I'm trying to comfortably use my laptop at night and now could not find an answer by web-search to the following: Why TVs / laptops etc. do not warn about too bright screen whereas many smartphones warn about too loud sound amplification? I'm asking on law site cause I suspect there were a number of successful lawsuits for impaired hearing from headphones but none for impaired vision from TVs. Am I right here? Digging down - has it happened because there are studies proving impairment for one and none for the other?

Added: I actually doubt my second guess cause there are a lot of enhancements in screen brightness - auto-brightness, night mode.

Why TVs / laptops etc. do not warn about too brirght screen whereas many smartphones warn about too loud sound amplification?


[This earlier question](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/37775/can-pricing-be-copyrighted) asked whether a pricing scheme could be copyrighted. I wonder if pricing could be trademarked.

Suppose Christopher Columbus Pizza was famous for selling a large pizza for $14.92. Can they obtain a trademark on $14.92 to prevent competitors from also advertising their pizzas for the same price and confusing customers as to the quality or source?

Can pricing be trademarked?


I am in full term employment in the UK. My notice period set out in my contract is 3 months. There is no probation period (I know this is unusual). I have only been working for 10 weeks and have handed in my notice. My employer is insisting I work for the full 3 months to hire my replacement. There is someone else in my team at the same level who does the same job. Do I have any options to work a shorter notice period?

Long notice period when in employment a short amount of time in UK


I will go straight to the point, I already read the terms I looked for some information on the issue of licenses I looked at sites but nothing, I did not understand anything is that I have a project that is totally done by me, but I want anyone who dares to share or do something to dump the credits on me, what license do I use for this?

I have doubts about the Github licensing issue


Can a customer of mine waive negligence caused by me when doing any business activity on assets/property? What if the property belongs to someone else, but I state that they take all responsibility as well? Provided that I am specific and the waiver is clearly written, is it enforceable? Can this replace the need for general liability insurance?

For an example, I pressure wash property for a living. While washing, I scratch a vehicle, however, the customer has signed a waiver that protects me from being sued/pay for damages. What if the car is leased, however, I state that they are responsible to pay X for all damages caused by my negligence?

All activities are based in Ontario, Canada.

Can a contract waive negligence in Ontario, Canada?


I am from India and when i did some research i found out that there are some big and well established companies in the field of windmill installation for electricity generation like Vestas India, GE Wind Energy Ltd.etc.

I have developed a product for renewable generation of electricity and want to start a startup, but it is not very complex (i.e easy to get copied) and i fear that those big companies could figure out the working of my product easily and can make a duplicate of it. Since i will be a small startup very few will recognize me and i will also be having less connections as compared to those big firms.

Also i do have an option of getting a patent done but there can be a chance that i miss some aspect and then those big firms could find any loopholes and then make my patent invalid.(I guess you must be understanding what i want to say as there is lots of possibility for a product design and it is possible that i miss some of them in my patent)

Is revealing of my product in press will be a good idea

Please guide me what should one do for the above case in order to get recognized. (i guess after update my question is making some sense)

How can i compete legally with the large firms in the below mentioned scenario?


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?


In the US, two speakers have a public debate. It is free of charge to all who show up at the public venue. No one is paid anything but (possibly) expenses such as travel. Any additional expenses for the debate like venue rental are paid for by a third party. There was no contract or verbal agreement regarding money beyond that the debaters would be there at a certain time and place.

The first debater arranges for the debate to be audio recorded, and afterward posts the recording for sale online for $13. An indirect inquiry by the second debater who desires to share the recording for free on his own site receives the answer that the first debater is asserting copyright and the recording can't be shared for free.

1. Who owns the copyright to this recording?
2. Can the second debater share the recording (obtained by paying $13) for free legally? And give rights to others to copy it further?
3. Is the second debater able to legally demand half of the profits?

Copyright on public debate


If a person makes a story up and doesn't copyright it can anyone copy it and then copyright it themselves?

What happens if a story is not copy righted


I work for a EU organization internationally,
They have had my previous passport on file for more than a year, but it has expired last year: They are now requesting I send them my **new** passport "to update the employee profiles"

Due to Covid, I am currently in a different country than the one I was hired in (I might not have the proper permit) and not keen on sharing my new passport if I can prevent it.

**Can I push back on them? Can I refuse to provide an updated passport?** (they had my valid passport - that eventually expired - on file)

Can employer force me to handover my updated passport?


I participated in Google Summer of Code and received a stipend from Google. I worked with volunteer mentors associated with free/open source projects not associated with Google in any direct way.

[Google is clear that there was not an employee/employer relationship with them](https://developers.google.com/open-source/gsoc/faq):

>
> Is GSoC considered an internship, a job, or any form of employment?
>
>
> No. GSoC is an activity that the student performs as an independent developer for which they are paid a stipend.
>
>
>

As far as I could determine, the form of self-employee closest to describing a GSoC student is "independent contractor". However, I am uncertain that it fits completely. The [definition I found](https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-defined) says:

>
> The general rule is that an individual is an independent contractor if the payer has the right to control or direct only the result of the work and not what will be done and how it will be done.
>
>
>

Google did not really control or direct the results or anything about the work.

---

Is participating Google Summer of Code considered "self-employment" under US tax law?

Does receiving a stipend for participating in GSoC constitute self-employment?


As the title says. I'm writing guide and reference books (Amazon short-reads) aimed at people who aren't tech-savvy with the goal of improving their tech literacy. I've seen books like the one linked below which are guides to an existing product that don't seem to come with any sort of official seal of approval. I'm wondering if these are just sitting ducks in a legal grey area, or if these are protected by fair use or some other legal defense.

