In the US, if I release a video game (or other digital work) online do I need to send a physical copy to the Copyright Office?

Do digital works need to be sent to the copyright office?


The fictional example below replicates my situation:

* A company already creates websites and owns a trademark with a pattern like XXX4 (e.g. "WEB4").
* My company builds websites for children and I want to give it a name like xxxForyyy (e.g. "WebForKids")

Cann I use "webforkids" for my company?
What do I risk if I do so?

trademark with digit - likelihood of confusion


May I use common symbol (like #, §) as a logo for a company or product of a company? As a trademark? What if I slightly change it? May it be a registered trademark?

(Related to the US mainly)


My employer stopped taking my my 401k contributions after 12 years of my participation. They said since I am a union member I was never really eligible. However they won't release my funds so that I can start my own IRA.It seems to me if I can't contribute to the 401 my participation has been terminated and they should have to make the appropriate distributions. I appreciate any information anyone has on this subject.

Can my employer hold my 401k funds and not allow me to continue to contribute?


There is [a mobile game](http://www.discgolfbasketstore.com/1025-discgolfgame/) that has TM written behind its name.

It is built for iOS and has not been updated for years. I would like to create a new and better version of it, for all operating systems, also maybe commercialize it and make free and premium version.

Does the TM symbol mean that I cannot use the name, or the idea, or something else?

What rights does a trademark actually give?


If A and B are in a contract, with B liable to A, and a third party C takes over the liability of B to A without the consent or involvement of B, is the contract between A and C legal?

I tried looking under 'assignment' but can't seem to find any precedent for this situation.

Taking over liabilities/debt without consent


If US President was to go to the U.S. Capitol Building for the State of the Union Address, and he was met at the door by the U.S. Capitol Building security personnel with orders to deny him entry, could he order the Secret Service to arrest these security personnel and then proceed to enter into the Capitol Building?

Although this scenario is very unlikely to occur, would the President have the Constitutional authority to do so since he is the Commander-in-Chief?

Moreover, since he is the Commander-in-Chief, would the U.S. Capitol Building security personnel have to obey his orders to stand down since he is the Commander-in-Chief, or do they only have to follow the orders of the Speaker of the House?

Could US President use the Secret Service to gain entry into the Capitol Building for the SOTU address?


My friend is being harassed by our local pd. They come to her house excessively and have even told her if she has house guests they will arrest her. Can they really do that?

Can the police tell you not to have house guests or you will be arrested?


I used to work as a contractor for a construction company, when one day, a manager brought me over and casually said "I'm letting you go." So I checked out early because I had asked to go home early that day.

I come back the next 3 days and work, business as usually, when on the third day the same manager appeared and became irate with me still being on the field. I had apparently been dismissed when he said "let go" and refused to pay me for the time I had worked already.

I had threatened legal action and he eventually surrendered what he owed me, but now I am wondering how it might've played out had he not.

My question here is, how clear must an employer's language be before an employee's dismissal is effective?

How understood must an employee's firing be in order to be effective?


I'm a small business targeting name tags to the individual worker. Some orders are from the businesses themselves, but others are for lone workers that seek a better name tag. When a lone McDonalds, Best Buy, Chick-fil-a, etc. employee comes to me and wants the golden arches or other logo on their name tag, am I opening up an infringement or other liability?

The question keeps haunting me, but I think that the ordering party is essentially performing like an agent of their company and authorizing the usage of the logo. Please let me know if I'm woefully mistaken.

So that covers the manufacturing, but then I'm wondering if it is a different matter when I post a product for sale online that's particularly advertising the "Customized McDonalds Name Tag w/Logo" as the base product. If the on-demand making of them is allowed, then is this any worse?

Any input so that I don't step on my own feet would be much appreciated. Thank you!

I manufacture employee name tags. Am I exposing myself by using their company's logo on tags ordered by their employees?


Normally DVD movies involve a license with rights to the actresses and other people.

In the late 80s a license was heavily protected mostly by stakeholders like Brazzers. So I bought a porn movie for $22.99 can i now sell it for $3?

Selling old DVD-burned porno movies for less


Will a termination by convenience clause always be honored by the court, if it is used in a manner that is completely unethical? Eg. can a company terminate an account that just bought an expensive subscription without refunding said subscription?

Edit: can someone actually tell me whether this runs afoul of a tenet of contract law?

Termination by convenience clauses


The book is *On growth and forms* by D'arcy Thompson. It was published in 1942 and Thompson died in 1948. Wikipedia uses the image citing public domain. Can I use extracts and images from the book with proper citation without the problem?

The image I want is Fig. 125 on [this page.](https://archive.org/details/ongrowthform1917thom/page/322)

The book is also available in archive.org and I think it should be in public domain.

The image itself has a caption and in bracket says `(After Rhumbler)`, I am not sure if it is by Thompson himself. Rhumbler would be Ludwig Rhumbler who died in 1939. So it should still be in the public domain as far as I get it.

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig\_Rhumbler

Do I need a copyright license for the image or it is in the public domain and I could use it without one?

I am in Germany and my thesis will be published in Germany.

Do I need permission to use an image from a book from 1942?


When an image has different copyright licenses, which one should I follow?
For example, [this image](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Photo_of_the_Week_-_Seal_pup_at_Back_Bay_National_Wildlife_Refuge,_VA_(5343673024).jpg) is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 and in public domain.

Under CC2.0, the author should be attributed while under public domain, the attribution is not required. I don't know why the same image has two conflicting licenses and is it legal to use the image as public domain?

Two copyright for the same image


An employee gives two weeks notice to resign from his job. For example, on Monday, September 7th, the employee gives notice that he or she wishes to resign with the last day of work on Friday, September 18th.

Question: On which day does the employee legally resign? On September 7th (the notice handed to his employer), on September 18th (last day of work) or September 19th (not working for the company anymore), and on which day is he resigned? For example if a bonus is to be paid on September 14th but not to employees who have resigned?

Is "giving notice" the same as "resigning"?


What happens if the person of the second 'not allowed' contract sues me for breach of contract? Or if the person of the first contract sues me? Is the second contract nullified? Is the term of the first contract not allowing the second nullified?

If I enter into a contract that a previous contract I entered into says cannot be entered, what happens next?


I’m a 17 year-old student from France and I built a small-time web app in 2015 that allows high-school juniors and seniors like me to give them an estimate of their final grade at the exams (French baccalauréat). Another app with the same functionality and the **exact** same name appeared a few days ago. Now there are plenty of apps like mine out there that do what mine does so functionality isn't a problem at all, but it really bothers me that my app name was used by someone else for the same purpose. The name isn’t legally registered with the INPI (French equivalent for the USPTO), but this situation really bothers me.
What can I do? I was thinking about sending a polite email asking if the person could maybe change the name, is this the way to go?

