor, approve, edit or endorse information placed in the chat room or on the bulletin board. Such chat rooms and bulletin boards are intended to be appropriate for franchisee members of all sensibilities. Posting of indecent material is strictly prohibited. Posting of information that violates the rights of Franchisor or of third parties, including copyrights, is also strictly prohibited. The placement of advertisements, or solicitations also is prohibited. Posting of information by individuals under the age of 18 is prohibited without parental consent. Franchisor shall review information placed at this site from time to time and will delete inappropriate material that comes to its attention as soon as practicable. Franchisor will also delete information that infringes upon the rights, including copyrights, trademark rights, privacy rights, rights of publicity and other proprietary rights, of Franchisor and third parties. Franchisees accessing the bulletin boards and chat rooms by password may lose their access to such areas if they repeatedly violate these rules. It is agreed that the passwords used by franchisees to access this site are confidential and they shall not be shared with any individual or entity other than managerial level employees within franchisee’s operation with a need to access this site. At the termination or expiration of the franchise agreement, all passwords will be destroyed and franchisee will no longer be able to access the password protected areas of this Web site.

YEAR 2000 READINESS DISCLOSURE

Franchisor has spent the last year updating all current software versions to meet Year 2000 compatibility issues. As new technologies are developed for Year 2000, franchisor is committed to continuing to attempt to make the necessary changes to keep the software compliant.

Year 2000 compliance shall mean that neither performance nor functionality is affected by dates after 1970 and before 2037. In particular:

No value for the current date will interrupt normal operation.

Date-based functionality must behave consistently for dates after 1970 and before 2037.

In all interfaces and data storage, the century in any date must be specified either explicitly or by unambiguous algorithms or inferencing rules.

Year 2000 must be recognized as a leap year.

Versions x.o and higher have a four digit year field. Tests have indicated that there are no problems with roll over to year 2000 in these versions.

Franchisor makes no warranties, representations or commitments that the software will not err relative the change to year 2000 if any of the following take place:

The product source code has been modified by anyone other than franchisor

The software is operating in conjunction with third-party software or hardware that is not year 2000 compliant.

The date data is not entered as specified

The licensee has not installed software updates, enhancements or a version of x.o or higher

The software is not under a valid maintenance agreement

Nothing in this disclosure to the contrary withstanding, franchisor’s sole liability for Year 2000, and other problems, is set froth in the license agreement for the software.

TRADEMARK INFORMATION

The following trademarks are owned by the Franchisor and its affiliates:

All other trademarks are the property of the respective trademark owners.

All rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.

Contact _________ @ __________ with question or problems.

Our agent to receive notice regarding copyright infringements on this Web site is

Name

Address

Telephone

Fax

E-Mail

81999 Franchisor, All rights reserved.

SAMPLE PRIVACY PAGE

Franchisor is concerned regarding the privacy of the visitors to this Web site. As a general practice Franchisor does not acquire personal information, such as name, address or E-mail addresses, from visitors. Visitors may voluntarily provide this information in response to various interactive areas of this Web site. Personal information that is voluntarily submitted to this site by visitors is retained by the franchisor and is not sold, transferred or otherwise disclosed outside our company, unless such disclosure is required by law. Franchisor uses this personal information to better understand the visitors to this site, to respond to questions from visitors, to obtain parental consent if necessary, to provide notices and to protect the site’s integrity and security.

When you visit this site, franchisor does collect non-personal information. This is collected as a standard function of the Internet server. This information includes the type of operating system, such as Windows or Macintosh, and the type of Internet browser you are using, such as Netscape or Internet Explorer. Franchisor also uses this information in aggregate form.

When you view our Web site, we may store some information on your computer. This is in the form of a Cookie. Cookies allow us to tailor the site to better match your interests an preferences. Most Internet browsers can erase Cookies from your hard drive, block their placement or alert you prior to the placement of a Cookie. Please refer to your browser for additional information about Cookies.

Franchisor believes that parents and guardians should supervise their children’s Internet activities. Software is available which will prevent children from disclosing their name, address and other personal information without parental approval.

SAMPLE EMPLOYEE INTERNET POLICY

Employee understands that he/she will receive an individual password and that it will be Employee’s responsibility to protect the password from unauthorized use by others. Employee will not deactivate the password or bypass it.

Employee understands that Company may override Employee’s password or require Employee to disclose such password to facilitate access by Company to the Internet, E-mail log and to any and all information or material Employee retrieves, sends, and/or places on the Internet or E-mail system.

Employee understands that Internet and E-mail usage are provided only for Company business purposes. This specifically precludes use of Company granted Internet and E-mail for the following:

Personal use;

Viewing or transferring obscene, pornographic, slanderous, defamatory, harassing, vulgar, threatening and/or offensive material;

Viewing or transferring frivolous material not appropriate for business purposes;

Unauthorized viewing or transferring of material that is confidential or proprietary to the Company;

Communicating, disseminating or printing of any copyrighted material in violation of copyright laws;

Hosting a Web site on the Company’s computers; and

Any other activity deemed by Company to be in conflict with the intent of this agreement, since this list is not intended to be all inclusive.

Employee understands and agrees that Employee is a Company representative when accessing the Internet or E-mail systems. Employee will not engage in any activity or transmit any communication that would reflect unfavorably on Company or be deemed inappropriate by Company.