[Here](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B08LCZS49M) is an example of what I'm talking about.

What are the license/legal requirements to write a guidebook about a specific product?


My friend wants to make a 'risk table', which would have the risk board carved into it, as part of a larger game board challenge. He would be making all the pieces and the board himself.

I'm wondering if he can do this legally, assuming he stops using the word Risk? The game mechanics can not be patented, so in that regard he is safe. He would, however, be remaking the board itself which I assume is copyrighted. Since the board is just the world map divided into specific countries I don't know if this counts as 'recreating' the board?

Is the fact that he is using the same countries that the original risk board used enough to count as recreating the board/game?

Can I recreate the Risk board game for personal use?


as the question suggest. I've built a scrapper which scraps two websites to get property listing from there. As someone told me to scrape other website is illegal. but I think the listing ad of property is not a property of website. so I can scrape it.

can someone tell me it is legal to get others property advertisment?

Is it legal to copy property's listing from other's website


I want to start an online browser game following all laws.

A few days ago I heard of [COPPA - Children's Online Privacy Protection Act](http://www.coppa.org/). In this link, they clearly explain in all details what must be done, and what kind of website must comply. As a person that knows (absolutely) nothing about law, I am glad to find this right-to-the-point text that tells me exactly what to do.

My question is, **how do I find out if there are other things like this to follow?** I am glad I heard of COPPA, otherwise I would have no idea I had to follow it. I am now worried that **there might be other laws to follow that I don't even know they exist.**

**How to make sure I am following everything that must be followed?** Is there some kind of "list"? **I am using COPPA just as an example - I don't want to be restricted only to privacy laws. The thing is, I can't even dream of what other laws could exist.** (I'm lucky to have found COPPA)

I am brazillian, the website would be hosted in Brazil. But I would like people from other countries to be allowed to play as well. *(I don't know if this matters)*

*If you really need to know more details about the game to properly answer this question, let me know and I will add them - but I was hoping to a more general answer first, so I can analyse them myself and decide what is needed and what is not. I am not sure if this question is too-broad the way it is now - if it is, I will add the details.*

---

**EDIT:** I don't think this question is a duplicate from [Where can I find a comprehensive document of computer laws?](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/1187/where-can-i-find-a-comprehensive-document-of-computer-laws). Even though its title suggests that, both answers only refer to security and hacking. I am talking about the content of my website, and I am not "hacking" anyone nor doing anthing close to that.

**EDIT 2:** Just to clarify, I do not expect someone to show up with a complete list and solve my problem like magic. The thing is, as of now I have not the slightest idea of how to proceed.

I mean, (at least the majority of) existing MMO browser games (like Clash of Clans, Neopets, Club Penguin, OGame and such) must have done *something* to make sure they comply with all needed laws.

How to make sure my website complies with things like COPPA?


Apparently they got it from archive.org. They made no changes to the page except to throw in some links, fitting them into the context so it will look natural to a crawler. They neglected to remove the visitor counter, that's how I found out.

They even left the copyright notice I had on the page.

They're using my images, my design, my content, my js, etc. Even though I no longer own the domain of the original site, I seem to be last owner.

Can't find out who owns the domain so I guess I would go through the host to get in touch.

Wondering if there is any legal remedy for this.

Some link building service got an old webpage of mine and is hosting it on another domain


How can a monograph focus when **[3]** "a defendant is culpable for taking an unjustified risk with the interests of others", but not **[1]** "whether risking the interests of others itself should be criminalised or **[2]** "justifying risk-taking"? In other words, can you kindly distinguish more clearly 1, 2, 3? They look intertwined to me. I never studied philosophy, please explain like I'm 5.

If you're adjudicating 3 (when a defendant is culpable for taking an unjustified risk with others' interests), then aren't you

* "justifying risk-taking" in some circumstances" [1]
* and adjudicating WHEN 2 happens (when risking others' interests should be criminalized)?

"taking an unjustified risk with others' interests" means same as "risking others' interests". To adjudicate when these [1] [2] happen, you have to "justify risk-taking" in some circumstances.

Findlay Stark. [*Culpable Carelessness*](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/culpable-carelessness/4B489D7BFB8141FFDD66F887C623E0AD) (2017).

p 2

>
>       It is because of its concern with all things considered wrongdoing that
> Anglo-American criminal law concentrates on the idea of *unjustified*
> risk-taking.11 Importantly, the focus of this book is not on the question
> of **[Boldening 1] whether risking the interests of others *itself* should be criminalised**
> even where the risked consequence or circumstance does not materialise
> (in other words, whether simple *endangerment* should be criminalised)12
> or about **[Boldening 2] the idea of justifying risk-taking**. Separate books could be
>
>
>