What should I do if a website opens with the exact same name as mine?


Is it illegal to sell something on craigslist without adding a regions value added tax?
Say for example GST is 10%, and I sell my bike for $100; do I technically have to charge $110, and send $10 to the government?


Is it permissible to use a clip in an academic presentation that has already been watermarked by its owner?

Does it come under the ambit of 'fair use'?

Do "watermarks" on a video prove that the material is copyrighted?


Forum posts and similar stuff: chat messages from chatlogs, etc.

According to <https://eugdprcompliant.com/personal-data/> , *a person's social media accounts and their posts there* are considered personal data under GDPR.

In this case, does a person have the right to request permanent removal of their posts from an Internet forum or from chatlogs?

* This breaks the flow of the archived conversation and makes it difficult for readers to understand posts of other people that are not removed.

Does a person have the right to request removal of certain posts without removing their account?

* Moderation problem; a person may request removal of posts that are stored as evidence of their past problematic behavior, in an effort to keep bordering the forum's rules without ever crossing the line to getting suspended.

If a person requests all their data deleted, is anonymizing their contributions enough?

* I've seen an EU-based Internet forum that, on account deletion request, anonymizes all posts from this account (repleaces the author's nick with '*account deleted*'), but leaves them in the archives. This still damages the flow of a past converstation, but not as badly as if the post was outright removed.
* Other posts may contain the nick of the author of an anonymized post ('*what @username said, ...*'), making such anonymization questionably effective IMO?

Bottom line: If a user requests all their posts on an Internet forum deleted under GDPR, do I have to comply? Do I have to also censor other users' posts, which may contain this user's nickname and / or quotations of their posts?

Does a user have the right to request their forum posts deleted?


If a bank sends me a contract to sign to apply for a credit card, can I scan the contract, modify it, and then mail it to the bank?

Can I modify a paper contract, and then mail it to the bank?


I am quite confused by what seems at the outset to be a very simple question in the UK's obscenity laws. Suppose a person puts an obscene story on a website (we'll call them the Writer) and another person reads the story (we'll call them the Reader).

Is the Reader guilty of 'publishing' the material and therefore in breach of the 1959 Obscene Publications Act?

In the normal sense, 'publication' is defined in an online context as

"*to submit (content) online*, as to a message board or blog: I published a comment on her blog post with examples from my own life."
according to www.dictionary.com (emphasis added is mine).

In the context of the Obscene Publications Act, the word 'publishes' seems to have been redefined, appropriated to become a piece of legalese that no longer reflects the original meaning of the word. The wording of the Act states (emphasis mine) -

(3)For the purposes of this Act a person publishes an article who—

(a)distributes, circulates, sells, lets on hire, gives, or lends it, or who offers it for sale or for letting on hire; or

(b)in the case of an article containing or embodying matter to be looked at or a record, shows, plays or projects it [F1, **or, where the matter is data stored electronically, transmits that data**.]:

. . . F2

What does it mean to 'transmit' that data? Regina vs Waddon has shown that transmission is said to have occurred when the data is uploaded to the Website by the Author or downloaded from the Website by the Reader. In both those instances, the Author was deemed to have 'published' the article. (The reason it mattered was that although the Website was hosted abroad, the UK-resident Author had still broken the UK law when the material was downloaded in the UK so he could therefore be prosecuted).

But what about the Reader? ... This nebulous wording seems to imply all manner of things.

Is reading obscene written material online illegal in the UK?


The context I am thinking of is converting a board game into a video game or app. Of course, I can't manufacture a physical copy of the game without permission, but does the same apply to a virtual version? My understanding is that copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression. This means that the board game is copyrighted, but a video game with the same mechanics is not. Is that the case?

Does reproducing a board game as a video game violate copyright?


I purchased an ebook that I'm 100% sure is in the public domain (published in 70's, no copyright notice or copyright reg with us office).

However, the company I bought the ebook from has this in their terms and agreements that I had to agree to before checking out:

"all content included on this site, such as ... digital downloads ... is the property of [company]".

To clarify the website that I purchased the book from is the same company that originally published/ wrote the book.

So, my question: While this document is in the public domain, can I legally redistribute it, or due to the terms and agreements can I not?

Bought a book that is in the public domain ... but the T&A of company says I can't redistribute it


I'm a software/web dev, and I had an idea for a joke website. Since all of the variations with the word "news" I would like are taken, I thought I'd just replace it with "shoes."

A few things worth noting:

* I'm in the US.
* It is *not* a parody of an existing website and does not defame
anybody.
* I did a quick search of the trademark database, and it doesn't seem
to infringe any trademarks.
* I would put a small Google ads banner towards the top of the page, so
it's possible that I could make a profit from it.
* But the url *is* still similar to another website's, simply with the
name "news" replaced by "shoes." This website is currently occupied
by a cybersquatter.
* There's another url that it's kinda/sorta similar to, which is also
occupied by a cybersquatter.

Is this something that I could be sued for?

Could I be sued for a similar-sounding domain name?


First I should clarify that this question is (fortunately) entirely hypothetical and academic, so please don't worry about me (I'm fine).

I am trying to figure out a seeming conflict in the broad remit of coercive and controlling behaviour (as defined in the [The Serious Crime Act 2015)](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/76/enacted#moreResourcesTabHelp) and the principle of sexual consent. Though the newness of the offence means there aren't many cases on the subject, the [guidance from the Cheshire Police](https://www.cheshire.police.uk/advice-and-support/domestic-abuse/recognising-the-signs-of-domestic-abuse/), though hardly legally binding, indicates that it would be a crime to withhold affection in an attempt to punish one's partner.

Indeed, it's easy to see how, in colloquial rather than legal terms, deliberately withholding sex could be an attempt to coerce one's partner, and abusive. The linked definition in the Serious Crime Act covers any behaviour designed to have a serious coercive or controlling effect on their partner, which is so extremely broad that deliberately withholding sex as coercive quasi-blackmail clearly seems to qualify.

Yet, accepting that this abusive behaviour constitutes a crime would suggest that people in a relationship are obliged to periodically have sex, even if one of the people wishes not to (albeit for malicious reasons). That would be repugnant, and undo the precedent of R v R [1991] UKHL 12, which clarified (shockingly late) that marital rape is a crime in England and Wales.

Leaving aside the practical objection that the Crown would be unlikely to find a prosecution for just withholding sex as in the public interest, in this conflict of laws, which "wins"? Both outcomes seem unappealing: one lets off emotional abusers and the other forces people to have sex against their will.