Employee understands and agrees that all Internet and E-mail materials on and from Company systems are the sole property of Company.

By using the Company provided Internet and E-mail access, Employee knowingly and voluntarily consents to such usage being monitored and acknowledges the Company’s right to such monitoring. Employee agrees that he/she has no expectation of privacy whatsoever related to use of the Internet or E-mail systems.

Even when Internet and E-mail materials are erased, it may still be possible to recreate the information. Therefore, it is understood by Employee that privacy of the Internet and E-mail materials cannot be ensured to anyone.

Employees who violate this policy or otherwise improperly use the Company’s Internet or E-mail systems may be subject to discipline, termination and personal responsibility for any civil liabilities or criminal penalties.

Nothing in this agreement modifies the employment-at-will relationship between Employee and the Company.

Van Elmore Biography

Van Elmore has been licensed to practice law in the state of Colorado since 1977. He has been involved in all aspects of franchising in the United States, and has been involved in international franchising in Canada, Mexico, Taiwan and Russia.

He previously served as Vice President and General Counsel for a 450-unit franchise system. In private practice since 1992, Mr. Elmore concentrates in franchising, software, Internet, trademarks and trade secrets. He is also a mediator and arbitrator and has served as a neutral for high tech, franchising and employment disputes.

Mr. Elmore represents software developers in regard to licensing, mergers, acquisitions, Y2K and intellectual property protection. He has also advised computer network licensors regarding avoidance of franchise statutory coverage. In addition he has advised Internet vendors regarding contracts.

Mr. Elmore has been a franchisee and previously worked as an attorney and lobbyist in the Oil and Gas industry. He received his Juris Doctorate Degree from the University of Miami School of Law where he was on the Dean’s list and participated in the Moot Court Competition and the Clinical Program. Mr. Elmore received his Bachelor’s degree in Sociology, with a concentration in Chemistry, from the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill. He also has conversational ability in the Russian Language.

Digital Equipment Corp. v. Altavista Technology, Inc., 960 F. Supp. 456, 462 (D. Mass. 1997)

This article is not intended to provide legal advice on any specific situation. Consultation with knowledgeable counsel should be undertaken in regard to particular circumstances.

Generally: title 17, U.S. Code.
17 U.S.C. ‘’ 401-405

See generally, Washington Post Co. v. Total News, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 1190 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) and Futuredontics, Inc. v. Applied Anagramics, Inc., 45 U.S.P.Q. 2d 2005 (C.D. Cal. 1998)
See Ticketmaster Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 97-3055 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 1997)
For the purposes of this article, it is assumed that the Web site itself, including the code, text and graphics do not present copyright problems, as opposed to the postings. For additional information in this regard see, Software Licensing in Franchising, ABA Forum on Franchising 1997, by Van Elmore and Copyrights in Franchising, IFA Legal Symposium 1996, by Van Elmore
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Webbworld, Inc., 968 F. Supp. 1171 (N.D. Tex. 1997)
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Russ Hardenburgh, Inc., 982 F. Supp. 503 (N.D. Ohio 1997)
Marobie-FL v. National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors(ANAFED:) and Northwest Nexus, Inc., 983 F.Supp. 1167 (N.D. Ill. 1997)
17 U.S.C. Chapter 12
17 U.S.C. ‘ 512(k)(1)
The House Judiciary Committee Report explains that the definition includes Aservices such as providing Internet access, e-mail, chat room and web page hosting . . . .@ Therefore, a company which maintains an Intranet for its employees may be a service provider under the act. Similarly, a franchisor which maintains a bulletin board where franchisees can post comments concerning the franchise system may qualify as a service provider.
17 U.S.C. ‘ 512(a)
17 U.S.C. ‘ 512(c)(2)
60 Federal Register 59233
17 U.S.C. ‘’ 512(f) and 512(g)(2)
Chubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)
Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 63 USWL 2765, 23 MEDIA L. Rep. 1794 (N.Y.S.Ct. 1995)
Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330‑31 (4th Cir. 1997)
47 U.S.C. ‘ 230 Part of this act was declared to be unenforceable by the US government in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed. 2d 874 (1997) because some sections were found to be unconstitutional. The remaining portions of the act are still enforceable, including ‘ 230.
Blumenthal v. Drudge and America Online, Inc., (Dist. Ct. D.C. 1998)
Mainstream Loudoun, et. al. v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library, et. al., 2 F. Supp. 2d 783 (E.D. Va. 1998)
Jane DOE, mother and legal guardian of John Doe, a minor v. AMERICA ONLINE, INC., a foreign corporation, and Richard Lee Russell, 718 So. 2d 385 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. 1998)
See Software Licensing in Franchising, ABA Forum on Franchising 1997, by Van Elmore
See generally 15 C.F.R. pt. 772, referred to as the Export Administration Regulations or (AEAR@).
15 C.F.R 734.2(b)(2), (3)
15 U.S.C. ‘ 1
Cong. Rec. E2017 (Oct. 10, 1998) (statement of Hon. Henry Hyde)
A sample privacy page is attached at the end of this article.
See Copyrights in Franchising, IFA Legal Symposium 1996, by Van Elmore.
California, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin
Allison v. Vintage Sports Plaques 132 F. 3d 1443 (11th Cir. 1998)
A sample employee Internet policy is attached to this article.

© 1999 LAW OFFICES OF VAN ELMORE. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.