p 3

>
> written about these topics. More will have to be said about them in this
> book, but the main focus is on the circumstances in which a **[Boldening 3] defendant is
> *culpable* for taking an unjustified risk with the interests of others**.
>
>       The term ‘culpability’ is used loosely in criminal law theory.13 There
> nevertheless appears to be an acceptance, in much of the theoretical
> literature on criminal law, that culpability is demonstrated through the
> defendant’s *insufficient concern* for the interests of others. The idea of
> insufficient concern for the interests of others links those who hold
> vastly different perspectives on other issues. For instance, Alexander,
> Ferzan and Morse and Tadros adopt different approaches to the wider
> matter of criminal responsibility: Alexander, Ferzan and Morse think
> choice is the sole basis of responsibility;14 Tadros explains responsibility
> in terms of character.15 They also adopt different accounts of
> the justification of punishment: Alexander, Ferzan and Morse are
> retributivists;16 Tadros supports (in *Criminal Responsibilit*y, where he
> develops his thoughts on insufficient concern) a communication view
> of punishment.17 They agree, however, that the element of culpability
> required for a criminal conviction is a demonstration (through choices
> or ‘in-character’ behaviour) of *insufficient concern for the interests of
> others*.18 Furthermore, focussing on the defendant’s lack of sufficient
> concern for others is one way of understanding accounts of culpable
> carelessness in terms of ‘indifference’ towards risk.19 The basic understanding
> of culpability as insufficient concern for the interests of others
> will thus be adopted in this book. It is *the way* in which this lack of
> concern is demonstrated that is more controversial, and which requires
> much more explanation.
>
>
>

p 258

>
>       This is not a cause for concern, however. The ‘objective’ aspects of
> negligence as failure of belief are not unduly troubling. Absent a strong
> attachment to ‘subjectivity’ – which would require independent justification
> of the sort that the Exclusive Thesis needs170 – the presence of some
> ‘objectivity’ is not fatal to a defensible theory of culpable carelessness.
> ‘Objectivity’ comes in degrees, and the argument here is that negligence
> as failure of belief is ‘subjective’ *enough* to suffice for criminal conviction, in
> a way that a conduct-based view of negligence is not. Where there is
> disagreement over the proper social expectations concerning risk-taking
> and belief formation, importantmoral and political questions are, of course,
> raised.171 But it is not the aim of this book to remove them from the
> attribution of criminal responsibility and liability. If anything, ‘objective’
>
>
>

p 259

>
> considerations are simply made more transparent by the theory of negligence
> as failure of belief. This might be a good reason to limit the use of
> negligence as failure of belief, but **that is a point not about *culpability* but
> about *criminalisation*.** This point will be returned to later in this chapter.
>
>
>

Culpablility for taking an unjustified risk with the interests of others v. Criminalisation


The Economist is a weekly magazine, where articles are never signed by authors. Is it then enough that the magazine itself is in the public domain? I have come across posts like [this one](http://www.publicdomaintreasurehunter.com/2009/07/19/how-to-tell-if-a-magazine-is-in-the-public-domain/) stating that individual articles might be further protected under copyright. But if I do not know the author, how can I know?

Copyright for unauthored articles in The Economist


Are there case law examples where a reseller was forbidden to publish the name of the item being resold?

For example suppose a computer reseller acquires a used computer made by HALCO, model HAL-9001 (fake brand and model).

Can HALCO stop the reseller from publishing the brand and model, perhaps in an ad, on their website, or on a piece of paper taped to the unit, as both are trademarked? (There are no authorized HALCO resellers.)


I know that land sale contracts, for example, have to be in writing in most jurisdictions. **What other kinds of contracts legally have to be in writing to be enforceable?** (US jurisdictions preferred but any jurisdiction acceptable).

What contracts have to be in writing?


**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 have been helping a nonprofit by developing a piece of software that they needed. The software is more-or-less built to their specs in a "functional" way, but I wrote 100% of the code: they are not programmers.

Anyhow, we didn't make any kind of contract at the beginning verbally or otherwise. Who owns the copyright to all of this? Do they have any rights to it at all for providing "ideas"?

Copyright: Idea vs Execution?


Basically the title, I want to create a tool that makes what I think are derivative works (word clouds made of other peoples words).

If I wasn't selling the works could I profit off ads next to them?

Or alternatively, since I technically only created the tool that makes them, not the works themselves, could I sell the word clouds?

Am I allowed to make derivative works and profit off of ads next to them, not the derivative works themselves?


Can the board of a company invest in bitcoins without the consent of the shareholders? Is it allowed in privately owned companies as well as publically traded companies and in what situations can the shareholders sue the company for it? I see people suing company for losing money in stocks, so I am wondering if it applies here.

Assume the country is the United States.

Can the board of a company gamble on bitcoins without the consent of the shareholders?


Davies. *JC Smith's The Law of Contract* (2021 3 ed). p. 478 is part of the Glossary.

>
> Obligee     a party to whom an obligation is owed.
>
> Obligor     a party who owes an obligation.
>
>
>

>
> Offeree     a party receiving an offer.
>
> Offeror     a party making an offer.
>
>
>

>
> Promisee     a party to whom a promissory obligation is
> owed.
>
> Promisor     a party who owes a promissory obligation.
>
>
>

I've read many English law judgments, and I always see Offeree/Offeror and Promisee/Promisor. I rarely see Obligee/Obligor. But aren't these pairs superfluous? How can they be distinguished?

If you're a promisee, you must've have been an offerree because you must have accepted the offer that you received! Similarly, if you're a promisor, you must've been the offeror!

Above, Obligee/Obligor and Promisee/Promisor are identical except for "promissory" in the definition for Promisee/Promisor.

Offerror/Offeree vs. Promisee/Promisor?


My question is, what is required under UK law to assign the benefit of a debt or small contract, to a third party. Although it relates to an actual dispute, the question itself is simply about legal process and facts of law - no advice is sought or needed beyond that posed in the question. Therefore I am also abstracting the question completely, to make it as widely applicable as possible.

Question
========

A, B and C are private UK based individuals.

