I am a licensed professional and have spent decades obtaining education and experience and building my reputation. I recently learned that, without my knowledge or permission, my employer seems to have somehow linked my name to his company website, so that if you google my name, the first result that pops up is his website. Two questions. First, how has he done this? Has he created a domain in my name? Second, and more importantly, does he have a right to use my professional name in this fashion without my permission? My reputation extends to skills and abilities that extend well past the limited business area his practice covers. While I currently do no have my own website, if I wanted to create a website independent from his business, it seems that his business will now direct searches to him, instead. Do I have any legal recourse? Thank you for your insight.
It does not seem that you have complained about anything actionable so far. That fact that a search for your name brings up a site for a company you are actually employed by is hardly unusual or odd. In fact, it would be expected since you have no website of your own. If he merely lists your name as an employee of his company that alone might cause your name to bring up his website as a result. What exactly is wrong with that? I know when I search somebody's name I expect to find in the results the company they work for if they are the kind of employee to be mentioned on a website.
I have never heard of that happening before. But if you are unhappy then perhaps consider to start your own site, be it just a basic blog style resume or a full portfolio with your own domain name.
You could send a DCMA takedown notice. You'd lose your job, of course, but if your professional rep is more important to you than your job, go for it.
On the basis that a lot of small ISPs take the page down rather than risk anything. Sending a request if you know there's no reason it should be honored isn't illegal.
That is completely untrue. You can absolutely be sued and held civilly liable for filing a false takedown notice under the DMCA. As for the ISP, of course they take it down, they are required to under the law unless they get a counter notice. That does not mean you can get away with filing a fake notice.
It's not false, I have the right to control where my name is used. If the name used is generic, I may not have a case, but if it were a generic name it wouldn't do the site any good. If I put up a site and claim that my business is endorsed by Bill Gates of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, you can be sure that is attorneys will be in contact with my ISP about as fast as a packet can travel down the internet.
The DMCA is not just for any complaint. It is for certain claims like copyright violation. You cannot simply file a takedown request because someone mentions your name. Even the Bill Gates example you cite would not warrant a DMCA filing. Also, you do not have the right to dictate who can mention your name. People get written about all the time who do not want it and you can't stop it by filing a false DMCA claim. In fact, the first case where someone was sued for damages for a false takedown notice was where Diebold filed a false one to keep people from talking about them. Further, the DMCA in section 512 (f) specifically allows for damages and attorney fees for false claims: You can read about some of the cases here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPG_v._Diebold https://www.eff.org/cases/online-policy-group-v-diebold
Read my post and show me where I told him that issuing a takedown request wasn't warranted. Think. He asked here.
You gave horrible incorrect advice. You told him to file a takedown notice whether or not it was warranted. When I asked you on what basis you responded that 'filing a takedown notice you know should not be honored was not illegal.' Well, in fact, it is and I pointed it out. I don't really care anymore if you get it or not. I posted so others reading the thread would not take your bad advice seriously.
You don't have the right to control where your name is used if your employer is simply stating the truthful fact that you are employed for them. Assuming your name is even a trademark--which is rare for the average person--they would certainly have the right to nominative fair use. You should really read the New Kids on the Block case: https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/971/971.F2d.302.90-56258.90-56219.html The difference between using a name and falsely claiming that Bill Gates has endorsed a product is that the latter is an infringement on Gates' rights of publicity. No similar claim is made about an endorsement by simply stating the truthful fact that someone is an employee. It would be different if the employer stated falsely that someone was an employee when they were not. All of that is moot for a DMCA notice since, even if a name was a trademark, DMCA notices are for alleged copyright infringement, and not alleged trademark infringement. As for your suggestion to send a false DMCA notice, browntwn has very clearly shown you where such a misrepresentation would incur civil liability for the sender. In addition to the civil consequences mentioned already, DMCA notices are sent under penalty of perjury in accordance with 28 USC § 1746. Under 18 USC § 1621, the sender could be fined or imprisoned for up to five years, or both. Simply put, your statement that, "Sending a request if you know there's no reason it should be honored isn't illegal" is blatantly false, as it is illegal both civilly and criminally. Your decision to abet the crime of perjury by instructing DocMichael to perjur himself by sending a DMCA notice when he knows "there's no reason it should be honored" would make you a principal to the crime under 18 USC § 2.
I have researched your case but i cant give you a link on it because im afraid that i might get ban. I am new to this site, this is what i have gathered in my research. "There are two distinct legal claims that potentially apply to these kinds of unauthorized uses: (1) invasion of privacy through misappropriation of name or likeness ("misappropriation"); and (2) violation of the right of publicity. (The "right of publicity" is the right of a person to control and make money from the commercial use of his or her identity.)."