I am a non-UK student studying in the UK. I have a visa and everything is pretty good, but my visa states that I can work no more than 20 hours per week. I don't want to have any problems, so how can I freelance, for instance, and prove that I have worked not more than allowed?

How to freelance in the UK without violating the terms of my visa?


Lots of bits and pieces of information and chaotic data spread across the web and it does cost an arm and a leg to gather them together to form something larger and consistent that would prove to be much more useful.

Is it legally viable to **scrape** these **factual data** / information from different websites, compile and re-organize them as databases / data sets that will then be licensed under a **proprietary license**?

Thus far after some research, I find factual data can't be **copyrighted**, but the particular compilation / structure of data can. Does this mean I can do whatever with the scraped factual data as long as I have my own unique **data organization / compilation / structure**?

For example, I want to make a business information database off hundreds of different websites and then radically re-organize / re-structure / re-index these different data sets into one database that is better than any of the sources. Can I proprietorially **license** this particular database I made?

I know I can never own the data as they are straight facts. Right? But can I **OWN** the particular data organization and legally profit from it?

We are operating in US, but the data could be from websites on other continents.

Scraping factual data off the web and re-organize to release under proprietary license?


I am not a law professional at all but I all of a sudden realized something to which I cannot find a reasonable answer. In customs (or in similar law-enforcement acts), why is the burden of proof on the subject but not on the state?

CASE 1) If Acme Inc. imports some agricultural products, then she needs to demonstrate that everything complies with the biosafety regulations rather than the officers proving a violation. Then Acme needs to perform any necessary test by herself.

CASE 2) If it is claimed Mrs. X is insane and needs a guardian, then the burden of proof is with the plaintiff. Mrs. X need not prove that she is a reasonable person to a public authority every single minute to remain officially sane.

My interpretation for the case 2 is that somebody is assumed to be reasonable by nature unless something happens. But why is some"thing" is not OK by default?

Burden of proof at customs


When filing their USA Federal taxes, someone might want to state more income than they actually had, for [reasons](https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/89942/can-i-buy-social-security-credits/89984#89984). This would result in paying more taxes than the person actually owes.

Specifically, this unreal income would be reported on 1040 Schedule C, line 1 or line 6.

Are there any laws or IRS regulations which prohibit that? Since the "error" (actually, deception) is in the government's favor, would there be any penalty other than $0?

[![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1pN5I.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1pN5I.png)

Is there any penalty for intentionally over-reporting income on your 1040?


I have been working with this client for 3 years and recruited a number of permanent staff for them (recently there has been changes in their management). A month ago I submitted a candidate cv to the hiring manager, at the time they had no vacancies. Last week I spoke with my candidate who informed me that she had an interview with the same client the week before and accepted an offer via another recruitment agency!

Our Terms and conditions state: An introduction fee will be charged in relation to any Candidate engaged as a consequence of or resulting from an introduction, whether direct or indirect, within six months from the date of our introduction.

Therefore my thought process is I introduced the candidate first to the client and she has been engaged within 6 months of my submission so I should be entitled to a fee?

One of the managers from my client contacted me and advised I am not entitled to a fee for this candidate as there was no vacancy at the time & it was unsolicited.

I have consent from the candidate and email trails advising her where her cv has been submitted & the client confirmed they received her details from the other agency after me

Any advise or help on this would be appreciated.

Recruitment / Employment Law on agency introduction dispute


According to this man...
<https://donotlink.it/7PyG>

>
> The modern notion that the separation of these powers implies opposition or incompatibility is a gross misrepresentation of the founders beliefs and intentions, imposed on the nation by a cabal of hyper-partisan Democrat secularists led by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (a virulent anti-Catholic and one-time member of the Ku Klux Klan), along with his co-conspirator Lyndon Baines Johnson, author of the “Johnson Amendment” that purported to ban church involvement in politics.
>
>
> Black wrote the majority opinion in the 1947 US Supreme Court case Everson v Board of Education which redefined the separation of church and state as a barrier to church/state cooperation – reversing over 150 years of legal precedent in which it had been recognized as a facilitator of church influence in government. It was this early and egregious example of judicial activism in Everson that shifted America from following the Judeo-Christian presuppositions of the founders to the Secular Humanist presuppositions of Cultural Marxism: preventing government from recognizing the authority of God in our law and history.
>
>
>

Except I know the founding fathers said differently. <https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-4-the-constitution-doesnt-separate-church-and-state/240481/>

It goes both ways then?

Does the establishment clause prevent schools from promoting religious doctrine as truth?


Are there any restrictions on using content included under the [D&D System Reference Document](http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf)?

As a hypothetical, if I were writing a fantasy book, could I freely throw in a Yrthak or Gray Render with no restrictions?

I'm thinking of publishing a supplement for another RPG under their Open Game License that includes creatures in the D&D SRD, which has all relevant information in its first pages.

Am I allowed to freely use content included in the D&D SRD?


Say I use three cameramen to record a pro golfer's swing at a public event in order to subsequently digitize the path of the swing in 3-space. Say I then program a baton (like a Wii remote or a smart phone taped to a golf club) to vibrate and/or beep when the device doesn't move through space along the same path and at the same speed as the original golf swing. (In other words, the device lets you "feel" what the pro's swing is really like: as you swing, the more the device will vibrate and beep the more you deviate from the programmed swing. On the other hand, the closer you duplicate the speed and position of the original swing, the quieter the device remains, so you can try to find the preferred "groove".)

Would it be legal to sell the program and data, without any consideration going to the golfer whose swing is being duplicated?

Say the software is embedded with the necessary hardware in a golf club handle that could be attached to any club.

Say the software or device being sold didn't replicate a particular golfer, but instead let you download "path" files from servers, so that if someone posted a "Tiger Woods 5-iron" file or a "Bubba Watson 3-wood" file, you could load that "training" file into the device. Would that be like song or movie players, where the device is legal, but the file being downloaded or played might not be?

Is it illegal to "sell" a pro golfer's swing?


Can the Good News Translation (GNT) of the Bible (copyrighted by American Bible Society) be quoted for commercial usage as part of a book's (ebook, paperback & audiobook versions) or if that would infringe upon their copyright?

<https://www.bibles.com/services/licensing-information/> (last bullet below) suggests it can't be used for any commercial usage

>
> Summary of Fair Use Policy (All conditions must apply):
>
>
> · No more than 500 verses in total may be reproduced without
>  permission
>
>
> · Scripture/Verses may not make up more than 25% of the new work
>
>
> · Verses quoted do not amount to 50% of a complete book of the Bible
>
>
> · All Scripture must be properly cited with the appropriate copyright
>  notice (see below)
>
>
> · The book or product must be available for non-commercial use.
>
>
>

<https://www.americanbible.org/about/legal/copyrights> - bullet #1 seems to suggest it can be used if used within the limit specified there & bullet 2 (which includes verbiage for commercial usage) only applies if it exceeds the bullet 1's limits:

>
> Policy for use of the Good News Translation (GNT)
>
>
> General Statement: The GNT text may be quoted in any form (written,
>  visual, electronic or audio) up to and inclusive of five hundred (500)
>  verses without written permission, providing the verses quoted do not
>  amount to 50% of a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses
>  account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the
>  work in which they are quoted. This permission is contingent upon an
>  appropriate copyright acknowledgment – (see below).
>
>
> Use of the GNT beyond above limits requires written permission.
>
>
> Commercial Use: Commercial use means use in any product offered for
>  sale, lease, rental or barter on any level. Rights and permissions
>  requests for the GNT in media intended for commercial use should be
>  addressed to The American Bible Society, 101 North Independence Mall
>  East FL8 Philadelphia PA 19106-2112, USA . Request shall contain the
>  following information:
>
>
> (1) exact portions to be quoted,
>
>
> (2) the medium in which those portions will be quoted,
>
>
> (3) estimated percentage of the total text of the work made up of the
>  GNT text,
>
>
> (4) any additional material to be included in the work, such as
>  additional text, illustrations, photos, etc.,
>
>
> (5) the purpose, number of copies or reproductions, and distribution
>  of the use in which the GNT is quoted, and
>
>
> (6) the sale or lease price of the work, or other income to be
>  received.
>
>
> For commercial use outside of North America, please send your requests
>  as detailed above to the American Bible Society. If the GNT is used as
>  the lyrics for a song, you must obtain permission prior to production
>  of the same.
>
>
>

Quoting the Good News Translation (GNT) of the Bible in Books (Commercial Usage) - Allowed or Infringes Copyright?


My picture is on a non profit organization without my permission. Can this be removed ? The title at hand states recovering sexual abuse .

Can a person use a picture of me for a non profit organization? It’s on the internet and I’m not happy about it?


I've done some first page of Google research on signing vs refusing to sign a traffic ticket. I understand that it's technically illegal not to sign, though one can still refuse in any case. I also understand that not signing means one can be taken into custody rather than be released on their own recognizance with a promise to appear in court or settle the ticket in the alotted time.

So knowing all this, is it ever OK, or beneficial to still refuse to sign a ticket?

This question was prompted by watching a YouTube video, where an off duty police captain claimed he witnessed a violation, for which he had another officer pull the driver over and issue them a citation, which they refused to sign, because the issuing officer was not a witness, and the violation itself was contested by the driver.

When is it OK to not sign a traffic ticket


In Rock Advertising Ltd. v. MWB Bus. Exchange Centres Ltd [2018] UK 24 Lord Sumption lists reasons why No Oral Modification clauses are beneficial.