A is due money under a contract with B. A has performed their part of the contract so the only contractual matter outstanding is A receiving their money from B. For personal reasons, A now wishes their friend C to become the sole beneficiary thenceforce, so that C can claim from B the monies or any other contractual benefits previously due to A, or if needed, C can sue B for their non-payment/non-delivery (if that happens).

The motive for this is partly, that C will give A a sum of money, and will subsequently have full rights to receive, collect and enforce the debt owed by B in exchange.

Can A and C enter into such an agreement of assignment without seeking B's consent, and what form must such an agreement take to be legally binding?

***Note:** It is assumed that the contract does not explicitly forbid this, nor is the contract related to real property or a lease/tenancy, or a business. The debt/benefit is small, under £500 in value, and relates to a deposit that A previously paid B and which B now must repay to A.*

Requirements for assignment of debt or benefits of contract to a third party, in UK law


You often see websites or documents (user manuals, in particular) stating something similar to:

>
> This program is compatible with the Windows(R) operating system.
>
>  ...
>
>  Windows is a registered trade mark of Microsoft.
>
>
>

or

>
> Intel(R) Core(TM) i7(TM) processors which feature the BLAH instruction...
>
>
>

Alright, so *someone* has a trade mark on some more or less interesting thing, sometimes registered and sometimes not registered, whatever.

*Someone else* writes something which is not related to the product directly or influences the product or its marketing, nor is it competitive or uses the name for advertising, and in my understanding no rights or imagined rights are infringed in any way. In other words, I'd say: *"who cares!"*.

Among this class of statements are also some that say e.g. *"belong to their respective owners"*. Well yes, things *usually* belong to their owner. What about it?

Apparently, the vast majority of people seems, for some reason, to have a different opinion. Apparently, it is necessary to state the obvious.

What is the point (or legal reason?) for such in my opinion silly disclaimers? Even moreso, as the notices often include "and others", which implies that you admit you didn't list them all, and you are aware that you didn't (which in my opinion makes the problem, if there is one, worse).

What is the legal base / requirement (if any) for trade mark notes?


The EU court recently ruled that the EU copyright directive:

>
> Article 5(1) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that the lawful purchaser of a computer program is entitled to decompile all or part of that program in order to correct errors affecting its operation, including where the correction consists in disabling a function that is affecting the proper operation of the application of which that program forms a part.
>
>
>

Source: <https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=247056&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=6413406>

The way I interpret this ruling is that if a video game has an invasive DRM integrated into it which slows down the performance of the game (which can arguably be called "an error affecting operation") like Denuvo, the person who bought this game in the EU is legally allowed to remove this DRM from the product. Thing is, I'm not a lawyer, so this interpretation may not be accurate at all.

Does this EU court ruling effectively allow paying customers to remove a DRM product which is slowing down their game?

Does the recent EU court ruling allowing decompilation of lawfully purchased software for bugfixes permit removing game DRM if it slows down the game?


is it legal for employers to ask for social media handles in job application or pre-employment forms? If it is unrelated to the job?

I understand for jobs like marketing, modeling etc. where a large social media following increases the cash flow, in that case it makes sense to ask for the handles as the person will be a face of the company. Hence the request and assessment could be written under job requirement.

But for a position completely unrelated to one's social media presence, is it legal?

Looking at North America and Europe ; Canada, USA, Germany

Is it legal for employers to ask for social media handles?


Can a well-known, general, legal rule(s) of law overrule a claim made within a terms of service agreement that a customer has agreed to?

Something along the lines of "the claim was rejected because they were not acting in good faith". Is there a name for this concept?

An example would be appreciated.

Can a general rule of law be used to reject a claim made within a signed service agreement?


There's [a simple contract template](https://stuffandnonsense.co.uk/projects/contract-killer/) going around design and development communities that includes this clause:

>
> Although the language is simple, the intentions are serious and this contract is a legal document under exclusive jurisdiction of English and Welsh courts.
>
>
>

Regardless of the rest of the template, if a contractor sends this contract to an American client:

* Would the American client refuse to have to potentially deal with non-American courts, in the possibility of a conflict?
* Should the contractor pick just one court (English OR Welsh)? What happens if there's an issue and English and Welsh laws disagree on that specific point?
* Could the contract stipulates that is enforceable under exclusive jurisdiction of American, English and Welsh courts, but that the Welsh one takes precedence?

What is simpler and best for both parties, considering the extreme unlikeliness that such a minor project would end up in court?

Which country should have exclusive jurisdiction in a simple software development contract?


As someone who is not a lawyer and needs to sign contracts, I often find the conventional writing style as an instrument to justify the inclusion of clauses that represent a client/provider relationship as if it actually were a master/slave one. This is noticeable in cases where a small company intends to sell its services to a bigger one. In my experience, the language used in these writings acts as a protection for imbalance, as if the "master" were allowed to pretend that an otherwise abusive clause is just regular jargon. At the same time, this accepted language seems to indicate that its author (a lawyer) is more interested in creating the conditions that would favor a conflict, rather than assisting the parties in avoiding them.

My question is whether there exists any serious new framework, guidelines or proposal for writing contracts in a way that avoids verbal aggression, underlying instead the spirit of collaboration and commitment that a client/provider agreement should protect. I'm asking this question because I would like to learn of a valid alternative that I could propose to the other party.

Finally, note that I'm not asking why things are the way they are. I'm asking where to look for alternatives.

Is the usual contract writing style being questioned and a radically new one proposed?


