Patients will be seeing the Doc. from all walks of life many of whom may not be capable of understanding the language used. Even if the language in the “Patient Satisfaction Agreement” diminishes the scope of the copyright being claim, the language is still over reaching.

I think that if the clinic decided to rewrite their agreement in plain English, patients would be better off, and the Doc can regain some trust.

When I first saw the agreement, I took special interest in the operation and intent of the language. As the Patient Satisfaction Agreement Procedures are written, the earlier claims posted above that Crutchfield Dermatology would own the copyright in anything, ever, for all time is false. The only things covered are “question[s], issue[s], or concern[s] in any way related to the care [Crutchfield Dermatology] ha[s] provided . . . .” So, Crutchfield Dermatology has no claims to a patient’s blogging about bunnies or the recent election because they aren’t related to Crutchfield Dermatology and so aren’t “outside the Patient Satisfaction Agreement.”

Moreover, as a patient, I have the right to broadcast complaints about Crutchfield Dermatology provided I first give them a chance to address the concern (again, in the Patient Satisfaction Agreement). If I give them a chance and I am still unhappy, I can make critical statements to my heart’s content.

It hardly seems unreasonable that they want a chance to make things right or verify that negative comments actually come from patients. It is, however, disappointing that the language quoted above leaves out that critical information contained in the remaining language of the agreement.

At the time, the contract required that you submit to before-and-after pictures as well as sign away your rights to their use. Dr. Crutchfield does a lot of heavy advertising around the Twin Cities area.

The thought of them posting my “before” pictures on billboards or any other media was horrifying and I refused to agree. And then I was subject to serious pressure to sign, by multiple nurses and then Dr. Crutchfield himself. Each person came in and tried to make me feel guilty for not allowing my pictures to be used to “help others with similar problems.” One person promised they’d only be used in the office, with current patients – but refused to put that in writing. Only after I said that there was no way I would sign and threatened to leave did they drop the matter. It was extremely unpleasant.

That being said, Dr. Crutchfield was amazing and my skin has been perfect for 10 years. I’m incredibly grateful to him (I had visited other dermatologists before who were not able to help). It’s too bad he feels he has to resort to these aggressive tactics.

1) Become a patient of theirs, ensuring that you agree to their terms regarding copyright of everything you write on the Internet.
2) Start writing things anonymously on the Internet that would result in legal action. Bomb threats, threats on the President’s life, etc.
3) Be sure to clearly state on each post that it is copyrighted by Crutchfield Dermatology of Minneapolis.

You don’t trust me, why should I trust you.

“It is, however, disappointing that the language quoted above leaves out that critical information contained in the remaining language of the agreement.”

Cory, you’ve been spanked by GopherFan.

My understanding (as I looked into the issue briefly) is that a person who has not permitted the clinic a chance to respond to a complaint gives the copyright to the clinic, which gives the clinic the ability to have a say in its publication. If the posting is from someone who is not actually a patient, most blogs have a policy that postings should be based on first-hand knowledge and may remove the false posting. Again, if the patient goes through the process, they may post at will and retain ownership.

For me, if a posting is not by an actual patient, it doesn’t help me to read the posting. If a posting is by a patient who gave the clinic a chance to address a concern by the terms of the policy and they still were not satisfied, their posting is helpful to me. If somebody finds it unacceptable that they would have to give the clinic a chance to make them happy before scorching the clinic in public, they would certainly be in their right to go to a different clinic.

I was happy with my care at the clinic. I also appreciate that people on the net pay attention to this stuff and seek to protect the free flow of information. However, the criticism seems a bit off-base in this case, because my impression was that the clinic wanted to have a chance of making patients happy while keeping its reputation for doing so in the new internet environment, not to stifle legitimate concerns. That seems pretty fair.

“By this agreement, you grant all copyright ownership in any and all published statements, comments, blog postings, and any other communication made by you outside of the Patient Satisfaction Agreement Procedures.”

Grant to whom?

Because the Communications Decency Act shields blogs from defamation claims, copyright is probably one of the few means of businesses showing that an attack posting is or is not legitimate.

When a colleague sent me a link to this stream, I was a bit surprised that Crutchfield Dermatology was the target, because I know there are a lot of businesses claiming copyright in everything (as someone suggested was happening here) without an opportunity to either make a complaint to the company or to even own the copyright afterward.

I spoke to the clinic administrator a little bit ago about the issue, and she indicated that their intent (and apparently it has worked for quite a number of patients) was to create a satisfaction policy other than just making them call the receptionist to complain. They also wanted a way to show blogs and other media whether or not a complaint is from an actual patient.

At least as of now, they say they have never had an issue with this. I’m not really surprised, as I was referred there by a friend who loved the care and it’s a pretty long wait to get an appointment. Whether or not one likes the higher profile of the clinic, I think part of that high profile is because they do a good job.

By this agreement, you grant all copyright ownership in any and all published statements, comments, blog postings, and any other communication made by you outside of the Patient Satisfaction Agreement Procedures.

The language of the agreement is way too ambiguous. In context, it seems to imply that the copyright ownership applies to anything you say about their practice. If their treatments so far have been good and their customers are largely satisfied, then why have such and ambiguous, poorly-worded agreement? One bad review won’t sink the practice.

I suspect that he’ll get the message that he crossed a line soon enough, though, as he’s on Twitter and Facebook.

As a lawyer, can you explain you use of “If” in your sentence “If the agreement is ambiguous, over-reaching, poorly-worded, etc. [...]”

As a consumer, and as someone who has read the agreement several times, I find it unclear whether or not the practice wants to claim ownership over everything I say on the internet. In what way, exactly, are people like me served by your assurance that the way this seems to read is not what is meant?

And how is the practice served by this lack of clarity?

Based on the waiting list for an appointment at Crutchfield Dermatology (it was several months, last time I checked), one has to conclude that either people simply don’t read the fine print or, more likely, that they are comfortable giving the clinic a chance to address their concerns before they light them up with negative reviews. Anyone who is not comfortable with the language (or thinks it ambiguous, poorly-worded, etc.) is of course free to take their dermatology needs elsewhere – basically the same right to enter or reject any contractual relationship.

I hope your practice isn’t one of the ones that requires your patients to submit to binding arbitration by a firm chosen by the doctor in lieu of any legal action. That is to say, every doctor I’ve been to in the last ten years.

I would love to fly out there and see Dr. Crutchfield immediately. I need to get the full treatment. If we can negotiate a discount I’d be more than willing to sing the praises on the Internet to lose 20 years or more.

http://svpow.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/who-owns-my-sauropod-history-paper/

Hey, if I wanted to plump up my nasolabial or melomental folds with non-animal sourced hyaluronic acid or induce a little flaccid paralysis with botulinum toxin, strictly for cosmetic purposes, I’d go to him. Who doesn’t want to look good?

This guy’s a rock star. In NYC we had Dr. Zizmor with all the subway ads.

What’s fortunate about such an agreement is that should a doctor bring a suit under the agreement against a patient, the patient would in some states be able to file an anti-SLAPP suit, just like you all did at BoingBoing. Further, a judge looking at the agreement would the vast majority of the time express that a patient couldn’t have had reasonable understanding nor necessary counsel to sign such a lopsided and inclusive agreement. A doctor would almost certainly be forced to pay out and pay big, depending on the jurisdiction.