"The first is that it prevents attempts to undermine written agreements by informal means, a possibility which is open to abuse, for example in raising defences to summary judgment." at para 12.

I do not understand the example he gives, how does this undermine a contract?

Thanks

How is "raising defences to summary judgment" an example of a contract being undermined that can be prevented with a NOM clause?


Is it against the law to aggregate and publish legally gathered, publically available information such as:

* Social media usernames
* Real names
* Date of Birth
* City/Country
* Screenshots of posts/comments
* Email address

Is it illegal to aggregate and publish publically available personal information?


I am writing a science paper for school and I am including the name of a product. Do I need to include the registration symbol after the name of the product?

"The monitor that was used in this experiment was the Garmin Vivoactive (®?)."

Do I Need to Use the Registered Symbol?


I am making a software which would do gridcomputing (i.e combine many computers processes to speed up a Function/App/Computer) I would post it online like a virus and spread to computers. This software will not take any of data. Delete it. Use it. It will only use a little bit of internet and 10MB of RAM.

Is it illegal to post a software without permission?


I would like to write a music player for Windows, in C++ or C#, and maybe sell it. I would like to use mciSendString, and I was wondering if I would have to pay any royalties to Microsoft.

Question 1: Can I use ALL of C# .NET in making premium apps without paying for a license to Microsoft?

Question 2: If not, can I use mciSendString, again without paying any royalties to Microsoft?

Programming languages and APIs licenses


Sorry if this is in the wrong place or just a dumb question. It honestly expect it to be rejected. However...

I'm curious if there's a term for the human inability to fully predict what it will be like living under the terms of a legal contract. I'm talking about having an intellectual understanding of the contract at the time of signing only to realize later that you didn't-- and couldn't-- predict the emotional response you would have to it.

To be clear, I'm not asking if the contract is legal or enforceable. I'm talking about an inability to truly, viscerally understand what life under the terms of the contract would be like at the time of signing.

This question has to do with a home owners' association. I believe it was impossible to truly understand how obnoxious and petty the HOA would be just by reading the text of the contract. I believe that they rely on this human characteristic to not fully "get it" until after the fact when it's too late. I'm wondering if others in my neighborhood have had the same reaction but I need a name to call it, if there is one.

Any ideas?

Thanks

What is the term for the human behavior of not being able to truly understand what it means to abide by a legal contract until after the fact?


Private WoW servers use a novel core, but need to be populated with maps, DBC files, and other content in order to actually have anything aside from an empty "world." Blizzard so far has refused to offer legacy servers themselves, but has gone after private servers.

One of the arguments that people use in support of Activision/Blizzard, in regard to them refusing to releasing IP for use in constructing legacy servers, under a free to use license, is that doing so would reduce their claim on the IP. Is this true, and if so, why?

Would Blizzard releasing intellectual property under a free to use license reduce their claim to the IP?


I have been looking up the laws of copyright for games. A lot of the stuff you find is pretty vague so it can be extremely difficult to have a good understanding of what you can/can't do. There are a range of different styles things can be done in, so how would it be determined if something is "too similar" and therefore infringes copyright.

This came into thought while looking at "Zelda - A link to the past". The game itself is very basic in design, 2D low resolution textures etc. If this were to be remade in 3D which would look completely different to the original style, could it still be considered too close? Does this account for storyline too, can you copy that?

I read this in another post:

>
> Copyright will protect only the computer program in the form written by a programmer i.e. its source code. Neither the functionality of a computer program, nor the programming language or the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression of that program, and thus, those are not protected by copyright
>
>
>

So is storyline considered functionality and therefore exempt? It's too vague and is quite intimidating, any information on this subject would be interesting.

Keep in mind, I am not looking for advice but rather a broader understanding of such a vague concept.

What is considered "too similar" in copyright? Game Development Specific


Are app stores that host free yet copyrighted APKs without the author's explicit permission legal? Examples include APKMirror and APKPure.

Are properties like APKMirror or APKPure legal?


Say that someone knew a person of interest's full name and made a request to obtain certain information using someone's name who has permission/legal rights to view that material, and addressed that the info was sent to a specific address from which returned mail could be obtained by the poser. Given that this isn't identity theft and sending snail mail under another person's name to OR from 2 disclosed locations is legal, could the fact that the information is being read by someone unauthorized make it an illegal act itself? I ask because this is something hardly considered in law.

North American law in particular, specifically Anglophone laws for the most part.

I am certain that sending a request under someone else's name isn't illegal because millions of people do it all the time and it's the reason why people find unexpected bills and subscriptions from which they never recall signing up for. Also, if such a thing were illegal, it's unlikely anyone could prove it.

But this is besides the point.

Is making a request under someone else's name in order to obtain information illegal?


A few friends and were having an argument on the following situation:

People can sign up for [Steam](https://store.steampowered.com/) accounts for free, letting them purchase games and play games over their network. Users are able to create public profiles for their accounts, a nickname, real name, location, etc - but this is not essential (sometimes people put fake information, but a considerable number of people put legitimate information). Via [OpenID](https://openid.net/what-is-openid/), users are able to authenticate and identify themselves to various other websites.

Some games, for example Dota 2 (published by [Valve](https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/), who also run the Steam network) use publicly visible Steam IDs of players as unique identifiers within their games - in order to track information about their users, including reports, statistics, etc.

Provided that a user consents, part of their data from matches they play in is exposed via an API. This includes stuff like what character you played, your performance in game, etc. This allows 3rd party websites to show you interesting statistics about the games you play.

There is another API (also run by Valve) which allows users to download "replays" of the matches, so users can rewatch what happened. Within these replays are, regardless of what a user's consent status may be, users' uniquely identifiable Steam IDs. This allows 3rd parties to track users even if they've not opted into 3rd party sharing.

My questions are:

1. Is a Steam ID "personal data"?
2. Is the sharing of data to a 3rd party by Valve without consent against the GDPR?
3. If #2, How would I make a formal complaint about this.

Answer mostly important for an EU user, but would be interested if there were US comparisons.

Are Steam account IDs (and telemetry data associated with Steam IDs) deemed personal data?


A person is presented with a contract with a consulting company, of which he will be a client

Section 8. Indemnification (see below) seems to me to be contradicting itself, but I could be misunderstanding something. Could someone please give me a plain explanation as to what this paragraph is saying in regards to indemnification and hold harmless?

>
> 8 Indemnification
>
>
> Each party hereto (the "Indemnifying Party") agrees to indemnify and hold harmless each other party (each, an "Indemnified Party") and all employees, representatives, directors, officers, shareholders and persons affiliated with the Indemnified Party against all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, settlement costs and any reasonable legal, accounting or other expenses for investigating or defending any actions or threatened actions)(collectively "Losses") incurred by the Indemnified Party arising out of or resulting from (a) the gross negligence, willful misconduct or fraud of the Indemnifying Party or (b) a breach by the Indemnifying Party of its representations and warranties, covenants or other obligations under this Agreement. In addition, except in the case of fraud or willful misconduct, the Client agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Dara and its respective employees, representatives, directors, officers, shareholders and person affiliated with them against all Losses incurred by them in the performance of their obligations under this Agreement.
>
>
>

Explain: indemnify and hold harmless (seems contradictory)


[Antlr](http://www.antlr.org/index.html) is a parser generator. [This](http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/appdev.111/b28370/toc.htm) is the official Oracle reference for PL/SQL.

If I use the information in the reference to create a PL/SQL parser, would this have any legal implications?

Since the reference is freely available to public, I initially thought not but being freely available to public might not imply that I may use the reference for however purpose.

So, would using the official Oracle reference to create a software be legal?

Legality of using official Oracle reference to create a parser?


I setup an account with a debt collection service. The collectors will collect my debt for a percent taken from the owed amount. If I sue my client for unpaid debt and win a summons proceeding, do I have to pay my collector? Nothing to this effect was written in the collector's contract between us.

Do I have to pay my debt collector if I collect my debt myself?


I am a German citizen permanently living in Germany. Is it legal to be employed by a company located in Mauritius and work 100% remotely without ever visiting Mauritius?

Work remotely in a EU country for a non EU company


**Background:**

Recently, some cards for an upcoming Magic the Gathering Set(trading card game) were leaked to the public a month before Wizards of the Coast(the company that makes Magic) intended to tell the public about the cards.

There's a lot of controversy in the Magic community right now, about these leaks, and Wizard's of the Coast's response to the leaks. If you want to read more about it, you can go to a magic fansite.

**Question:**

Assume the following:

* You have absolutely no contractual obligation to the company that has anything to do with company secrets.
* You are exposed to information about a product, including photos of that product that the company is going to release to the public.
* Let's assume your friend told you this information. You don't know where your friend got this information.
* The public knows **a** new product is coming out, but they don't have the specific information that you've been exposed to.
* The company definitely does not want information of this product leaked to the public.
* The company definitely does not want **you** to know this information.

Then:

1. Is it illegal to leak that information to the public?
2. If so, then if enough people know that information, does it become legal to spread that information?

When is reposting company secrets illegal


I'm developing a mobile app and recently discovered that another app was published to the iOS App Store in 2011 with a similar name and almost identical function. Should I anticipate copyright trouble by releasing my app?

Two mobile apps have same function/near identical names - copyright trouble?


I want to find raw information about Harvey Weinstein's trial.
Verdict, protocol, court documents, etc.

Preferably from an official government source.