Can the deliberate withholding of sex constitute coercive and controlling behaviour under English & Welsh law?


Suppose entity X offers some software (maybe for free, maybe for a price) bundled with some terms of service. Suppose person Y (after paying any relevant price) installs the software following X's instructions. Suppose Y then breaches the terms of service. Has Y then infringed copyright (assuming it is not considered fair use)?

[This answer](https://law.stackexchange.com/a/25830) presents the following argument:

* Installing the software constituted making a copy of it.
* This copy was only authorized by X on the condition that Y complies with the terms of service.
* This condition was not met, so the copy was not authorized, so it infringed copyright.

This surprised me since I imagined (maybe incorrectly, IANAL) copyright infringement to be a more serious issue than ToS violation. [This article](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e4b1226a-b6b4-4915-8897-a8e474060481) also seems to contradict the above:

>
> However, if a company violates a license by, for example, failing to purchase additional licenses through the publisher, instead of through an otherwise authorized reseller, then the violation could form the basis of a breach-of-contract claim, but not a copyright claim – none of the exclusive rights would be affected by failure to follow specified payment or transaction terms.
>
>
>

Is breaching ToS of installed software automatically a copyright infringement?


I have been reading [crime report](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445753/hosb0115.pdf) and there are various outcomes to cases. What does it mean when case is closed due to reason:

**Evidential difficulties (suspect identified; victim supports action) ?**


I am looking at a document about a criminal case, that is published [here](http://tdcj.state.tx.us/death_row/dr_info/mcfarlandgeorge.jpg). Knowing from the document it was created in 1992, I suppose the line saying 'Age at time of offense' is wrong saying 21, because DOB is 1960 and 'Date of offence' is 1991.

I wouldn't care much if it were not a local authority document, I'd just boldly assume it was a typo. But as it's issued by Texas Department of Criminal Justice, I am concerned about my understanding of English terms, though they seem to be quite obvious to be understood correctly.

Is a mistake like that likely to happen in serious cases like death penalty sentencing processes?

Is it a typo in an official document?


This question is a follow up to [If a party says something about interpretation of contract, is it binding?](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/38269/if-a-party-says-something-about-interpretation-of-contract-is-it-binding) Since courts usually interpret an ambiguous term [in the favor of the party that did not draft it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem), why would the non-drafting party want clarification? If the party that didn't draft the term gets the benefit of the doubt, wouldn't it make more sense for him not to point out any ambiguities and to not ask clarifying questions before agreeing?

Am I looking at this right?

Given the doctrine of Contra proferentem wouldn't it be better for the non-drafting party to not point out ambiguity?


I am working on a software project that requires the use of a setup program. The one my company is using is InnoSetup.

On their [downloads page](https://jrsoftware.org/isdl.php) towards the bottom, under the section titled **Encryption Module** it says:

>
> "For legal reasons, encryption code is not built into Inno Setup. You must download a separate "encryption module" if you wish to utilize Inno Setup's encryption capabilities..."
>
>
>

What legal reasons are they referring to?

What legal reasons prevent this software vendor from including encryption in their code?


Would the actual escape from a **state** prison ever incur federal investigation, federal charges, and/or federal prosecution? If not, who investigates, charges, and prosecutes escapees for escaping from state prisons in California, USA?

Prosecuting prison escapees


I recently came over this app called Inkl (<https://www.inkl.com/>), which when you download it, lets you read articles from various news. However it doesn't redirect you to the news website or something like that, it just showes you the text of the article.

Doesn't this break copy rights? I think I read somewhere that republishing articles, even when you state authors name, is not legal.

Is article republishing illegal?


So there's this thing called [High Fitness](https://highfitness.com/what-it-takes/). It's a company that makes money off of choreographing exercise routines to popular music, and sells the choreography. It's essentially Zumba but less dancey and more of a workout. The company offer$ training in order to "certify" people as "certified" high fitness instructors who have to pay monthly to subscribe to the library of choreography, which they use to lead classes they charge admission to attend.

The question is, if someone were to attend a class, learn the choreography, and then share it outside of the class, are there any concerns about copyright? Could anyone get in trouble for working out or leading workouts using the choreography they learned at a high fitness class?

Can you own copyrights to dance moves or choreography?


These door-to-door energy salesmen came by my house wanting me to switch energy companies.

They made several worse-than-dubious claims including trying to hide the fact they were representing another energy company rather than the one I had.

In any case they wanted to offer me $29.95 flat rate for unlimited gas usage. They claimed thirty day money back guarantee, at which point I told them to leave. (Scam has now become obvious--it would take four or five months to notice if they were lying and the money back guarantee is shorter than that).

I'm convinced they took in a lot of my neighbors.

They actually wrote their offer rate onto the piece of paper they wanted me to sign without reading. Let us say I hadn't told them to leave, how long would have the company actually selling gas had to honor that ridiculous rate?

Hint: the rate is ridiculous because I would gladly buy a natural gas generator and switch all my electrical stuff to gas if it were remotely competitive because PG&E can't offer reasonable power availability guarantees anymore.

How long does an energy supplier need to honor a deal from its shady contracted salesman?


Simple question, maybe not an easy answer: my employer gave me an MSDN subscription linked to my home hotmail account.

Can I download Visual Studio and write code at home with this license? I would be working after business hours on my own personal projects.. Would my company own the personal project because I used their Visual Studio license?

edit: just to be clear: my personal project is a video game, and my company does not make games, and in fact is in a completely different industry

Does my employer own code I write at home using the Visual Studio license from work?


I would like to reverse engineer a piece of software.

Assuming the license doesn't approve of it, can I simply pay someone outside the United States to do this? [This article alludes to countries that don't follow such laws](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150209/17454529973/uss-naughty-list-countries-whose-intellectual-property-rules-we-dont-like-is-joke-thats-no-longer-funny.shtml).

Can I pay someone outside the US to reverse engineer software against the license?


Eyeo is the owner of a software called **Adblock Plus**. It is German company and operates under EU.

They have the trademarks of **Adblock Plus**.

But they try to [take down](http://www.businessinsider.com/adblock-ultimate-removed-from-chrome-store-following-trademark-complaint-from-eyeo-2016-4) all other software that contain **Adblock** in its name.

The point is they registered **Adblock Plus** but they claim ownership over generic **Adblock** term.

Strange enough, they only ask for individual developers to remove **Adblock** term but they do not interfere with software companies, possibly because of legal costs. **[Adblock for Firefox](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-for-firefox/)** utilizes **Adblock** freely.

But does not this create damage and loss for individual developers? While big companies can use **Adblock** freely, individual developers are forced not to benefit **Adblock** term.

Can a company be used for only forcing individual developers about trademark infringements?

