Art Neill, Founder and Executive Director here at New Media Rights, began writing as a guest contributor for Forbes this past May, covering a variety of legal issues for creative professionals and small businesses. His articles have been chosen as Editor’s Pick three times since then!

This week’s post is all about Errors & Omissions insurance. Errors & Omissions (E&O) insurance is one safety net (among others) that a small business should consider to protect its assets. “Essentially, an E&O insurance policy will back you up when you make a mistake or an error.” Sometimes, even small mistakes can be costly, so it is important to understand the unique protections of Errors and Omissions insurance - especially if you have a business in the technology or media fields.

“Even if your particular industry doesn’t require E&O insurance, it may still be worth considering purchasing. For example, if you provide a service or software that your clients rely on heavily to do business or manage data, or if you produce any kind of creative work that reuses someone else’s content, then you will want to consider purchasing E&O insurance.”

The article also lays out some key differences between E&O insurance and General Liability insurance, and breaks down some of the different policies that are commonly available. For instance, one policy that the article discusses is Producer’s E&O insurance, which “protects a piece of media from claims of copyright infringement, libel, slander, and plagiarism (among other things).” We’ve often worked with filmmakers who need this type of insurance policy in place before they can distribute their films using large platforms or distribution companies. For filmmakers, this can be an important protection to have in case a claim is brought against their film.

You can read “Errors & Omissions Insurance: A Safety Net For Your Business” at Forbes.com. Check out other Forbes articles from New Media Rights here, including articles on topics like copyright, trademark, trade secrets, patents, music licenses, and navigating a lawsuit (part 1 and 2).

The 2015 Open Internet Rules preserved the internet as we know it at a time when Internet Access Providers were trying to change the internet forever for their own narrow profit motives. The rules ensured that the Federal Communication Commission could play a constructive role in ensuring competition, of ideas, products, and services

In 2014 we made Comments and Reply Comments, asking the FCC to classify the internet under Title II to protect internet consumers, innovators, and creators. We were cited numerous times in the final rule, particularly with respect to extending the rules to mobile broadband.

Recently, the FCC has done an about face, and now proposes an end to these successful net neutrality protections. This would be disastrous, so we recently submitted comments to the FCC addressing why the Open Internet Rules should remain and also highlighting the dangers of the proposed changes.

We particularly want to thank volunteer attorney Kyle Reynolds, as well as student fellow Cat Mineo, a 3L from California Western School of Law for their work on these comments along with Executive Director Art Neill.

Our comments focus on the reasons why the current classifications under Title II and FCC authority should remain. We also present examples of narrow business advantages reaped by the proponents of ending net neutrality and what these proponents don’t want you to know about the harms of ending the current regulatory scheme.

Our comments also provide a reminder about the public policy behind the current standards for internet conduct which are in danger of disappearing if the FCC should move forward with its proposal to end net neutrality protections.

Read our comments.

Visit this post to find out what you can do to support net neutrality.