Help or links appreciated

Where can I find the verdict of Harvey Weinstein's trial?


Company *A* buys company *B*. Company *B* has contracts with additional parties (say Buyer *X*, Merchandiser *Y*, Consultant *Z*, and others).

Can Company *A* refuse to honour the contracts established by Company *B*, or cancel their validity, after the sale is complete?

One company buys another. Does it also take over existing contractual obligations?


Is it illegal (or criminal) to break a contract? For example when you agree to a websites Terms of Service, if you violate a term, are you breaking the law?

Is it illegal to break a contract?


Can dividend once declared be revoked or cancelled?and tell me some cases if any.

Revocation or cancellation of declared divided


What is the difference between copyright infringment and intellectual property violation?

What is the difference between copyright infringment, and intellectual property violation?


Paul Davies. [*JC Smith's The Law of Contract* (2018 2 ed)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Smiths-Law-Contract-Paul-Davies/dp/0198807813/ref=dp_ob_title_bk). pp. 425-426.

1. This question's title refers to the red underlines beneath.
2. What exactly is this 'legitimate interest protected' by exorbitant credit card interest rates?

>
> [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7O7H7.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7O7H7.jpg)
>
>
>

How does the 'legitimate interest protected' by exorbitant credit card interest differ from that of exorbitant interest 'on outstanding fees'?


If there is a copyrighted book that I want to be freely available (for whatever reason), is it possible through legal means to make it available to everyone? When I say freely available I mean to publish an ebook that is free or a website that has the whole book online. Would it involve contacting the publisher (if the author is deceased) or author and making some sort of deal? If known what would such a deal potentially entail (one time payment, multiple payments based on usage, or some other criteria)? I live in the US.

Process to make a copyrighted book freely available


original: <https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/78853/is-it-unethical-of-me-and-can-i-get-in-trouble-if-a-professor-passes-me-based-on?noredirect=1#comment194231_78853>

I originally asked this question in academia, and although I received a lot of comments I'm looking more fore a legal viewpoint. so I thought I would post one here.

Edit: There is some information I originally left out but I want to include here.
 \*\*1) the only thing I have documented from me and the professors exchanges is my email mid semester asking her for office hours, conversations were made on phone.
 2) The university did not restrict native speakers to take this course.

3) The reason I was comfortable with originally not showing up to class was because 2 native speakers did the exact same thing before me, and when I asked about the legality of it they told me the professor said it was okay we speak it, and that the prof wants to enroll more students in order to "open" the section. this went over my head, and at the time I thought it was normal as many colleges give credit for competence.
 4) Public institution\*\*

Reasking in Law forum from academia- Can i defend myself?


Have a situation with a customer that I`m not exactly sure how to handle. (We are located in Maryland but this job was done in Virginia)

We cleaned a vehicle on a new white concrete driveway. In the process of cleaning the vehicle, we left a minor stain on the driveway.

The customer wants us to pay $2400 to get the driveway resurfaced (and threatening to sue if we don't pay). This seems extreme considering that the discoloration is minor and looks like what would naturally happen to the driveway after a few months of weathering.

I would like to get an idea of how things like this are normally resolved for when I talk to the customer again and attempt to work things out. I don't know much about law, but it seems like we might be liable for the extra wear on the driveway, like if we left it in a state similar to what it would look like after a year, we'd liable for a year of the wear?

How is liability normally calculated in this type of scenario, basically assuming that the damage is very minor but the cost of completely undoing it is the the cost of replacing the whole thing?

[![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qVx7X.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qVx7X.jpg)

Customer wants $2400 for minor stain on driveway, how to calculate what we actually owe them?


**Scenario:**

A British artist dies and the 70 years pma rule comes into effect. However, his daughter sits on the board for the artist's foundation and does not want copyright to expire after 70 years. Can she renew copyright for his works somehow and if so, what are the limitations on this?

Renewing copyright for an artistic work


So for instance, could I develop an energy bar and market it as the “Houston Bar”?

Or even just have a bar with “Houston” on the packaging that was self evidently a bar.

Are towns and city names trademarked?


A few years ago a school teacher in the US lost her job when it was discovered that she had previously performed in pornography. There was no suggestion that she was a poor teacher, it was simply the fact that she had an embarrassing past that got her fired. She had not mentioned it when applying for the job, it was only discovered by her students recognizing her in a video seen on the internet.

More recently the EU Right to be Forgotten has been used to prevent a web search associating innocent people with criminals mentioned in news stories.

The owner of Oink's Pink Palace was fired when he was arrested for copyright infringement, but subsequently found innocent. In such cases it seems that the accused often does not get their job back, despite being dismissed over something that turned out to be perfectly legal.

Generally speaking, in the UK what employment rights does a person have when their past is potentially embarrassing? Former jobs, former criminal convictions now spent, former involvement with "undesirables" etc. Can they be fired, and if not what specific laws protect them and to what extent?

What legal employment rights do people with an embarrassing past have?


Is it likely that a person could be arrested for verbally stating that they wish they could be sharp enough to commit a huge crime, in front of a policeman?

For example (and of course it depends on the jurisdiction), would I be arrested if I say a thing like "I wish I was able enough to steal billions from the bank"?

Jurisidiction: UK, US, Italy.

Being detained for a hypothetical sentence


I want to use the apple maps for a ios application and saw this in license: (c) reproduce, modify, translate, or create derivative works of the Service or any portion thereof; <https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/maps/terms-en.html>

1.Integrating maps and putting multiple CUSTOM markers will violate the license?

2.How about the modifying map colors, will it violate the license?

3.Is there a requests per day/month usage limit?

I cannot understand what violates the license and what doesn't. Thanks in advance for response

Adding markers/colors in an IOS app that is using apple maps violates the license?


I run a group in the UK on meetup.com which offers free walks/hikes in my local area. There are over 200 "members" but I am the only organiser of walks. I don't charge my members and expenses ($15 US = £10 UK per month for meetup.com subscription) are paid out of my own pocket.

I am thinking of starting to charge for the walks - I will give people the option of paying per walk or a yearly subscription. This will cover my subscription and allow me to buy public liability insurance. It would not be run for profit - if there is a surplus, I will simply reduce the subscription/charge in the next year, or put it towards a Christmas meal for the members, or donate it to charity. The annual turnover would be small - less than £400 a year.

My question is this: *would I have to register this as a business with HMRC, and would I be required to fill out tax returns each year, or keep accounts?*

Not for profit sole trader in UK


Follow on to [At what point and how should I change the license/Copyright notice when I create a derivative?](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/1121/at-what-point-and-how-should-i-change-the-license-copyright-notice-when-i-create).

When an author revises and publishes an updated version of her/his previously published work, does the revised edition count as a new (derived) work for purposes of establishing the Copyright date?

For example:

First edition: "Copyright 2010, John Q Author"

Second edition: "Copyright 2017, John Q Author"

I understand that the Copyright of the original would not be extended, but would the revised edition have its own, or would it also expire when the original edition expires?

Changing Copyright date notice for a revised edition


I was recently charged a $5 fee in error by a California based tech company. I disputed the charge via app and they issued me a “refund” in credits for future use of their service. I have not been able to contact the company in regards to getting my payment method refunded. I’m upset at this shady business practice, because I am out of the $5 for their error no matter what and the only way I can experience the refund is if I use their service again. Personal feelings aside, I’m genuinely interested if this is a legal way to conduct business.

Can a company erroneously charge customers and issue credits as refunds instead of refunding the payment method directly?

Is it legal for a company to erroneously charge you and refund you in credits?


In some pages there are links to books on archive.org, does anyone know if these links can be trusted when it comes to not violating copyright rules?

I am particularly interested in a book from "Mir publishers". This publishing company closed down, does that make its copyrights void or am I obliged to buy from the remaining copies?

Wikipedia links to books & Mir publishers


I am in the process of filing for a wage garnishment again a previous employer and one of the forms as asking me to supply the interest rate that the outstanding balance will be increased by if not paid.

I have a judgement against them that lists the total amount but nothing that mentions the rate if there were to be no payment.

The official text is as follows:

[![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/68jLm.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/68jLm.png)

Is there some type of public standard rate out there that would be used in the event it is not explicitly mentioned?

Edit: I found this website : <http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/efiling/post-judgment-interest-rates>

It appears that I find the date that comes right after the judgement issue date and that is the interest rate? **In this case it looks to be 2.34% per year?**

[![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ihuwz.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ihuwz.png)

Where could I find interest accrual rates for wage garnishments?


A company has been closing all my social media account, saying I infringe their copyright. Their documents say they have the name (example) 'Chocolate Cookie Extreme Baking Company'. In their text however they claim they own the name 'Chocolate Cookie' in the whole baking industry. Is this even possible?

My name is 'ChocolateCookie Company' (note the lack of a space there) and therefor I think they are not in their right. However I do not own the trademark for 'ChocolateCookie Company'. Do they?

Do they own this trademark?


Consider this

1. An American uses a fake scan of a Canadian passport over the internet to open an offshore bank account
2. The account is never used
3. No quantifiable damages are incurred

Is the American liable for criminal fraud?

Also which federal agency would prosecute? The Diplomatic Service seems to only handle fraud of US passports, and only in immigration, drugs, terrorism and related crimes.

Does 18 U.S. Code § 1543 apply to foreign passports?