Can a Company be Sued for not Complaining About Its Trademarks Infringements?


Or is there, in other words broad leeway for when a judge or a court can decide based on all of the other materical circunstances, when or when not he should enforce an otherwise unenforcable promise?

I don't have access to my college business law textbook for reference, so I can't check. What I remember is this: the affected party has to have reasonably relied on that promise and have incurred some sort of economic loss or damage from that RELIANCE.

It is obvious that not all promises are contracts. but what raises questions to me is, the distinction between estoppable and unenforcable promises seems to be so narrow that you could argue the only party bringing a claim to court of a broken promise would almost definately be those who have suffered damages.

but admitting there are matter of factly unenforceable promises and limiting my question only to those others, what basis does the judge or court have in determinging their enforcability. taking into consideration that what I have already said that most people probably could claim they have a remedy at law (including those who friviously went out and incurred the economic loss (or whatever) with the sole purpose of fitting this narrow definition). To me the distinction beween enforcable contract and estoppable promise seems to be so vague that the only real difference it would make is if the judge was granted broad discretion, i.e. the decision to actually issue the order to estopp the promise was soley his perrogitive....)

This is something that has always been at the back of my head.... but since i don't recall the textbook delving into this level I wanted to ask to be sure

Do all estoppable promises have to be estopped?


I have a hypothetical question: Say I am a normal person, I go on the internet, and buy a prepaid debit card, that seems completely normal and legitimate. The very next day, the FBI knock down my door and rush in and tell me that the debit card I bought was laundered money. Do I have plausible deniability? Like, will I go to jail for money laundering, if I never knew that the card was loaded with laundered money?

What is plausible deniability, and to what extent can it be used?


In this case, it's about Ad Blocker. I've noticed more and more websites blocking their content based on whether their visitors are using this add-on or not.

From their point of view, I understand it's their income from these advertisements getting in danger.

From the user's point of view, I understand it's not just some annoying advertisement, but sometimes real danger like Trojans or Viruses.

Whoever is right however, is not the question. The question is more related to the invasion of privacy.

Is a website owner really allowed to know what kind of add-ons or programs I'm using without my permission?

Is such an owner not in fact discriminating based on what a user is using on his/her computer? Even so when the programs or add-ons being used are completely legal?

Are website operators allowed to detect and block website content based on browser add-ons?


I'm working on a NFP organisation constitution with a group of fellow members - we're very small.

There is a line "Save as provided in this Constitution...". And I'm thinking that whoever wrote that must have had 10 coffees or something, because it's woefully pretentious.

Any suggestions for simpler opening? Perhaps there is a legal reason for such language and it should stay?

Is there a better way to say "Save as provided in this Constitution..."


I know some really good books which are extremely long (e.g. 1000++ pages). It would be good if more people can know the content of those books. Unfortunately, they did not even start to read them unless they were much shorter, which is reasonable, not everybody have the time and/or discipline to finish such a long books.

What were the legal bounds or ethical issues if I created a shortened/summary version of those books (let's assume I do not copy any sentences from the original books, but I may use some of the examples of theirs and the logical structure of the books would be the same) and I self published them on Amazon.

I would recommend to my readers to read the longer/original version of the books if they liked mine or if they need more detailed information.

I feel that there is a lots of work to reduce the content of those books (again, I do not intended to just delete some paragraphs but I would write new books) and the best would be that if I do not have to deal with the original publishers.

Legal boundaries of the creation of a shortened version of a long book written by someone else


A client found a graphical artist freelancer online, which is located on the other side of the globe. The freelancer finished the work and his end product is an Adobe Photoshop file, which is sent to the client. The client than incorporates this file, (possibly with other files), to create his end product -> image. The client does not resell the original item freelancer sent, nor does the client own it.

If there is ever a DMCA complaint by the freelancer, how can the client prove, that he/she indeed made a deal with the freelancer? What kind of licence must the freelancer transfer to the client? How do you transfer it?

This seems such a common scenario and one would expect there is a template for such licences. Yet, google is kinda vague on the topic.

licence contract between a freelancer and a client


In thinking about [notaries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notary_public#Common_law_jurisdictions), I'm wondering what happens when they pass on. My understanding basically is that a notary is an unbiased 3rd party that observes a transaction and creates some legal documentation about it or a legal document of some sort, and then "stores that at their office". It sounds like they are independent contractors or lawyer-like people who work for themselves. It looks like you need to be [certified](https://www.nationalnotary.org/knowledge-center/about-notaries/how-to-become-a-notary-public) as well.

Given that, I'm wondering what happens if the notary passes on. I wonder who is in charge of their documents, the ones where they were the third party. Say Google and Space X had a notary called Foo Bar, and then Foo Bar passes on. I wonder if there is some state-structured system for passing their notarized docs to some other notary to take over, so Google and Space X would have some sort of *guarantee* that they would always have some notary to vouch for their contract for as long as the companies were in existence. Wondering what the protocol is here. It's not as if the notary's documents get dispersed to their children, or passed on to people according to an arbitrary will. I would imagine they'd need to be part of a highly structured system so that there is a chain of notaries that is unbroken and that is known to always be legally valid or something like that.

How notary documents are kept when the notary passes on


I live in the US, and have been developing an add-on suite (at work) for a large CAD software suite we use (developed by, I believe, a US based company). It is, or has elements that, I feel are pretty valuable.

What I really want to do is to re-develop it in my off time (one to make it better, my current version is rather hack-ish, and two, I know I cannot legally remove the actual data files from my company) and sell it in some form or another. Is there any specific legal reason I could not do this?

The CAD suite this addon is for is designed with macros and addons in mind. Would this maybe be specific to the developer?

Can I legally sell a software add-on package I have developed?


Should state that I am in the United Kingdom (England specifically if that makes a difference).

I have a contract I want to make for a web design job and I have created a contract that lays out the terms while the web design job is taking place which will then be finished once the web design job has been completed.

However, once the web design job has been completed, my intention would be to then offer the client web hosting services. However, as this would be an ongoing service, I have created another hosting contract for this which would then be renewed every 12 months.

I could send the two contracts separately and have the client sign both if I needed to but this would involve inconvenience in needing the client to sign two documents. So I wondered if I could either:

* Create a hosting clause in the web design contract which would then refer to the fact that the terms of the hosting service are defined in the hosting contract (which I would then link to either a web page or another document or could I add these terms as a schedule?)
* List the two sets of terms separately but in the same document and then have it so that there is just one place to sign at the bottom for both sets of terms.

Is this possible or would this create issues?

Can I refer to another contract in a contract?