I have an app that I want to call "Donald Trump". Now that Donald Trump is a political figure, is it okay to name my app after him (first amendment)? Or does he have a trademark or something over his name? I don't want to get sued but I'm wondering if his political status allows me to use his name openly.

Can Donald Trump sue if I use his name in my product name?


In Canada, if **person\_a** creates a copyrightable work, and then later **person\_b** creates (without copying **person\_a**'s work) the same work, do both **person\_a** and **person\_b** have copyright, or does only **person\_a** have copyright? Answers on [this American post](https://www.quora.com/If-two-people-created-the-same-content-independently-without-any-previous-or-shared-knowledge-who-would-own-the-copyright) suggest both authors would have copyright, but in Canada the [Copyright Act](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/FullText.html) clearly says:

>
> the sole right to produce or reproduce
>
>
>

Reproducing something requires you to copy it, but producing doesn't. The way I read this statement is that copyright is only granted to **person\_a**, because **person\_b** is violating the sole right to "produce" portion of this statement.

(I'm aware that the likelihood of this happening is slim when dealing
with works substantial enough in size to actually qualify for a
defensible copyright.)

If the same content is created by more than one person without copying, do all authors have copyright, or just the first author?


In the past, copyright terms have been repeatedly extended, and some people have called for extensions that would effectively make copyright eternal, such as terms of 10.000 years or "forever minus one day".

If a law were passed today in the United States extending copyright from its current term of "life of the author + 70 years" to "life of the author + 10.000 years", what exactly would happen? In particular:

* Would, say, Shakespeare's works (published before the introduction of copyright) leave the public domain?
* Would works previously under copyright whose original copyright term had already expired gain renewed copyright?
* If the answer to the second question is yes, what would happen to derivative works of those works?

What would happen if copyright were extended (almost) indefinitely?


We are a sports website covering news and have found a user on YouTube copying our written content and images and pasting it in whole in their videos.

We have put in a copyright claim and got some videos taken down but they have put in a counter claim saying it is fair use and they will Sir is if we don’t remove the initial claim.

Where do we stand on this as they are using 100% of our article content including images and not even putting in any original content of their own.

Copyright claim / fair usage


Creative Commons offers a series of licenses, some of which allow people to use your images commercially, while others prohibit commercial usage.

I have some images that lie somewhere in between. I don't want people selling them as postcards or putting them on mugs, T-shirts, etc. for sale. However, I do want people to feel free to post my images in media (including for-profit books) and on the Internet (as long as the images properly credit me, with a link to my website).

Since Creative Commons doesn't offer this type of license (as far as I know), what are my options?

Can I simply post my terms on my website, like this?...

>
> You can use this image for personal use but no commercial uses except
>  that you can include it in media (including books) and on the
>  Internet (as long as you include the proper credit and link to my
>  website).
>
>
>

It might be nice to have my images indexed by Creative Commons, but I haven't been able to find a license that meets my needs.

Semi-Commercial Image License


If you watch the commercial you'll notice that the half eaten Reeses cup is imitating a (Mr.) PACMAN eating the Reeses pieces as Pac man pellets. In the nature of the game, Pac man is constantly making turns to avoid ghosts and consume all pellets. In the commercial the Pacman look alike never makes a turn.

<https://youtu.be/lYH19IVlumw>

So were they just editing the commercial and we never see a turn? Or were they trying to avoid copyright infringement by not ever showing the impression turning as signature to the game?

Reeses "Game Changer" commercial: Copyright infringement


When a court strikes down a federal/state law or state constitution as unconstitutional, can the legislature just leave that unconstitutional provision on the statute book as long as the executive does not enforce it, or is there an obligation to repeal the unconstitutional provision? I have been reading US state constitutions recently and noticed many have provisions barring same-sex marriage, which are obviously unenforceable following the Supreme Court decisions on the matter. Can the states just leave these provisions in their constitutions indefinitely
?

If a law or state constitution is struck down as unconstitutional, is there an obligation for the legislature to repeal it?


Why's "warranty" coupled with "representation", not 'condition'?

Context
-------

In [Canadian](https://renx.ca/representations-v-warranties-are-they-different-do-you-know-the-difference/) and [English](https://mundays.co.uk/insights/to-warrant-is-not-to-represent/) law, representations differ from warranties1. Thus they aren't doublets, as
[Ashurst's](https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal-updates/quickguides-warranties-and-indemnities/) distinguishes them beneath (as do [Cripps LLP](https://www.cripps.co.uk/contractual-representations-warranties-difference-matters/), [Osborne Clarke](https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/representations-and-warranties-in-private-ma/), [Blake Morgan](https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/training-knowledge/features-and-articles/warranties-representations/), [Walker Morris](https://www.walkermorris.co.uk/publications/disputes-matter-autumnwinter-2016/warranties-andor-representations-matters/)).

>
> A warranty is a term of the contract, a breach of which gives the innocent party the right to claim damages but not to treat the contract as repudiated. A warranty can therefore be contrasted with a condition, which entitles the innocent party to treat the contract as repudiated, and an "intermediate" (or "innominate") term, which may entitle the innocent party to treat the contract as repudiated depending on the nature and consequences of the breach.2
>
>
>

p. 613 in [*Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials* (2018 8 ed)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Contract-Law-Text-Cases-Materials/dp/019880816X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk) instances one use of 'representation or warranty'.