Under what guise of law, would state actors (UK, US, etc.) be able to issue secret (unpublished) subpoenas that require industry / utilities to provide government **access** to their systems? Examples of **access** include [phone companies, which were forced during the Clinton administration to build digital networks that government agents could tap.](https://www.wsj.com/articles/attorney-general-calls-on-facebook-to-limit-message-encryption-plans-11570130636?mod=hp_lead_pos2)

The modern day version of "tapping" is dismantling end to end encryption of messaging systems such as Facebook or WhatsApp

Is there precedent of secret subpoena that compels government access?


Due to trademarks I cannot call my new company **AppleComputers** or **CocaColaBeverages** *(obviously)*.

What if I start using #AppleComputers hashtag in my tweets or posts on Instagram?

**In other words: Is using a *#hashtag* of a trademark infringement?**

I think that this area of law is new and there might not be many precedents...

---

Bonus question: Does the intention matter? What if I make it clear that I'm not associated with Apple? Even if in my mind I make it clear, who decides *(Judge, Jury, Attorney, Prosecutor)* whether it was clear enough?

---

**EDIT / UPDATE:** An example *(just made it out)* might be Greenpeace using #StopShell #StopExxon #StopBP #StopFossilFuels... My general question is use of the hashtag in social media channels. Domain / website can be seized but the hashtag will prevail...

*(the concept of creating resilient channel of communication)*

Using #hashtag on social media - does trademark protection apply and is it possible to get sued for damages?


Is it legal to post dark web exploration videos (e.g. exploring virtual drug markers without buying anything) on YouTube without any trouble (I live in Europe, Estonia to be specific)?

And clearly I'm not going to buy anything, just "exploring". So does anyone know? I'm pretty sure I saw series like that by OrdinaryGamers or something, but can it differ from country to country or something?

Dark web youtube videos - legal to post?


Completing taxes, they're asking a question:

>
> Was you [Province or State] resident on December 31?
>
>
>

What does exactly it mean?

If I was abroad at this day, I'm still a resident? Or not?

resident on December 31


I have been wfh part-time and sharing childcare responsibilities since the beginning of lockdown. I am an EU citizen working in the UK and have asked my employer for the possibility to wfh from my home country for a few weeks provided that borders are open and we are not required to go back to the office. Can they legally refuse that?

UK - WFH from EU country


If a statute states a mitigating or negating circumstance to a criminal charge, who has the burden of proof, the prosecution or the defense?

For example, if a state statute says that it is criminal for a person to threaten another, but in the same statute it says that such a threat will not constitute a crime if the threatened person was trespassing on the defendant's property, then who bears the burden of proof that the threatened person was trespassing (or not trespassing).

In other words, if the law has an exception to a criminal charge, who must prove that the exception does or does not apply? What is the precedent?

Who bears the burden of proof of a mitigating circumstance if the statute does not state it?


I'm new to creating music and trying to understand how everything works.
I have been trying to look for instruments I like and I just can not find any good download packs. I have even bought a couple expensive ones but it's just not what I want.

I have recently found out about "stems" and some songs I really like have some stems available to download.
I would like to download these stems and take the instrument they use in it. For example If they use a trumpet I will take the trumpet track, cut out 1 trumpet note and re-pitch and edit it to however I like and put that in my song.

No, I do not want to make a remix. I am not taking the WHOLE track. I am ONLY interested in the instrument they use. If this is not possible then could I go onto youtube, download a video where someone plays their guitar, take one note they play on that guitar and edit it and put that in my song?

Is this legal? Do other people do this?

Am I allowed to use other peoples instruments in my music?


I'm playing around with the idea of transcribing some of my favourite podcasts and recorded talks, putting them up on a website and accepting donations from users to hopefully help support some of the costs.

What are the legal implications of doing this? Am I even allowed to publish the transcriptions without permission?

I'm in Aus but happy to hear US advice as most of the content I'm interested in is from there anyway.

Copyright implications of creating transcripts?


Source: p 33 Middle, [*JC Smith's The Law of Contract*](https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0414041801/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=8AWSERSMKG5WTHNPGVKS) (2016) by [Paul S. Davies](https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/people/paul%C2%A0s-davies).

>
> If the procedure envisaged in *Eccles v Bryant* is followed and each contract is concluded
> only when an exchange through the post is complete, there is a grave risk that X may find
> that he has committed himself to buy Y 's house, but that W has changed his mind and
> refuses to buy X's house, with the result that X has two houses on his hands. And Y may find
> that he has committed himself to sell to X, but that Z has changed his mind, meaning that
> Y is left without a house at all. The risks are inevitable because of the delay involved in the
> process of exchange. If the solicitors of all four parties could meet together and exchange
> the signed parts of the contracts virtually simultaneously, all risk could be eliminated; but
> it will usually be impracticable for them to meet. A solution has been found in a system of
> 'exchange' by telephone. If all the contracts have been signed and all the parties are ready
> to proceed, W 's solicitor may agree to hold the contract signed by W **to the order of** X's
> solicitor who in turn will agree to hold X 's signed contract to sell to W **to the order of** W 's
> solicitor. X 's solicitor will also agree to hold X's signed contract to buy from Y **to the order
> of** Y 's solicitor—and so on down the chain. Some of the contracts may have been physically
> delivered in advance and held to the order of the delivering solicitor until the time agreed
> for the 'constructive' (or notional) transfer. But it seems that there need be no physical delivery at all.
>
>
>

The OED lacks the correct definition, as the following do not pertain:

>
> [23.] [a.](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/132334?rskey=qd1pq4&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid33289311) *Law.* A decision of a court or judge, made or entered in writing. In the Supreme Court: a direction of the court or a judge other than a final judgment.
>
>
> [b.](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/132334?rskey=qd1pq4&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid33289408) *Banking and Finance.* A written direction to pay money or deliver property, made by a person legally entitled to do so.
>
>
>

What does 'to the order of' mean (excluding contexts of bills, promissory notes)?


NJ EZ Pass claims that a vehicle registered to me violated a toll. The vehicle is neither mine, nor is it registered to me. I mailed my dispute with a copy of my registration of the vehicle I own.

NJ EZ Pass replied stating that my dispute required documentation from the DMV regarding all the vehicles registered to me for the past 5 years. I sent them this documentation of vehicles I've had registered to me for the past 15 yrs (which had the raised seal of the DMV) through certified mail so that I would get the receipt of delivery.

I just got ANOTHER notification about the original violation of this vehicle which is not registered to me, but which they insist is.

I would appreciate any guidance with this situation. The phone numbers on the website are automated only.

NJ EZ Pass Toll Violation


This is quite long-winded and I've tried my best to simplify it as much as possible. I'll clarify if needed.

Legal jurisdiction here is US and UK law (if there's a difference).

There are three scenarios here. "The Employee" is accused of sexual harassment in all three.

We need to take into account the following which apply for *all* scenarios:

* The Employee is **guilty** of harassing their co-workers at Company A.
* Any investigations conducted are done correctly and fairly.
* The Employee is a publicly visible figure and a figure of authority having a management role.

Scenario 1 – Two Simultaneous Employers

>
> The Employee is working for both Company A and B **simultaneously**. They are accused of harassing multiple co-workers. Company A's investigation finds them guilty and they are dismissed. Company B finds out after taking the Employee on as the allegations are made public by the victims.
>
>
>

Scenario 2 – Fired and then Hired

>
> The Employee is accused of harassing multiple co-workers. Company A's investigation finds them Guilty and they are dismissed. They then get a job at Company B. After starting, B discovers this incident, although there are no grievances against the employee from co-workers at Company B and their disciplinary record at B is otherwise clean.
>
>
>

Scenario 3 – Allegations arise after Moving

>
> The Employee leaves Company A to start a better job at Company B. Their disciplinary record is clean; i.e., no grievances were made against them before leaving Company A. After working at Company B for a while, former co-workers from A make a statement alleging that they were harassed by the Employee when they worked at A. Company B determines that this behaviour has not occurred with co-workers at Company B.
>
>
>

Can *Company B* dismiss the employee in any of these scenarios, even if they conduct an investigation concluding that the behaviour **was not** repeated while working with Company B? If they *can*, should they?

Does *Company B* have any obligation to investigate the employee's behaviour?

Can you be fired over behaviour in a second/previous job?


If I use Microsoft's Text-to-Speech engine on text whose copyright I own, who owns the rights to the resulting audio file? Do I own it in every instance, or are there restrictions of the IP rights I have over the resulting audio files?

What is the Copyright status of audio files created with Microsoft's Text-to-Speech engine?


I'm about to publish a paper. It will be in PDF format. I want others to copy and share that file. But I don't want them to modify the content.

What copyright license I should use for that?

How do I let others to share my research paper but without modifying its content?


Is it legal to upload videos that show how to cheat in games?

For example: Using Game Guardian or Lucky Patcher or decompiling the APK with APKTool and changing it.

I want to do that, though I think it may be a problem because cheats are kind of **against** copyrights I'm guessing.

Is uploading game cheats to YouTube an infringement upon copyrights?


I'm developing some apps that rely on RSS feeds for it's contents, these apps never store the feed data, and always pull the fresh atom xml from the server. I limit the char count to 100 chars, so it won't display all the post content on the listing, and then redirect the user to a webview with the content owner's site open, so they receive their visit as they should.

My apps main sell points are the opportunity to favorite posts on the app, and the notification when new posts arrive. Other than that, it is a RSS reader, as many other, that is subscribed only to one feed.

The site owner asked me to remove the app as they didn't like it. I contested them saying that it is fair use, and refused to remove. I do have banners on it, but just on the listing screen and favorites screen, and the content is displayed bannerless.