1. I recently came across [a New York Times article about Peter Thiel](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/technology/peter-thiel-defends-his-most-contrarian-move-yet-supporting-trump.html) which contained several quotes by him. The quotes seem to have been from comments Thiel made directly to a New York Times reporter.
2. I then came across [this USA Today article](http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/10/29/peter-thiel-defends-his-support-donald-trump/92961708/), which contains those same quotes. The article mentions that Thiel was speaking to the New York Times and links to the NYT.

My questions are: Are those quotes covered by copyright? If so, does Thiel own them? Or the NYT? Or both? In other words, was the USA Today's use of those quotes legally-protected? Or is it more of a "friendly arrangement" between the two news organizations?

Are newspapers' quotes of other people protected by copyright?


I have created an application all by myself. I have then given its source code to a different person without explicitly agreeing on any terms of licensing.

In such a case, do I still retain the rights over the app? Can I still enforce my copyright over it?

Do I still have rights over an app I gave away?


My designer created a logo for me using an open source design (with slight change). I wasn't aware of it uptill I visited colombia and saw a merchant selling T-shirt with the same design.

Now I want to know if I can get this logo registered as as a Trade Mark?

Can an customised open source prject be protected by IP law


I am shooting a movie in which there is a shot of a phone ringing. The ringtone is moonlight sonata by Beethoven. Can I download the music from youtube and use it in my movie?

Will I be breaking any copyright issue because of that?

Or should I compose my own music and put it?

I want to use Moonlight Sonata in my movie - Copyright Issues?


Several years ago a friend of mine, had a friend who was also one of his employees, build him a personal blog on the side. This blog is very popular, because my friend is a radio personality.

My friend the radio personality paid the guy for his extra work, he paid for the domain name, the hosting etc. But everything on the domain and hosting site was done through the employees name and employees login credentials so the employee could manage the site.

flash forward a few years, the employee went rogue, started lying about things, going behind peoples backs and was no longer able to be an employee at the company, he was let go.

My friend contacted and paid the man to transfer all of the files from his domain over to a new domain in my friends name, but it was never done, the former employee when contacted as to why the exchange never too place is claiming "issues" with transferring over the files.

This employee has my friends website root files and all of the domain information and is now completely unresponsive to contact. There were no contracts signed regarding the website, there were no legally binding agreements besides checks being cashed. What teeth does my friend have to get the web files from his rogue former employee?

there is no desire to sue for any damages, the only desire is to get the websites files and not have to build from scratch again. Which I can do, but it would not be preferred.

what legal action can be taken when no contractual agreement was signed but money changed hands?


In the USA, suppose party A offers a contract to party B, who signs and returns said contract to A. The contract is a single document that has a few "sections" that each have a place to sign to show acceptance of that "section".

Now suppose that before any material action is taken by either party to proceed with the contract, A offers B what is essentially the same contract but with some minor amendments (e.g. change of start date), which B then signs and returns to A. Fullfilment of the contract proceeds on both sides using the amended terms (eg the actual start date of the contract is the start date as per the amended version).

Does the signed copy of the second version of the contract override/replace the first completely?

More specifically, suppose B initially opted to approve/accept a particular section in the first version, but decided *not* to opt for that section in the second version and so did not sign that section and further suppose that A did not notice the change in acceptance. Much later, after a lot of work has been done and delivered by both parties, A asks B to comply with the particular section, but B points out to A that B didn't accept that particular section in the second version and B refuses to comply.

Can A compel B to still accept the terms of the particular section because it was accepted in the first version and that section of the contract didn't change?

Or does the issuing and signing of a second version open the door to B accepting the sections differently, especially given that the behavior of both parties aligned with the second version - both A and B started fulfilling their obligations on the amended start date.

The section is question does not affect the way in which the main part of the contract is fulfilled. For example, it might be the notice period required to terminate the contract without penaltya, or similar "exit" terms that wouldn't be realized until B wanted to leave the contract.

Does a subsequent signed version of an amended contract/offer override previous signed versions?


Consider a blog on which the blog author displays images taken from internet sources. The author later learns about copyright implications of this.

If the blog author removes the images from the site, is it possible that a company or individual could sue the blog author retroactively for infringing the copyright of an image, assuming that they have archival evidence of its use? Is it likely?

I am interested in the UK law.

Can a person be sued retroactively for copyright infringement?


Companies have trademarks on their logos. If I want to use their logos in my own production, I need permission to do so.

But if my production makes it clear that the use of the logo is only meant to *refer* to the company, wouldn't that fall under nominative fair use, and hence I don't need permission?

To make up an example on the spot, say I am in the smartphone market, and I want to create a commercial comparing my prices to that of my rivals, say Samsung and Apple.

Can I then in my commercial have an Apple logo and a Samsung logo along, and next to them list some average price for their phones?

Clearly then the use of the logo is there only to refer to Apple/Samsung and not to claim ownership over their logo in any way?

Why can't logos of companies be used by referring to nominative fair use?


I was reading [an article on Houston's local government site about starting a business](http://www.houstontx.gov/obo/solutionscenter/four_main_business_requirements.html).

The article states:

>
> Limited Liability Company (...) files with the Texas Secretary of State. (...) This department keeps records of business names in a searchable database. Keep in mind **you will still need to file a DBA within the county you are in**.
>
>
>

Note the part about still needing to file a DBA with your county.

I am seeing conflicting information in 71.003(b) of the [Texas Commerce Code](http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/BC/htm/BC.71.htm):

>
> This chapter **does not** require a (...) limited liability company (...) or its (...) members to file a certificate to conduct business or render a professional service in this state under the name of the entity as stated in the certificate of formation, application filed with the office of the secretary of state, or other comparable document of the entity.
>
>
>

This Dallas law firm says the same thing in their article [What is a DBA and when do I need one?](http://www.perliskilawgroup.com/what-is-a-dba-and-when-do-i-need-one/)

>
> Business owners who wish to conduct business under a name **other than the trade name legally registered with the Secretary of State (SOS)** during the formation process must submit a DBA (also known as an Assumed Name Certificate or Form 503) with the county clerk where their business is legally located.(Texas Business & Commerce Code [TBCC] § 71.103)."
>
>
>

Is the information on the [houstontx.gov site](http://www.houstontx.gov/obo/solutionscenter/four_main_business_requirements.html) correct?

If it is, what law or ordinance is it that requires the registration of a DBA for an LLC with the same name?

In Houston, Texas, do you need a DBA if you only conduct business in the LLC's name?


I have a website that you need an account to access. The signup process is very simple and all you need is a username and password. There is nothing stopping the user from entering a username having nothing to do with them. They could enter whatever they want and be 100% anonymous. Another thing is I am putting an app using the same login system in the app store. In the app store review guidelines it says you must have a privacy policy if you offer even a free subscription? Does that include a login in my scenario where it is only a username and password?