>
> The principles applied by the courts when deciding whether or not a clause is reasonable
> have been discussed earlier (pp. 427–434, Chapter 13, Section 3). It is probably wise not to
> attempt to exclude liability for ‘any **representation or warranty**’ because such a clause may,
> as a matter of interpretation, extend to a fraudulent misrepresentation and an attempt to
> exclude liability for fraudulent misrepresentation must be unreasonable (see *Tomas Witter
> Ltd v. TBP Industries Ltd* [1996] 2 All ER 573; for a contrary view see *Zanzibar v. British
> Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd* [2000] 1 WLR 2333, where it was held that the words ‘any
> representation’ were not apt, as a matter of construction, to encompass a fraudulent misrepresentation given that liability for fraud generally cannot be excluded, see p. 612, earlier in
> this section). It is, however, safer to state that the exclusion or limitation applies to any representation other than one made fraudulently
>
>
>

---

^Perhaps they are in US law too? Tina L. Stark. [*Drafting Contracts: How and Why Lawyers Do What They Do* (2013 2 ed)](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B00HSLR5V6). [18.3](https://books.google.com/books?id=YajfDgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT308&ots=OubWLZVMBX&dq=couplet%20%22represent%20and%20warrant%22&pg=PT308#v=onepage&q=couplet%20%22represent%20and%20warrant%22&f=false).

>
> Therefore, they should be pared down to
> one word—unless the drafter intends a substantive difference, as in the
> phrase *represent and warrant*.
>
>
>

Why 'representation or warranty', not 'representation or condition'?


Let's say an internet provider (ex: Comcast, At&t, Verizon) says to their users: Hey we have this new free internet access, however, by using it the end ad content will be changed to our liking -for example they can change Ad Units to show their ads or inject ads into content.

What are the legal repercussions here? If the end user's agree, can sites that serve ads (ex: Google Adsense) sue you for replacing their content?

Also wondering about any other issues that can arise from such action.

Can an internet provider replace content of websites if the end user is aware of it?


I am paying a girls bills who has a restraining order against me, is it stalking/harrasment to pay her bills when she won't contact me?

Is it stalking to pay someone's bills?


Can Hawaii secede from the U.S. through legal means or is it forbidden by U.S. law? I am asking, because I doubt the U.S. would accept the result of a referendum that rules that the Hawaiians want to secede from the U.S. just like Russia or China wouldn't accept it.

Can Hawaii secede from the U.S. through legal means?


Data controllers must delete the users' personal data if they are asked to do so, according to the GDPR, except in some cases that don't really apply here. But what if that personal data has ended up somewhere else on the internet, maybe on a search engine like Google, or maybe in multiple places that might even be difficult to spot completely, often because some crawling bots have copied the data? I'm not talking about a data breach, where somebody gets unexpected and unauthorized access to data that is supposed to be private. I'm talking about data that is publicly displayed on a website, so anybody (crawling bots included) can access it. It could be a username, an email address, a little picture of you as an avatar, etc.

So here are the questions:

**Who is responsible for the deletion of personal information that ended up on other websites?** Should the user try to get the data deleted, or should the original website do it? For example, if a user asks me to delete some data from my website, should I also try to have it removed from Google or could I just tell the user it's none of my business and that they should go ask Google on their own?

**Should a user expect all this to happen as "the way internet works", or should anything be made clear in the privacy policy?** For example saying "The part of your personal data that can be publicly accessed on the internet is likely to end up on other websites that we cannot control and that might not comply with the GDPR at all"?

GDPR and personal data that gets crawled and ends up on other websites


Currently, the only charges form the British side against him are, that he avoided the criminal procedure (he was, on the British law, a fugitive) by his "visit" on the Ecuadorian Embassy.

Meanwhile, the British police has spent £11million.

Now consider the case if he wouldn't be extradited to the U.S on some reason, and any other "extra-judicial measurement" (for example, "committing suicide" in his cell) wouldn't happen.

What is the punishment for that in English law?

Update: [he got 50 weeks](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/julian-assange-prison-jail-time-weeks-bail-embassy-a8894326.html?amp), what nears the 1 year maximum. There is no news from financial punishment or extradition.

What would be Julian Assange's expected punishment, on the current English criminal law?


I was wondering about the phrase ["time is of the essence"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_is_of_the_essence). This compares to other time constraints such as "reasonable time" and "time at large."

My understanding of "time is of the essence" suggests that all the deadlines set forth in the contract must be met, that ordinarily, extensions will not be allowed. Is this a correct understanding?

Can "time is of the essence" be inferred from surrounding circumstances, even though it was not "stated" in the contract? For instance, if a "recital" to a contract said that one party needed to complete the deal by December 31, in order to obtain a tax advantage (or avoid a tax loss), would that imply "time is of the essence?

What are the different time requirements under law?


Let's say I create a computer program that randomly chooses words and records them. Now, this generator spits out an exact word-for-word copy of a non-public-domain book.

If I publish this (without knowing it's a copy), would I be in violation of the original book's copyrights? What if I could reasonably prove that it was generated randomly?

Is a randomly-generated book a violation of copyright?


I have made a 3d model of APPOLO IE car. The model doesn't contain any kind of logo of appolo. I want to use the model for a animation which I would upload on YouTube. Would I violate any law related to copyright by doing this?

Would it be copyright infringement to use a 3d model of appolo ie Without appolo's logo


If a developer creates Android and IOS applications that use YouTube API, what limits are legally applicable?. Suppose the applications will get videos from YouTube, then will manipulate these videos, accelerating, slowing down, playing only certain interval, etc.