What you people think? I'm in trouble? As I don't "republish" it, just merely display, nor I store their data, am I safer?

RSS client and copyright


If a bank staff member has access to my financial information, and has then disclosed some of this information (for example, my account balance) on social media, what remedies are available to me? Will there be a difference if I suspect this person acted maliciously?

What remedies are in place for disclosure of financial information?


For a comparison portal, that just lists and compares the products developed by others, it is allowed to copy the product description and the product tehnical details from the official website of the manufacturer?

Thank you!

Best regards

Comparison portal is allowed to copy the product descriptions from manufacturer?


I am in the 17th month of a 24 month contract with a company (ISP A) to provide internet services. They got bought out by (ISP B) this month.

I have not paid any money to this new company as of yet. (Invoice is due on the 1st of each month).

The new company added an extra "Universal Service Fund" fee that I never had to pay for before. The fee is ridiculous and I did not agree to it in any form.

First of all, am I obligated to finish out my contract? And secondly, do I have to pay this extra fee? how can I control this? they could charge me $1000/month in some "extra random fee"?

thanks for your time!

and PS: There is no provision in the contract talking about the company being acquired.

Contract Law: Company gets Aquired


So, I have bought a lot of things that came in physical format: movies, songs, video games, and all sorts of other digital media.

However, things like CDs and DVDs are rather annoying -- they take up space and they're always getting lost and dirty and whatever.

Would it be legal to copy all of the media I bought to my own hard drive (or an external one), as long as I don't make the media publically available (upload it to a torrent site or whatever)? Would I have to destroy the original media? Can I make backups of this non-original hard drive?

Can I duplicate media for personal use only?


In Ron Engineering, the supreme court ruled that a "Contract A" is formed when a bidder submits a bid. This seems to imply that Contract A is formed **by** the bidder, not the receiver of that bid, unilaterally. As I understand Ron Engineering, Ron Engineering made a mistake and could not retract their bid. In effect, Ron Engineering was not let out of Contract A.

However, as Contract A is usually explained, it protects bidders from poor practice from people receiving bids. For instance, if the receiver does not go with the lowest bid due to other bids having additional terms not spelled out in the original tender, the lowest bidder can sue. This appears to be the complete opposite of the decision in Ron Engineering.

So what does Contract A really do, and who is bound by it?

In Canada's famous "Ron Engineering" case, what really is protected by Contract A?


The wording of this paragraph is not clear to me. Does the value of the Phantom Units equate to 0.25% of the FMV or do they equate to 0.25% of 10% of full FMV?

>
> The number of Phantom Units granted hereby is intended to equate to
>  one-quarter of one percent (0.25%) of the Fair Market Value of the
>  Company as if the maximum number of Phantom Units that may be awarded
>  under the Plan are outstanding, inclusive of the Phantom Units granted
>  hereby, which in the aggregate represent 10% of the Fair Market Value
>  of the Company, and the remaining 90% of the Fair Market Value of the
>  Company is represented by the outstanding Class A Units held by the
>  Founder Group.
>
>
>

For example: Assuming the contract awards 100 Phantom Units and the company is valued at $10M which of the following two calculations correctly interprets the value of the Phantom Units?

A) 0.25% of 10% of $10M = $2,500

or

B) 0.25% of 100% of $10M = $25,000

What is the value of these phantom shares?


The UK maintains a database of "registered designs", and by registering your design here (in my basic understanding) this affords some degree of legal protection against others copying your design, or making a similar design.

In this case however (<https://www.registered-design.service.gov.uk/find/6043482>), someone has registered a design that's a model of a locomotive. Since the design is deliberately a rather faithful, scaled down copy of the original, what implications does this have if I, or someone else wanted to make a model of this same locomotive? It would, by definition, have to be incredibly similar to the design shown, maybe even identical in many aspects. Certainly an average member of the public wouldn't likely be able to tell the difference.

Does this mean that I'm effectively barred from making a model of this same locomotive (which seems ludicrous), or would the circumstances here mean that the registered design is invalid?

Registering a model of an existing item as a protected design in UK


I am developing a game, and will be using guns in my game, I just am unsure of a few things. From what I understand, I need written permission to use the name of a gun due to the name being IP, but what about the gun's actual design? If I were to recreate a gun to give it the same 'Look', would infringing upon IP even be something to worry about?

Edit: I am not looking for a way to rip-off someone's IP, just for information so that I can get some guns designed, I am not full of ideas for what they should look like, so I'd like to base the design off of real guns.

Usage of a gun's design


According to the [Windows 10 (Retail) license terms](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/UseTerms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm):

>
> c. Restrictions. The manufacturer or installer and Microsoft reserve all rights (such as rights under intellectual property laws) not expressly granted in this agreement. For example, this license does not give you any right to, and you may not:
>
>
> ...
>  (v) **use the software as server software**, for commercial hosting, make the software available for simultaneous use by multiple users over a network, install the software on a server and allow users to access it remotely, or install the software on a device for use only by remote users;
>
>
>

\* emphasis mine

I'm thinking of getting [one of these](https://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msca/en_CA/pdp/InFocus-Kangaroo-Signature-Edition-Mobile-Desktop-Pro/productID.855405800) and using it in a build farm. (A build farm is a group of computers whose primary purpose is to download source code and compile applications — often for different platforms.)

The device includes a licensed copy of Windows 10 Home. Would using the device for the purpose described above fall within the scope of the license? In particular, I am concerned about the first phrase ("use the software as server software"). This seems a bit vague. What type of usage would this prohibit?

Would using Windows 10 Home on a PC in a build farm violate the license terms?


I would like to sell items online, and came across [this story about a person who sold a $40 printer](http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/06/06/he-sold-40-printer-then-he-sued-indiana-30000/85219140/) and ended up (so far) paying over $12,000 in legal fees.

What could I do to prevent this situation on a site like Craigslist?

How can I protect myself from a prolific, abusive litigant?


A [recent answer](https://law.stackexchange.com/a/41091/104) had this law quote

>
> shall not be liable for damages in any action brought in a Federal or State court
>
>
>

and this explanation

>
> they cannot be sued over their actions
>
>
>

I posted a comment

>
> This statement is not accurate "they cannot be sued over their actions" they can be sued, anyone can be sued for anything in the US, per the law they can not be found "liable for damage" not the same thing.
>
>
>

Then I went looking for reference that supports my comment, and did not find one.

Can I be sued if if the law says I am not liable?


Paedophile hunting seems to be on the rise (see e.g.: [Paedophile hunters: Should police be working with vigilantes?](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37708233), BBC News, 9 December 2016), and I'm surprised that it seems to lead to convictions (e.g.: [Paedophile jailed after vigilantes set Bluewater trap](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-37726408), BBC News 21 October 2016). While what they're attempting might be abhorrent, it seems to me that technically all they've *actually* done is have a sexually explicit conversation with another consenting adult. What are they being convicted of?

What are the alleged perpetrators convicted of after being caught by a paedophile hunter?


Am I allowed to lowercase an ALL CAPS section in a license?

Example:

>
> The MIT License (MIT)
>
>
> Copyright (c) 2015 Andrej Karpathy
>
>
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
>  a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
>  "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
>  without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
>  distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
>  permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
>  the following conditions:
>
>
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
>  included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>
>
> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
>  EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
>  MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
>  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
>  CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
>  TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
>  SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.\*
>
>
>

I want to lowercase the last paragraph when I redistribute it:

>
> The MIT License (MIT)
>
>
> Copyright (c) 2015 Andrej Karpathy
>
>
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
>  a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
>  "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
>  without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
>  distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
>  permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
>  the following conditions:
>
>
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
>  included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>
>
> The software is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind,
>  express or implied, including but not limited to the warranties of
>  merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and noninfringement.
>  In no event shall the authors or copyright holders be liable for any
>  claim, damages or other liability, whether in an action of contract,
>  tort or otherwise, arising from, out of or in connection with the
>  software or the use or other dealings in the software.\*
>
>
>


In a recent [article](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/01/trumps-ex-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-charged-with-lying-to-fbi) in the Guardian:

>
> After months of silence and invisibility, Flynn walked into a federal courthouse in Washington DC on Friday morning and pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI. The plea was part of a larger deal with special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, and strikes at the heart of the Trump White House.
>
>
>

What are the possible penalities that Flynn could face? One article in New York Times mentioned a punitive five years in prison. Presumably a plea bargain reduces the maximum number of years he could face behind bars. Is there any other precedent that could give us some idea of what he might be facing in this situation - or is this situation entirely unprecedented?

The Guardian does mention:

>
> He faces a possible sentence of up to six months in prison in his guilty plea to the false statements charge.
>
>
>

How accurate is this assessment, or do we just have to wait and see?

What are the possible punitive actions that Michael Flynn faces as he pleads guilty to one charge of lying to the FBI?


Say I'm selling at a swap-meet.

A person who, unbeknownst to me, is operating another store in the same area approaches my stall and purchases an item (specifically an old, but still functional laptop), then later demands a refund after removing the screen and hard drive claiming "*you said this still worked, but there is no screen or drive.*" Shortly after providing a picture taken before opening (featuring the device still intact) and then pointing to a plainly-written sign stating "No Refunds," the person proceeds to make a loud fuss in front of my stall for an hour or so.

As another example: Say I'm selling something on ebay.