Do I Need a Privacy Policy if I only request a username and password


>
> In this Act, 'industry' includes establishment, undertaking, work, trade, business and any other workplace;
>
>
>

As a non English native speaker, sadly, I can't gasp the differences of the meanings of the words completely. Help me.

The differences : 'industry' includes establishment, undertaking, work, trade, business and any other workplace;


If I record my own work using [Siri](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siri), i.e. original texts, phrases, sentences, etc. who owns the copyright on those recordings?

Would it be the same as when using a [DAW](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_audio_workstation) to record my own music?

Who owns the copyright on a Siri recording?


I don't know much about the law so terms may not be correct.

I am in a contract with a party (partyA) that is closing part of the business as it is losing money. The nature of the contract is I just get a small portion of income from the services they deliver using software I provide. That portion (%) is in the contract. PartyA needs to transition the service to existing customers as they would risk getting sued. They are turning contracts over to a general hosting provider.

So I am thinking OK we just end the contract. I have been informed that partyA plans to exercise an "18 month divestiture" clause and I am still bound to the to support even though I will get zero income. There is really nothing more than "18 month divestiture". The hosting company is not picking up my contract. I have been told data (data does not belong to me) and my software will be handed over to the new hosting company and they may chose to enforce support via this divestiture clause. The new hosting company will take over the contracts with existing customers. This is not a court forced divestiture or bankruptcy. This is voluntary closing of part of the business.

The company (LLC) is staying in business. I am having a real problem claiming divestiture and leaving the company in business. There is nothing in the contract that identifies hosting as a separate business. That component is (was) actually the main component of the company. The company in still enforcing other terms in the contract - for example I cannot sell to another local competing company.

Can I be forced to support software I am not getting paid for?

Can partyA even give my software to this new hosting company? My contract is with partyA for in house use of my software. They don't even have a license to distribute my software.

I did this under a guest account as partyA is aware of my regular account

Divestiture clause in contract


In particular, were a company to require (perhaps unreasonably) a copy of some kind of government identification, such as a Driver's License, is it illegal to produce a fake digital image of an identification document?

I have seen this answer: [Is it legal to submit fake digital identification documents to private companies?](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/5017/is-it-legal-to-submit-fake-digital-identification-documents-to-private-companies)

But it was not clear to me what the definition of 'fake identification document' is. Would an image depicting a 'supposed' (but non-existent) identification document constitute an identification document? My understanding is that producing such an image and sending it (digitally) is not a crime. However I suspect this is incorrect and has been covered/clarified somewhere, so hoping someone can point me in the right direction.

I do notice that the answer to the above question cites a section that refers to a definition of identification document:

>
> (3)the term “identification document” means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, political subdivision of a foreign government, an international governmental or an international quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals;
>
>
>

And furthermore,

>
> (4)the term “false identification document” means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that— (A)is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and (B)appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization;
>
>
>

I do not know much about law, so it is not clear to me whether a digital image depicting an identification document is considered an identification document; and for example, whether such an image would be "of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals", since it is an image and not an actual identification document. For example, such an image would not be sufficient for retailers bound to verify ID (e.g. liquor), DMV and various commercial entities entrusted to issue automotive registration documents, police officers, TSA agents, CBP agents, etc; in those situations (which surely comprise the majority of the possible identification-verification scenarios), such a digital image is not "intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals".

Thanks

Edit
Some clarification to make this question and my motivation clearer.
The prototypical example (and what got me thinking of this) was a friend of mine who made a purchase of a few hundred dollars at an online clothing retailer located outside of the US. After the purchase, the retailer followed up indicating they required a scan/fax of driver's license, and some other piece of information I forgot. She did not send it (so the transaction was cancelled), since it would be inadvisable to send such a piece of information not only over email (which is likely, though not necessarily secure) and into an organization with unknown data-handling practices, in another country, etc.

With this example in mind, I am curious as to whether it would be legal to create and submit an *image of/depicting a non-existent identification document*, to a company, perhaps such a company as I have cited. Whether this constitutes a false ID document is not clear, except for example in the case of Virginia which was highlighted by a contributor below, since Virginia considers a false 'facsimile' of the ID document to be a false ID document and therefore illegal.

It has been claimed in the comments that this would be fraud, but I unfortunately do not know what a definitive definition of fraud would be as it applies to this situation. The definition of fraud I read is from Wikipedia:

> In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right.

it is not clear to me whether, for example in the clothing retailer example, the individual who transmits the image depicting the non-existent ID is securing an unfair or unlawful gain. Perhaps the retailer is being deprived of a legal right, but I am not certain.

In what situations is it a crime to provide an [EDIT: Image of possibly non-existent] fake or altered US gov't ID in digital form to a company


Does California’s [AB5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_5_(2019)) affect freelance software developers? If they own their own company (registered as Inc.) then they obviously are not looking to become an employee. They started their company to have autonomy and deliver work as they see fit. Does AB5 force them to no longer own a company and instead become an employee?

California’s AB5 and freelance software development


Is it legal to translate and distribute movie subtitle files?
Consider the following cases:

1. Ripped movie subtitle is downloaded from an online sub sharing community.
2. Writing subtitles from audio and translating/distributing them.

Is it legal to translate movie subtitles


I've registered a new LLC with the State of Iowa. My state does not require an operating agreement, but I read online that it's a good idea to have one to protect your personal finance from liability further that just having an LLC would, so I made an operating agreement. My question is: what do I do to put this agreement on record, besides just keeping it in my personal folder at home? There is nowhere on my state's filing website where I could upload such an agreement.

I'm a sole proprietor with no employees at this time. My concern is that if a question comes up that would put the operating agreement into play, how would people know that the agreement was established originally and I didn't just write a new one to suit the situation? Would the creation date of the PDF file be enough proof? How often is such proof needed? Or am I worrying about this for nothing?

Where to file Operating Agreement for an LLC?


The Tour de France makes it quite difficult to get good map data about their stages. They publish some low-res images (possibly for purchase by media, I'm unsure). There is no modern 'navigable' map, like Google Maps.

If I can see the route on the maps they've published, does making a new map displaying the route infringe a copyright? I understand the image of the maps themselves are copyright, but what about the route path on public roads?

Is it possible for somebody to copyright a route on a map?


I'm attempting to do some preliminary research on trademarks and having trouble with the US classification codes. E.g., I'm looking at a 'Goods and Services' description that starts with "IC 042. US 100 101."

The IC designation is clear enough and it's easy enough to find [IC definitions](https://www.uspto.gov/trademark/trademark-updates-and-announcements/nice-agreement-current-edition-version-general-remarks).