1. If the apps have ads, is there any copyright problem with the video owners or YouTube company.
2. Is it a copyright violation or other legal problem to excerpt the videos on YouTube? For example, the apps play only the first minute of the videos? Can the app add extra sounds on these videos?
3. Is it allowed to play videos on the background? I mean, can the app play only audios of the videos?
4. Is there any legal way of playing the YouTube videos without YouTube ads in such apps?

Manipulating YouTube videos in mobile application


Let's assume that Hacker Corp. offers a penetration testing service to other businesses, and ACME Corp. contacts Hacker Corp. to conduct a penetration test for some internal testing.

Hacker Corp. requires ACME Corp. to sign a "Permission to Attack" document, which outlines that Hacker Corp. is allowed to attack a specific system of ACME Corp. during a specified timeframe in a specified way.

Due to internal turmoil in ACME Corp., the Permission to Attack document never gets signed by the people with the powers to sign it, and instead a low-level IT employee in ACME Corp. signs instead. During the penetration test, a machine in ACME Corp.'s infrastructure fails and causes an outage, which costs ACME Corp. millions of dollars. This failure was not foreseeable and not caused by negligence.

ACME Corp. now wishes to sue Hacker Corp. for damages, claiming they were attacking ACME Corp. without a valid Permission to Attack. Can Hacker Corp. claim that they acted in good faith, believing that the Permission to Attack was granted by someone from within the company who was allowed to grant such a permission?

Can a company claim they acted in good faith in this situation?


When I passed a security camera in the house i'm currently in, while watching Netflix on my phone, I wondered how legal that would be, considering that you are not allowed to make copies or photos of the content within, but the CCTVs purpose is not to record stuff on Streaming sites.

I was just curious if that would break any law or if this would be one of the rare exceptions where such a thing is legal. I'm also not saying I would put my phone in front of that camera, i'm just talking about copyrighted stuff that's visible on CCTV and recorded by it

Can you show Netflix to CCTV?


Kumaran develops novel lampshades. In January 2016, he developed a new lampshade.

On 1 May 2016, he emailed Bobby and Chew, both wholesalers, to whom he had previously sold lampshades. In his email, he asked each whether they would be interested in becoming the sole distributor of his new lampshade.

On 5 May 2016, Bobby and Chew both emailed Kumaran independently, each stating that he was interested in becoming sole distributor for the lampshade and requested further information.

On 7 May 2016, Kumaran emailed Bobby: “I offer you the post of sole distributor of the lampshade at a basic 10% commission. If I hear nothing from you by 14 May 2016, I will assume that this is acceptable to you.”

Bobby immediately posted a letter, by registered mail, to Kumaran’s home in which he accepted Kumaran’s offer. The letter did not arrive until 16 May 2016.

In the meantime, Chew, having heard nothing further from Kumaran, posted a letter to Kumaran in which he offered to become Kumaran’s sole distributor for a 20% commission. Kumaran received Chew’s letter on 15 May 2016. Kumaran immediately telephoned Bobby and told him that the post of sole distributor was no longer available to him.

Bobby insists that there is a binding contract to appoint him as sole distributor. Is Bobby correct?

Are contracts legally bound when acceptance is mailed, or only once received?


This is going to be a long question:

I'm working on creating a company to stream the latest and greatest movies that haven't reached Netflix yet. In order to do this, my plan is to buy, say, 10 Harry Potter DVDs, and rip one of them. We will then monitor how many people are streaming it and limit it to 10, the number of DVDs we have. It won't hurt the sales of the movie, because we're purchasing the correct number of DVDs.

This is equivalent to just sending a DVD to a user, just online. We won't lend out(a.k.a. stream) more DVDs than we have.

Update: How is Vidangel legal if they do just this?

Is it legal to stream DVD?


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?


My question is a hypothetical one. I was conducting some research into the differences between murder, homicide and manslaughter and I didn't understand the difference between homicide and manslaughter. Let's say there are two friends walking down a busy street, teasing each other. One of them playfully pushes the other who falls into the oncoming traffic. That person doesn't make it. Will the friend who pushed be charged with manslaughter or homicide, if he were to be charged at all?

Would killing a human by accident (without any premeditation or intent) be considered homicide or manslaughter?


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?


*Before some people get all worked up, the question is being asked in the context of modding.*

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_piracy>

>
> Video game piracy is the unauthorized copying and distributing of video game software, and is a form of copyright infringement.
>
>
>

Okay, so at least in one (and probably the major and common one) case it the sharing is illegal due to copyright law rules. But how exactly are game files protected and what exactly is protected?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_video_games#International_standard>

>
> This standard treats the **whole game as a singular component** but **does not define what would be covered by such a protection and what would be excluded**. WIPO had recognized the complexity inherent in copyrighting video games, saying: "Although Article 2 of the Berne Convention provides a solid basis for eligibility for protection of video games by copyright, they are in fact complex works of authorship, potentially composed of multiple copyrighted works." WIPO has also stated in one of its reports that "there is no clear classification of video games and their protection will vary depending on each particular game and the elements that are part of it. In this sense, video games can be treated as computer programs and, thus, are classified as works of authorship; in that case, the source code for a video game is classified as a literary work. If pictorial or graphic authorship predominates, a video game may be classified as a visual arts work. Similarly, if motion picture or audiovisual authorship predominates, a video game may be classified as a motion picture/audiovisual work."
>
>
>

I understand that things differ between countries, *let us stay in International/USA space*. So, according to this standard videogame medium considered a whole piece and even a small portion of that piece, even if it makes not sense outside of the whole or bears no value (copyrightable value i.e. creative and original content) is protected?

