This issue was decided by the United States Supreme Court back in 1991 in Feist Publications, Inc. Legally, no one owns facts about people such as their names, contact information, and work history. But Linkedin does not own the information or even have exclusive rights to control the information on its site.
#WHO OWNS LINKEDIN LICENSE#
Members give Linkedin a license to use it for pretty much whatever Linkedin wants. Under Linkedin’s own terms and conditions, the content that a member puts on Linkedin belongs to the member, not Linkedin. However, member information does not belong to Linkedin. How exactly is a recruiter supposed to make use of a potential candidate’s information if she can never copy or independently use any information found on Linkedin? The only way is to exclusively use Linkedin’s tools within Linkedin, which is what this lawsuit is really about. Linkedin can’t collect the information, publish it, often charge people to use it, and then prohibit everyone from ever copying anything from the site. This is another example of Linkedin trying to have it both ways. Linkedin’s Do’s and Don’t (that are incorporated into their Terms and Conditions) also state that users are not allowed to “duplicate information” from Linkedin’s site. So I don’t buy the position that Linkedin is protecting its members or the members’ interest. Linkedin is all about finding people and being found. Nobody joined Linkedin to keep their information private. Linkedin claims its priority is “Member’s First,” and that it’s just protecting its members’ information. The real problem is that Linkedin is mad that someone copied information from its site. There is also no indication that anyone intended to harm Linkedin’s computers, steal passwords, damage anything, or defraud anyone, which are the basic protections of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. That’s what Linkedin is.Ĭopying data does not destroy or damage either the website computers or its data, so a claim for misappropriation of information where the data is still intact on the host computers is not a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim. Users have authority to look at member profiles and use Linkedin’s website, even if using the website gives users access to Linkedin’s computers.
![who owns linkedin who owns linkedin](https://www.incimages.com/uploaded_files/image/970x450/getty_1027843356_200013301129524302271_369246.jpg)
However, it appears that defendants were using Linkedin’s website within their authority. Linkedin’s claim is basically that by creating fake user accounts, getting more than the allowed number of page views, and copying information from user accounts, the defendants exceeded their authority to use Linkedin. Linkedin has sued under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (and a similar California law) that prohibits unauthorized use of someone else’s computer.
Linkedin’s legal position also has some problems. It’s the trouble with running what is basically a phonebook where people get to advertise themselves for free. Linkedin is trying to make money from public information by controlling how people use their site. (Matt Charney interviewed the owners of Sell Hack and has a great discussion of why Sell Hack wasn’t doing anything illegal.) Linkedin also sent out a cease and desist letter to at least one other company, Sell Hack. In late March, Linkedin amended its lawsuit to name Hiring Solved as the company creating the fake profiles and taking the information. Linkedin claims unauthorized use of Linkedin’s computers, copyright violations, and breach of its Terms and Conditions. In January 2014, Linkedin filed a lawsuit against unknown defendants claiming that someone was creating fake accounts so they could exceed Linkedin’s allotted page view limits and take information from user profiles. Linkedin’s legal position has some problems.