However, I can't find the US class definitions. I understand the IC system is the primary classification used for trademarks, however all (?) the trademark applications I see include 'US' code numbers as well, following the IC numbers and the [Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure](https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current) refers to the US codes as "secondary".

So, it seems the US codes are still useful—though secondary—but not defined anywhere I can find. Or should I just not worry about the US codes?

Where are the "United States Classification" codes for trademarks defined?


If prostitution is illegal in the US, but production of pornography legal, couldn't johns/punters just offer prostitutes money for filming a pornographic movie instead of money in exchange of sex?

US, legal producing pornography, illegal prostitution


I am looking for an independent way to evaluate:

* Ruling bias
* Transparency
* Sanctions, warnings, etc
* ...?

for government agencies, police departments, and any other entity that has the ability to infringe on a private citizens right to privacy.

For comparison, I use [Charity Navigator](http://www.charitynavigator.org/) to identify publicly supported non profits, and gauge their effectiveness.

My goal is to leverage the independent evaluations of trust and effectiveness to prevent an abuse of power [with my software.](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/13714/944)

Is there any report card/accountability for Judges, Police Departments, and Officers?


[My client](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman) has disclosed to me that he is secretly a masked vigilante in a major metropolitan city in the state of New Jersey, United States. Under this identity, he stops crimes in progress and turns the perpetrators over to the local police.1

We are trying to determine whether or not these actions are illegal (there are concerns of corruption in the city's police department, so we cannot rely on their tacit approval of his behavior). Furthermore, we would like to make sure that the individuals that my client turns over to the police will not be able to escape justice due to the manner in which they were captured, so we would like to know if there are any major limitations to what he can do that he should be aware of.

1 We will neither confirm nor deny rumors of other activities, including property damage, fighting other costumed individuals over personal vendettas, or driving an unregistered car without a license.

Is being a masked vigilante who fights crime legal?


here i am starting writing blog post and i am totally new,i am using some contents from online power point presentation which don't have any copyright notice on it so is there any copyright infringement issues

What it means if the documents not contain © symbol and are posted in public domain have no grounds for violating copyright

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

Can't get meaning from absence of notice of copyright symbol


We use the localStorage API to store information about the login data to keep the user logged in through various sessions (we do not store personal information), furthermore the localStorage data is not accessible by third-parties.

Should we show the banner asking for permission to use cookies (the legislation requires to use the name cookie also for similar technologies) anyway?

Do the GDPR and Cookie-Law regulations apply to localStorage?


Watching the People's Court, the judge says the plaintiff has a responsibility to mitigate their damages.

In other words the (People's) court holds the plaintiff to a standard of effort when they have lost money and are suing to get the money back.

My question, is this standard in the (People's) court part of contract law, or is it a legal standard the court uses in the administration of the law --and possibly open to (greatest) judicial interpretation? Or is it some reasonableness made up for television?

Is plaintiff responsibility to 'mitigate their damages' a law?


I often read in the "papers" that a suspect is charged with multiple counts of the same crime. Latest example are the parents of Andrew Freund, according to [this](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/body-andrew-freund-found-parents-who-reported-him-missing-charged-n998036) article, each parent is facing "five counts of first-degree murder".

They allegedly committed only one murder, where are the other 4 charges coming from? Isn't that a double jeopardy - getting changed multiple times for the same crime?

One crime multiple charges?


It's an election year! That means in November, millions of people are going to stand in a really long line. If they get out of this line to use the bathroom or get refreshments, they could lose their spot, especially after the polls officially close.

This reluctance to get off the line got me thinking; **is it legal, in the United States, to sell snacks to fellow voters in line?** If I were to pull out a crate of fun-sized bags of potato chips and mark them up 500% after the doors close, I could make a killing. Of course, I wouldn't actually do this, as it's predatory and unethical. **Could I, though?** (Assume that my little venture is entirely apolitical, i.e. I wouldn't charge people differently based on whom they're voting for or where they stand on issues.)

Can I sell snacks at the federal elections in November?


Maine lists "official oppression" as a crime.

1. A person is guilty of official oppression if, being a public servant and acting with the intention to benefit himself or another or to harm another, he knowingly commits an unauthorized act which purports to be an act of his office, or knowingly refrains from performing a duty imposed on him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office.
[ 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW) .]
2. Official oppression is a Class E crime.

My question is, "doesn't this pretty much encompass every action that deviates from official duties?" Whenever we act we're always trying to benefit ourselves or another. Otherwise we wouldn't act. Or we're trying to harm someone.
And shouldn't a public servant pretty much always "know" what his duties are?
Also, any chance the "clearly inherent" part is unconstitutionally vague?

What is Official Oppression?


Suppose I draw up an agreement between two persons that makes no reference to statutory law. I'll give some examples below. Would that constitute the "practice of law"?

Let's say I write a contract for two people that says

Example 1 "Person A will allow Person B to keep his nuisance tree if Person B allows Person A to walk across Person B's lawn to get to his mail box."

Examples 2 "Person A will allow Person B to use Person A's swimming pool if Person B will allow Person A to blast loud music after 10pm."

Suppose I charged a dollar to write these contracts. Would that constitute the practice of law?

If not, when does it become the practice of law? When the money becomes bigger? When the stipulations state that there are penalties? What?

Would writing a contract for two people be considered the "practice of law"?


I watched many American movies in which they tell about a person who writes a personal real life story of his best friend without his acknowledgement.

And the movies said that person is wrong and in some cases his best friend can sue him to the court.

Is writing a real-life story about a person is illegal in USA?

If so, does it matter if that person changes the names of the characters in the story, so that no-one can have an evidence that he was writing about his best friend?


Mindy Chen-Wishart. [*Contract Law* (2018 6 edn)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Contract-Law-Mindy-Chen-Wishart/dp/0198806353/ref=dp_ob_title_bk). p 359-360.

>
> [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4Pioa.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4Pioa.jpg)
>
>
>

[Howes Percival LLP Partner](https://www.howespercival.com/people/geraint-davies/) Geraint Davies [Manchester Polytechnic (1988 LLB), Guildford College of Law (LSF 1989).](http://www.legal500.com/firms/1638/offices/8844/lawyers/54131) outlined (the defence of) [Change of Position on 7 Aug 2017](https://www.howespercival.com/case-studies/litigation-when-is-change-of-position-a-successful-defence-to-a-claim-of-unjust-enrichment/)

>
> Background
> ----------
>
>
> Where innocent third parties have been in receipt of funds that were misappropriated by an individual from a company, it may be lawful for them to retain the funds if they can demonstrate that they have changed their position in good faith following receipt of the funds. Otherwise, the company may be able to recover the funds if it can show that the third party has been enriched (or received another benefit) at its expense and that such enrichment was unjust. The remedy in such cases is an order for restitution (i.e. that the unjustly enriched party must return the funds/benefit). The court in this case has drawn a distinction where an otherwise “innocent” recipient defendant may have grounds to suspect that the funds they have received have been misappropriated.
>
>
>

Can someone please expatiate the red underline? It contains too many technical terms.