Another store buys a $100 item and mutilates it upon receipt, then demands a refund claiming "not as described." I refuse the refund and receive a negative review.

I'm tempted to call the behavior in either case "fraud & defamation of character," but I'm not sure if that applies here...

What is this called? E.G: Competition buys product, breaks it, and asks for a return


My website is hosted in the U.S. but I am using it for my professional services in Europe.

The website uses only technical cookies and anonymized analytics (Google Analytics).

What should I specify in my privacy policy, except that these technical cookies and anonymized analytics are used?

What are legal requirements for privacy policy for a website hosted in the US, used in Europe and with technical cookies only?


I'm in the process of buying a house and have paid for a survey to be done on the property.
I have received a contract from the solicitor who will be conducting the survey for me and will provide me with a report of the findings. I found something interesting in regards to how they will use my personal information. The contract states:

>
> We will use the personal information you provided to us:
>
>  - To supply the report to you
>
>  - to process any payment for the report; and
>
>  - If you agree to this during the order process, to give you information about similar products that we provide, but you may stop receiving this at any time by contacting us.
>
>
>

My question is focusing on the third bullet point. It's hard to decipher because I don't think the sentence makes sense anyway (copied exactly how the letter says), and it's possible there is a typo in there, but it sounds like they are saying I will have to opt *out* of their marketing, rather than opting *in* like the new GDPR law states.

At the back there is also a check list of things you agree to, such as I have read and understood the guide, understood that I cannot cancel my contract after the 'cooling period', and "I agree to the privacy terms stated above". There is no mention of marketing.
Would that mean that I am agreeing to marketing, as per the third bullet point?
There is *no* tick box for "I do not wish to be added to your marketing".

Should I contact the company and request a new contract?
I am in the UK.

Is this privacy statement from a solicitors in line with GDPR?


[![image of jim carrey](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VRr6e.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VRr6e.png)

By opening this question, you have automatically sent some data to some random website on the internet, the website hosting the above picture. What data? This is the data that is usually sent:

* Your IP
* A cookie
* The URL you are visiting (the URL of this question)
* Your user-agent (typically including OS version, browser version, etc.)
* The time when you first saw this picture (header: if-modified-since)

This can definitely be personal data according to the GDPR, and in practice in most cases **it is**.

>
> ‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;
>
>
>

That data is sent somewhere automatically. Did you see any privacy policies? Did you accept anything? No, you don't know how that data will be used. Of course it could be sent to a stupid random website, that will never use it for anything. Or it could be sent to a big corporation, or to a content delivery network, or any website that is big enough to be able to track you with this data, because they have a lot of services (or just hotlinked images) around spread all over the web. Note: the data is actually sent to Imgur, which I believe would definitely be able to track you, given the huge amount of pictures on the internet that link to them.

I've always seen people mainly worried about third-party assets (Google Analytics or Facebook buttons, etc.), some also began to worry about Google Fonts (that's a third-party asset too actually), but I don't think anybody ever brought up the issue of hotlinked images. That's third-party stuff. And communities like this one are basically allowing users to embed third party assets.

**Who's responsible for this?** Is it the user's fault, because they should always make sure the image source complies with the GDPR? I doubt it. The website owner's fault (Stackexchange), because they should not allow hotlinking? I'd say yeah, probably. Or the third-party website's fault, for not complying with the GDPR? I'd say no, for all we know they could be based in a country that doesn't even know what the GDPR is.

So my conclusion is that hotlinking should be treated like loading a third-party asset, and if the website owner cannot check the privacy policies of every hotlinked image (for example because it would be impossible in a community like this one), then unsupervised hotlinking should be disabled because the GDPR does not allow it. Am I wrong?

GDPR and hotlinked images: are they allowed?


I have someone that just Doxxed me online, by obtaining information from their own community using PayPal donate service.

He used personal information to harass me in the real world, by calling personal house phone and giving the number out publicly to friends in his community. Can he use information that he obtained from PayPal to harass someone outside his gaming community by giving out a personal name and phone number?

I have someone that just Doxxed me online, by obtaining information from their own community using paypal donate service.


I would like to know if it is legal to download the content of a website and display it in my own?

There is one way to include a website inside another: `<iframe>` (w3schools [description](http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_iframe.asp))

However, some websites decide that they don't want to get iframed. For example Google doesn't allow other websites to frame their content. This has of course certain reasons. There is a very simple option, the [`X-Frame-Option`](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/X-Frame-Options) that can tell a browser that it must not render a page withing a frame if it is not from the same origin as the page itself.

So far so good. Just for the sake of completeness I want to say that it's still possible to display just the content of another website. The most trivial one would be to hit `CTRL + S` on my keyboard, save the website and host it on another server. A more sophisticated of course would be to write a program that does that for me. One could simply download the HTML page and embed the result into another.

I can imagine that e.g. copyright could be an issue. But what if my site states that it does not own the content etc. and that it did not modify anything and so on.

Is there a way that this could be legal?

---

Example
=======

What is with [this example](https://proxy-nl.hide.me/go.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theindependent.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fcity-county-issue-disaster-declarations%2Farticle_e3e4d39a-cb98-11e5-a8f6-0740f845609c.html&b=24&f=norefer)? <https://proxy-nl.hide.me> allows you to enter any URL and e.g. specify that it should remove JavaScript code. This allows you to see even www.theindependent.com, which tries to take counter measures against embedding their site, under another domain.

Is it legal to download a website and display it on another that I own?


I am interested on the following situation due to its importance in an academic setting (which makes question about it common on Academia SE):

Suppose I legally obtain some digital image created by somebody else (e.g., by downloading from a public website). I then show this image as part of a presentation for my talk during an academic conference. Attendees (including me) have to pay a fee or be invited to participate in the conference, i.e., the conference is not freely open to everybody. The talk is not recorded or broadcast; the presentation is not distributed.

My question is whether this situation falls in the domain of copyright, i.e.: **Is showing an image in such a fashion something that is an exclusive right of the copyright holder** (unless specified otherwise)**?** I am interested in the general international situation, e.g., the Berne Convention. Note that this is not about this action being allowed by exception (e.g., fair use) but about whether it falls within what is protected by copyright in the first place.

### My research/thoughts so far

* According to [this summary](http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html) of the Berne convention, the protected rights include:

>
>
> 	+ **the right to translate**,
> 	+ **the right to make adaptations and arrangements** of the work,
> 	+ **the right to perform in public** dramatic, dramatico-musical and musical works,
> 	+ **the right to recite** literary works in **public**,
> 	+ **the right to communicate to the public** the performance of such works,
> 	+ **the right to broadcast** […],
> 	+ **the right to make reproductions** in any manner or form […],
> 	+ **the right to use the work as a basis for an audiovisual work**, and the right to reproduce, distribute, perform in public or communicate to the public that audiovisual work [4].
>

The only point that I can think of covering the action in question, is the last one, if the presentation is considered an audiovisual work that is performed in public, but that does not seem to be the intention of this point to me.
* Looking into the convention itself, the only applying paragraph (if any) seems to be [Article 11bis, 1 iii](//en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works/Articles_1_to_21#Article_11bis):

>
> Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing:
>
>
> (iii) the public communication by loudspeaker or any other analogous instrument transmitting, by signs, sounds or images, the broadcast of the work.
>
>
>

I wouldn’t call the action in question “transmitting the broadcast of the work” though.
* If the action in question would fall within the domain of copyright, so would showing my desktop background before I launch my presentation.

Does showing an image as part of a presentation fall within the domain of copyright?


I caused a fire in my building by disposing of a cigarette in a trash can (the building is in New York City). Obviously a stupid and negligent mistake. However smoking is permissible and the reason the fire got out of hand was because it turned into a grease fire (there is a barbecue in the area). The fire dept told me that usually something like a cigarette butt would not cause something like that (at worst the trashcan melts). The developer and condo board fixed the damage and quoted me a huge amount for it (it was some burned stucco, a light fixture and a few deck planks).

I can see a case for there being a mandated fire proof trash can (which was not the case -- and is the developer liability), especially given that there is a barbecue and smoking is allowed -- but do not know the NYC fire code well enough.

Is there anything I can claim or do to reduce the bill or negate it?

Liability for fire


So, in everything from World of Warcraft to Dungeons and Dragons, even Warhammer and an assortment of other games, both table top and computer based, there's Arcane magic. I've written a few books and, without thinking, I used the term Arcane to be the general name for magic practiced by witches and warlocks and prayer magic used by the clergy. I never thought about it until now, but is Arcane, or Arcane magic, a copyrighted word/phrase/term?

To clarify, the spells in my work aren't direct copies of any from those other games, it's simply the usage of what I at first considered a generic word. Could there be trouble down the line?

Examples of spells used in my work:
Portal magic to move across large distances,
"energy beams" for combat purposes, and
magical infusion.

Not entirely sure if this is the best place for this question, but I'm just wondering if there's any danger of it becoming problem down the line. Also, I apologize if I'm misunderstanding the usage of copyright, but as a relatively new author, I'm trying to make sure I'm not setting myself up for trouble in the future.

Copyright law for an author: Can a word be copyrighted?


First let me specify that this question is about U.S. law. My mentions of EU law are just to put everything into perspective.

I was reading that 4chan is required by law to log IP.

"As required by law, even communities such as 4chan do require the logging of IP addresses of such anonymous posters".

source: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_post>

Does anyone know why? Is it because the posts are made by anonymous users?