Why could Change of Position 'logically allow lenders to retain a charge for the sum lent to debtors in reliance on the guarantee's enforceability'?


I recently purchased an unlocked Android phone (Motorola G7) and when I try to enable a WiFi hotspot I get the message "Your current rate plan does not support this feature".

I've seen various reports of people getting this message in error.

Aside from that issue, I am wondering why Google (the authors of Android) and/or Motorola (the makers of my phone) even care about the fine print in my carrier's plan. They sold me a device which is capable of forwarding packets from other devices. If my service provider wants to market a form of [price discrimination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination) based on selectively allowing or disallowing packet forwarding, why would my phone retailer or architect even be interested in cooperating?

It would seem analogous to an apartment manager who takes issue with my sharing WiFi, or some other non-transferable good such as airplane tickets, with a neighbor. Or what if Android tried to prevent me from getting student discounts or food stamps when I am not eligible? I don't see what is gained by the third party even taking an interest in these cases. Is Google acting out of a legal obligation here? Are they doing something illegal?

Why does Android care if my carrier doesn't want me to create a WiFi hotspot?


In [this video](https://youtu.be/VFHC3tdE5wA?t=730) the photographer is presented with a court order that says he cannot film jurors, but it would seem to me that that violates the first amendment.

Certainly the court could instead build something to protect the jurors from photography without violating the first amendment.

Can a court order supersede the U.S. Constitution?


I am a student, and I am thinking to start working (freelancing) on an online platform where I will deliver online courses that people will pay to have access.

The platform, as far as I am aware does not pay the taxes on my income, but they do get a small portion from my sales.

As a student I spent most of the time of the year in the UK. However, several months of the year I am spending them in my home country which is in the European Union.

If I will produce content (video creation etc) in both countries (some times in the UK and some times in my home country) in which country should I pay my taxes? So based on my income and the expenses I will have from this freelancing, I would like to pay my taxes in my home country, since in 5-10 years I will probably return permanently in my home country.

Is it legal to have my income going to a bank in my home country and therefore pay taxes to my home country's government if some if not most of the content I will produce will be in the UK?

Note that I will not own a company for this freelancing at all, it will be just a person producing online courses in an online platform.

Thanks

Where to pay taxes if working remotely and freelancing


based off of the answer to this question: [If one leaves the US to commit an act illegal in the US but legal in the country they travel to are they guilty of a crime?](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/4629/if-one-leaves-the-us-to-commit-an-act-illegal-in-the-us-but-legal-in-the-country/4631#4631) My first bizarre loophole question has to do with situations when someone is a US citizen, but consider themselves to be citizens of a different country with different laws..

Lets say you have two Individuals Bob, age 17, and Alice, who just turned 18, who live in, and are citizens of, some non-US country X, who are dating and have a sexual relationship. Say country X considers the age of consent 16, recognizes dual citizenship, and has an extradition treaty with the US...

However, Alice happened to have been born on a cruise while the cruise ship was sailing through US territorial waters, thus making her a US citizen. She has never done any of the things which can cause someone to officially lose their US citizenship.

Federal law states [it is illegal for a US citizen to have sex with an individual under the age of 18 in a 'foreign place'](http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC02423.html)

I'm wondering what, of any of these scenarios, would be illegal due to the above law and could theoretically lead to either extrication, or to arrest when/if they ever visited the US at some later date (and if one is possible but not the later).

1. Alice never realizing she was born actually born in US waters and never thinking of herself as a US citizen, and she never visited the US or engaged in any of the activities that cause her to lose citizenship

If the above would not be sufficient would any of the below situations potentially lead to prosecution:

	* Knew she was also a US citizen and had once claimed some minor right or privileged due to being a US citizen.
	* Occasionally visits a friend or relative within the US for brief periods, using her US citizenship to allow easier entry to the US, without going through the steps of the VWP.
	* Once stayed in the US with said friend/relative for slightly more then 90 days (beyond the length a regular tourist can stay) many years ago
	* Had just spent spent 91 day summer vacation with her family relative before returning to her home country and having sexual relations with Bob.
2. Alice and Bob both live in and were citizens of X but originally met when both were on a vacation to the US, ultimately having a sexual relationship in their home country.

Would Alice potentially face prosecution, if not would this change if:

	* The couple had (legally) engaged in sexual activity in the US prior to traveling back home
	* The couple originally met in a state where sexual intercourse would have been illegal and so waited until returning home before having a sexual relationship?
	* Alice bought bob plan ticket home, so she is officially 'transporting' bob? (section a of the above law applies)
	* Alice and bob did have a relationship prior to their visit to the US which continued during their US visit.

I realize that prosecutor discretion would usually result in no one choosing to prosecutor most if not all of the above cases, despite any legal right, but I'm asking rather they could face charges if a prosecutor did choose to move forward for some reason. I don't know why they would, maybe they are angry at Alice for some other legal act and this is their way of bending the laws to punish Alice in some way, maybe someone is putting pressure on Alice as some political maneuver to pressure her important father into something, maybe some prosecutor is just really gung-ho in prosecuting crimes for some reason whatever...

\*Edit:
Looking back at the law I linked I realized that the definition of illicit sexual encounter, when outside of US territories, is effectively defined as a commercial sexual act, which negates all my examples since no one was being payed. However, I'm not interested in the specific law so much as how any law making activities on foreign territory illegal would be applied to citizens, and only used this law because it was the only one I knew of to reliable reference. For now umm...just pretend that illicit sexual act part of the law was not limited only to commercial acts when answering this question? I think the heart of what I'm trying to understand wouldn't change if that law were slightly different and that's easier then my rewriting all of the above.

ps. A US citizen can travel to Angola and have sex with a 12 year old without any repercussion so long as he doesn't pay anyone if I'm reading the law right? That's something I really didn't need to know about. I knew I shouldn't have used that particular law as my example for this...

pps. Also the definition of "any person can be charged with a
 criminal offense" seems extremely vague since it doesn't specify what country/state laws would apply for deciding if the person could be charged with a criminal offense, and I'm sure if you look far enough countries have outlawed all kind of things as sexual offenses, like being in the presence of a women who isn't wearing a hijab.

Can someone who does not consider himself a US citizen be extradited and punished for a US felony crime due to a US citizenship?