My problem is this. My forum is visited by people from EU as well, and according to upcoming EU regulations, EU is increasingly pressuring it's controllers (like forum owners) to anonymize personal data (because if you don't = good luck to you), so that's what I'm trying to do right now regardless of the varying opinions on the matter, but on the other hand, I'm afraid that laws in the US will require me to store full IP once my users are anonymous which would inevitably defeat the purpose, unless such law (if truly existent) would allow me to store truncated IP addresses?

I've searched the web for hours trying to find any info on this, but nothing suggests that there is any such law. Could it be that Wikipedia is simply wrong?

Is there a law in the U.S. requiring forum owners to log IP addresses of anonymous posts?


I am looking to licence my software under the GPL, but I want to add a clause that allows me to change the licence at any time.

How can I do this?

Program Licence amendments


First of all: I hope this fits on this stackexchange. Sorry if it doesn't...

The title says it all. I want to write a document and I would like to put an open license on it (i.e. do whatever you want). However I am by no means willing to take any responsibility for derived work and would like the license to reflect that by requiring that any derived work not be attributed to me. So essentially I want a license that says:

"Do whatever you want with this text. Distribute it as you like. The only requirement I have is that you remove my name from any derived work".

Is that actually possible at all? Or should I then essentially pick a license that forbids derived work altogether?

Document license that explicitly forbids attribution of derived work


I want to use the "`Arphic PRond-Gothic`" font for my commercial web-site.
Because it was initially installed on my computer (or it was installed with certain soft automatically, anyway I did't bought this font), I can to reason that it is not requiring payment font. If check the font file info, it reads "`Copyright 1994-1999. Arphic Technologies`".

Is it legal to use this font on my commercial web-site?

Limitations on protected by copyright font usage for commercial targets


My browser is saving a copy of the web pages I visit on my computer. How is that not copyright infringement?

[in this answer](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/1805/copying-html-copyright-violation/1808#1808) I read:

>
> I would hazard a guess that displaying an HTML webpage online is implicitly allowing others to read that code
>
>
>

How does that imply that you can make a local copy, when a web page includes a copyright note, or does not mention copyright at all (in which case standard copyright rules apply)?

I suspect that the only possible way out would be stating that digital text is not the same thing as printed text and therefore the same rules should not apply, but we are constantly told the opposite, aren't we?

**UPDATE**

I'm adding some quotes from the only answer and comments below, to bring more elements for further answers that I hope will come, since I'm still not convinced that this situation makes completely sense.

It has been pointed out that

>
> Fortunately I don't need to be convinced, as I'm not a judge on a
>  relevant case (Jon Story. I changed *"you"* from the original comment to *"I"*)
>
>
>

And that's totally true, so I feel like reassuring that my question comes only out of my couriosity and noone needs to answer if they don't wish to satisfy that.

I'd like to receive an answer that copes with some alternative views seen here, possibily making me understand which one is right (or more logical, or more convincing). I don't mean to make this question become too broad, so we are still dealing with the original problem: *whether browser cache violates (US and EU) copyright laws in theory*. I do hope this is a [good subjective question](https://blog.stackexchange.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/).

Please be aware that I believe the term *Intellectual Property*, which appeared in the comments, [to be misleading](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html). It refers to patents, trademarks, copyright and other stuff, while we're just discussing about copyright here.

**Quotes from answer and comments:**

* >
> Copyright is not about copying, it is about use (Jon Story)
>
>
>
* >
> Many misconceptions are based on copyright being about use. Copyright
>  is not about use, it is about copying (Marcks Thomas)
>
>
>
* >
> To expand on the point about use, not copying, being the main issue,
>  it would be a violation of copyright to take a BD and project it onto
>  a large screen and charge money for people to watch it. I didn't copy
>  the disc, just played it for profit (or even if i didn't charge, as a
>  public performance) and I'd go to jail (Andy)
>
>
>
* >
> You wouldn't say the optical fiber the data was sent through was
>  copying the data? (kasperd)
>
>
>
* >
> In order to read printed text, your eyes make a copy of that work (in
>  a different format, made up of neurons firing in your brain) (Jon Story)
>
>
>
* >
> routers don't copy the data in full. They process one packet at a
>  time, which by no means is enough to contain the full work. A packet
>  is more comparable with a citation, than a copy of the work. (kasperd)
>
>
>

**FURTHER UPDATE:**

I'm going to start a bounty on this question. Here I add the parts of the current answer (Jon Story's) I'm less satisfied with:

>
> Because you are not duplicating the content or re-publishing it
>
>
>

I'm clearly doing the first of these two things.

>
> The web page is publicly available anyway (or at least, accessible by
>  you), so you have permission to read it: copyright is about whether
>  you have permission to access and read the file, not about whether you
>  have permission to make a copy of the file as part of the technical
>  process of accessing and reading it.
>
>
>

I'm almost certain that copyright is not about the permission to read and access the text, but about the permission of making copies, modifying, redistributing and other stuff like that. For instance, I don't think you can make a copyright note that does not allow reading your content. Is fair use the key point here? That may be, and in the comments I was almost convinced. However, I've never known that fair use could justifiy copying the *entire* text. They won't let me photocopy an entire copyrighted book for personal use, I guess.

Why does browser cache not count as copyright infringement?


I know someone who owns a short term rental property and who requires incoming guests to sign a contract. Their lawyer covered several areas including early cancellation on the part of the guest. However, nowhere in the contract does it talk about early cancellation on the part of the host. It doesn't say whether the host can cancel early, what will happen if they do, or that the host may not cancel early. If it isn't expressly permitted or not allowed in the contract, is it up to the owner how he/she wants to handle this type of event?

Contract terms: If it isn't forbidden, is it implicitly allowed?


I have taken a book from my university's library and it states in the second page :

>
> The law of March 11, 1957 authorizes only "copies or reproductions strictly reserved for the private use of the copier and not intended for collective use".
>  Any representation or reproduction, in whole or in part, made without the consent of the publisher, is unlawful.
>
>
>

It is a book written in french and a french address containing "Paris" figures in the same page so this is probably a french law.
Any of you have an idea on whether this law is still up or not?

This allows me to take photos I guess but I am not sure on the validity of the law as I stated in the last phrase.
[![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6kw6E.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6kw6E.jpg)

Capturing photos of a book


There are several web sites out there that sell MP3 music files for 10 cents each and FLAC music files for 30 cents each. At least one site even sells Hollywood movies (AVI, MKV) from $0.99 (low quality) to $2.99 (1080p). Most of these web sites seem to be based in Ukraine, and they all have FAQs that claim that they are legal. Here are a few examples:

From [mp3va.com](http://www.mp3va.com/help#q7_0):

>
> Q: Is your web site legal?
>
>
> A: Yes, the activity of Mp3va.com is carried out according to the legislation of the license # IT - 07/13 No IT - 07 - 1/13 of the Ukrainian Public Organization "Avtor" issued for Beowner Ltd. Service www.Mp3va.com pays full-scale author's royalties to owners of pieces of music, trademarks, names, slogans and other copyright objects used on the site. Any further distribution, resale or broadcasting is prohibited.
>
>
> Q: If your web site is legal, how can you sell music for $0.15/track compared to iTunes $0.99/track?
>
>
> A: Our company and licensing authority is located outside U.S. area and we do not have to follow $0.99/track minimum regulations.
>
>
>

From [melodishop.com](http://melodishop.com/info/help#q71):

>
> Q: Is your web site legal?
>
>
> A: Yes, the activity of MelodiShop.com is carried out according to the legislation of the license agreement # I-003/11 from June, 14 2011 of the State Enterprise "Ukrainian Agency of Copyright and Related Rights" (UACRR). Service www.MelodiShop.com pays full-scale author's royalties to owners of pieces of music, trademarks, names, slogans and other copyright objects used on the site. Any further distribution, resale or broadcasting is prohibited.
>
>
> Q: If your web site is legal, why your prices are so low?
>
>
> A: Our company and licensing authority is located outside of USA and we do not have to follow any minimum regulations of other countries.
>
>
>

From [mp3million.com](http://www.mp3million.com/help#q71):

>
> Q: Is your web site legal?
>
>
> A: Yes, the activity of Mp3million.com is carried out according to the legislation of the license agreement # 67/17M-10 of the Rightholders Federation for Collective Copyright Management of Works Used Interactively (NP "FAIR"). Service www.Mp3million.com pays full-scale author's royalties to owners of pieces of music, trademarks, names, slogans and other copyright objects used on the site. Any further distribution, resale or broadcasting is prohibited.
>
>
> Q: If your web site is legal, why your prices are so low?
>
>
> A: Our Company is registered outside US area to minimize the taxation. Also, we can offer such low prices due to guaranteed bulk purchases (minimum deposit on our web site is 15 USD).
>
>
>

So is it legal for an American to purchase music/movies from those sites?

Is it legal for Americans to buy music/movies from those really cheap web sites based in Ukraine?


[IP addresses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address) are "personal data" according to the GDPR. When saving IP addresses in web server access logs, data subjects have the right to get the log entries for the IP addresses they used (article 15 GDPR).

If the IP address is the only personal data in the log, a controller has no way to verify that a requesting person is actually the data subject. Even the requesting person’s [ISP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_service_provider) could only verify that the person is the subscriber (i.e., that the subscriber’s Internet connection had this specific IP address at a specific time), but it’s possible that someone else used the subscriber’s Internet connection at that time (e.g., a family member).

Does this mean that a controller never has to provide the log entries if the IP address is the only personal data involved?

"Right of access by the data subject" if the IP address is the only personal data


Consider a book copyrighted by someone. Is it legal (in India? in USA?) to make an audio recording of the book and give copies privately to a handful interested people who ask for it?

Private copies of books


Can an illustration from a Children's book be drawn by an artist (muralist) on a wall of a public building without asking the artist's permission? I think that some things, like songs, written before a certain year are in the public domain and therefore allowed to be used -- does the same apply to artwork? Specifically, I'd like to paint a scene from Sendak's *Where the Wild Things Are* for a public library and need to know if this can be done. Thanks.

Can I legally copy a book illustration for a wall mural in a public building?


I was wondering if after I purchased this theme I could remove the footer credit under a regular license for this theme?

<https://themes.getbootstrap.com/product/boomerang-bootstrap-4-business-corporate-theme/>

Removing footer credit for this specific theme


Say there is a company that has published 'sets' (of 30 questions for example) of multiple choice questions that are copyright protected. The questions may include graphs and other diagrams.

If you take these questions and display them in a different format, for example on a payed online platform where the order of these is completely randomized and has nothing to do with these 'sets' and additionally there are 'self-written' explanations (not related to the published 'sets') to the answers of the multiple choice questions then:

1. is this copyright infringement?
2. are the 'sets' copyrighted or only the individual questions?
3. would changing values in the questions change the 'copyright'?
4. does the fact that the randomized display of questions on the platform has nothing to do with the 'sets' change anything?

thanks

Are multiple choice questions copyrightable?


New law student trying to understand what this paragraph is ultimately trying to establish:

>
> Promptly after receipt by a person entitled to indemnification pursuant to the foregoing Section 9.1 or 9.2 (the "Indemnified Party") of notice of the commencement of any action, the Indemnified Party will, if a claim in respect thereof is to be or has been made against a party who has agreed to provide indemnification under Section 9.1 or 9.2 (an "Indemnifying Party"), promptly notify in writing the Indemnifying Party of the commencement thereof; but the omission to so notify the Indemnifying Party will not relieve it from any liability which it may have to the Indemnified Party except to the extent the Indemnifying Party is prejudiced by the delay or failure to notify it. In case any such action is brought against an Indemnified Party, and it notifies the Indemnifying Party of the commencement thereof, the Indemnifying Party will be entitled to participate in, and, to the extent that it may wish, jointly with any other Indemnifying Party similarly notified, to assume the defense thereof, subject to the provisions herein stated, with counsel reasonably satisfactory to the Indemnified Party, and after notice from the Indemnifying Party to the Indemnified Party of its election to so assume the defense thereof, the Indemnifying Party will not be liable to the Indemnified Party under this Section 9 for any legal or other expenses subsequently incurred by the Indemnified Party in connection with the defense thereof other than reasonable costs of investigation. The Indemnified Party shall have the right to employ separate counsel in any such action and to participate in the defense thereof, but the fees and expenses of such counsel shall not be at the expense of the Indemnifying Party if the Indemnifying Party has assumed the defense of the action with counsel reasonably satisfactory to the Indemnified Party; provided that the fees and expenses of such counsel shall be at the expense of the Indemnifying Party if (i) the employment of such counsel has been specifically authorized in writing by the Indemnifying Party or (ii) the named parties to any such action (including any impleaded parties) include both the Indemnified Party or parties and the Indemnifying Party and, in the judgement of counsel for the Indemnified Party, it is advisable for the Indemnified Party or parties to be represented by separate counsel (in which case the Indemnifying Party shall not have the right to assume the defense of such action on behalf of the Indemnified Party or parties, it being understood, however, that the Indemnifying Party shall not, in connection with any one such action or separate but substantially similar or related actions in the same jurisdiction arising out of the same general allegations or circumstances, be liable for the reasonable fees and expenses of more than one separate firm of attorneys for the Indemnified Party or parties. No settlement of any action against an Indemnified Part shall be made without the consent of the Indemnifying Party and no Indemnifying Party, in the defense of any such claim or action, shall, except with the consent of the Indemnified Party, consent to entry of any judgment or enter into any settlement which does not include as an unconditional term thereof the giving by the claimant or plaintiff to such Indemnified Party of a release from all liability in respect to such claim or litigation. If the Indemnified Party fails to execute a release or other settlement agreement under circumstances where all of the conditions of the preceding sentence have been met, the Indemnifying Party shall have no further obligation to the Indemnified Party pursuant to this Agreement or otherwise.
>
>
>

What does this indemnification clause mean?


We are vendors who have paid to have a booth a local trade show in Dallas. Trade show attendees register using contact info (Name, Phone, Email, etc). The registration info is used to generate a leads lists that will be distributed 3-days later to the vendors by the show producer via email. Upon registration, attendees are informed that they will be contacted by vendors using the contact info they provided. The attendees are also given the options to opt out if do not want to be contacted.

Upon distributing the leads list, the show producer states "*the email list is copyrighted and can not be shared.*"

Question: Can the show producer copyright an email list if they don't own nor created the email addresses? The email addresses were created and provided freely by the show attendees. Or what if I sell my business and I decide to sell the leads lists? Would there be a problem?

While I don't wish to share the list directly. When I do send out email blasts to the show attendees, I do plan to promote other vendors inside the contents of the email. I know that will not be a problem as I am not directly sharing the list with any other individual or business.

Thanks in advance!

Can a trade show producer copyright an email leads list?


Sometimes in the Terms of Service for a website, there are instructions that the user cannot "alter or modify the Website", or cannot access content "through any technology or means other than the Website itself". For example, see [here](https://www.fanfiction.net/tos/) section 4.B and 4.C. Now, some browsers offer a "Reading Mode" where they display the main text from a website in a simplified display, removing the website's style as well as any advertising and any copyright notice. Does using the Reading View break the terms of service, since I'm accessing the content via a means other than the website? I think I'm either altering the website or accessing the content via a means other than the website, depending on how "website" is defined.

Does Reading View violate website terms of service?


Let's say SuperCool, Inc. sold cooler under the name "SuperCool" and the company went out of business. The trade name "SuperCool" is well-known within the niche, but it was never registered in USPTO. Would it be OK for a different company to appropriate the name for their own product?

Using the trade name of a defunct competitor


The video game do not provide any particular character. It only provides parts for player to build up his own character, such as hat, head, eye, mouth, chest, abdomen, pelvis, shoulder etc. more than 15 parts for a complete character.

And there are around 20 choice for each part, so the combination is something like 20^15 times.

I wonder if there is still any copyright problem if player create his own character that similar to famous animation or game character, such as Gundam?

For a video game that player can build up his own character, any copyright issue if the character similar to Mario, Gundam etc?


I am reading The Crying of Lot 49, wherein a fictional organization called "Trystero", that may or may not exist in the story, is associated with a symbol called the "muted post horn". The author, Thomas Pynchon, invented this organization and its symbol in this story, amongst other things.

The symbol as depicted on book covers became popular, and can be found as graffiti, and markings on signs, etc. since the 1960s, when the book was published.

I've noticed that several online vendors are selling items with the Trystero symbol, and I wonder if any legal rights issues come into play.

For instance, a print-on-demand service, CafePress, sells [coffee mugs](http://www.cafepress.com/mf/80054060/trystero_mugs?utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=889893350--c-9014973&utm_source=pla-google&utm_campaign=172671250&utm_content=13768990330&productId=889893350), water bottles, bags, shirts, etc, emblazoned with the symbol, or a facsimile thereof, and are advertised as 'Trystero' products. The designs aren't created by CafePress themselves, but rather are created by users of the site, who get some portion of the sales of the items.

There is also a coffee roaster that has named itself [Trystero Coffee](http://www.trysterocoffee.com/), and has the symbol on its products.

The above products and business openly acknowledge use of the name and symbol as an homage to the novel.

I'm vaguely aware of copyright owners forbidding money-making reproductions of their creative work-- mostly characters, such as non-Disney Mickey Mouse cartoons, or Calvin and Hobbes dolls and stickers.

Could Trystero the organization and its symbol be afforded such protection? Are these vendors simply not being persued?

IP rights for an element from a story?


The following question is relevant for Germany. The contract of interest is with a gym, which might be relevant because contracts with them sometimes have special rules.

In Germany, a contract with companies may not extend a duration of 2 years ([BgB §309 9b](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__309.html)). In a case ([Aachen, 6 S 199/07](http://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/lgs/aachen/lg_aachen/j2007/6_S_199_07urteil20071220.html)) a contract was deemed invalid because it was signed in March 2005 but the 2 year usage of the gym was set to start in April. This was deemed to exceed the 2 year duration (2 years + one month without usage, but a signed contract), so the customer was able to terminate the contract earlier than expected.

In my case, I signed a contract on date X, the 2 years started on "X + 2 weeks". Then, at "X + 2 weeks + 2 years" the contract was automatically extended by one year. This extension was announced in the original contract.

My question is, whether the contract can still be canceled immediately. I can se an argument for both sides:

* Yes, it can be canceled: The first contract period was invalid, it became an unlimited contract, cancelable at any time. Therefore, there was no need for an extension. It's still the same contract, so it can be canceled now.
* No, it cannot be canceled: While the contract could have been canceled during the first 2 years, the extension made this a new contract. Now, this contract is for 1 year only, so that's within the limits and is valid.

Which one applies in this situation?

Does an unlawful contract duration invalidate termination deadlines even after lawful extensions?