Let's take, for example, a typical videogame that is made on a generic-purpose videogame engine such as Unreal Engine 4 or Unity3D Engine. When the game is packaged as a final product it contains a lot of stuff that is fairly easy to determine as protected and copyrighted work: audio assets (music, sound effects), graphical assets (textures, sprites, etc), other visual assets (3D models aka meshes, protected design-wise) and so on. This packaged game is our **videogame medium**. But along with this game, a bunch of meta-data is packaged as well. This metadata has no possible copyrightable value by definition (and can be actually considered as a "fact" or "factual data") and it does not even belong to the IP holder/wonder but rather, in some way, to the creators of the tools itself (Unreal Engine, for example). Let say all this data is in one single file that is being shared - how would copyright law protect against this kind of sharing?

For the context, this is somewhat follow-up to [Can digital signature/Hash sequence be copyrighted?](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/66668/can-digital-signature-hash-sequence-be-copyrighted/66669#66669)

How is videogame medium protected by copyright in practical terms?


I have been accused of a crime, and the police informed me of such. However, I have not been charged. They have told my lawyer that I am under investigation but haven't given any more info.

Is there any limit as to how long I can be "under investigation" for until either I must be charged or the investigation has to be dropped? Further, would the police be obligated to inform me if the investigation ended, or would I just hear nothing?

I ask because this process is causing me a lot of stress and I'd like to know how long it can go on for.

Canada - how long can a person be under investigation?


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 have several old records and casettes of pop music albums some of which are damaged. While I am the legal owner of the recorded media, I do not own the copyright. I understand this.

Does purchasing the record or casette give me the right to listen to the music, and if so, could I legally download and listen to songs that were on my damaged casette or record?

Or do I have to buy the CD of the recording?

Can I legally download an MP3 version of songs on a record or casette that I purchased but is now damaged?


Lets say I design an entertainment app and when I finish the app I realize that there is a lot of fowl language and want to use a GNU library for something like checking for curse words.

Would using a library as such be a problem legally for selling my product later? (or having it as a closed source project)

GNU GPL license question


In many different situations, people will have an incentive to lie in court while the other parties cannot verify whether they are lying or not.

I'm wondering whether there are techniques that can be used to (relatively robustly) incentivize people not to lie, even though what they say cannot be verified/falsified.

For example, one technique that might be used is:
- We will ask you 10 questions. We know the answer to 5 of these questions, but you don't know which of the 10. If you tell us a lie in even one of the 5 cases, you will go to jail.

That person will be incentivized to tell the truth in almost all 10 cases, since statistically, if it lied in half of them they would almost certainly go to jail. In this way, we incentivize the person to tell the truth even in the cases where we can't verify the answers.

**Are there methods that are used to achieve this?**

What are techniques used in law to robustly incentivize people to tell the truth?


Let's say you're in California talking on the phone. Would it be legal to record just your part of the conversation without having approval from the other party?

For example, could you set up a recording device on the desk and have it recording what you're saying during the whole conversation assuming it's not sensitive enough to pick up what the other person is saying also?

Would it be legal to record only yourself on a phone call without the other party giving consent in California?


In the following video, the narrative is that the police asked the young man to switch off his phone. He refused. They asked him to sit down. He refused. They then used violence to put him on the ground: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-QLZNTjqOQ>

Do people have to comply with a policeman's order to sit on the ground?

Can the police require you to sit if you are not under arrest


Basically, can I find a popular meme online and use it in a video-game that I am making money off of without giving credit or royalties to the creator / owner as often these are hard to find and people using these memes is so common.

For example, there is a grumpy cat meme picture at <https://i.stack.imgur.com/fzJBP.jpg> that meme pages often use, can I use it?

Meme pages often use and steal memes from each other without giving credit and then make money through ads and stuff. This seems to be internet culture so is it ok for me to "steal" and use memes and make money off of them?

Are memes fair use


I live at Iran. I would like to know if downloading films, like Hollywood films, via internet is illegal, if I don't pay money to the owner?

I'm asking because I read [this](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vb7k8j/its-illegal-to-pirate-films-in-iran-unless-youre-the-government):

>
> Iran's copyright law does not protect authors outside of Iran either.
> While Iran is a member of the World Intellectual Property Organisation
> (WIPO), a specialized United Nations agency tasked with promoting the
> protection of global intellectual property, it has never signed the
> WIPO copyright treaty, nor any other international copyright
> agreements that would make infringing copyrights of foreigners
> unlawful.
>
>
>

If downloading is legal under Iranian law, is it illegal under international law, or perhaps under spiritual or religious law?

Thanks.

Does copyright law apply if I download films in Iran?


I run a small software consulting company. It is organized as a LLC in California, filing as an S-Corp.

I want to start a second business, but something unrelated to computers. I will need to purchase equipment to start the new venture.

Can I simply make this a new division of my existing company, and write off the equipment purchases as a business expense in the same way I would if I was buying equipment for he existing operation?

If the answer is no, what if they were proximately related? Where is the line drawn typically?

Can I write off equipment purchases for unrelated business


A book author, who normally writes his or her content through many experimentations. Can I produce a content (video/webinar or others) based on the book and claim money for that content ? What does law normally say about it?

Can content from others be monetised?


The author of the [Code2000](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code2000) font [stated](https://web.archive.org/web/20101122142710/http://code2000.net/code2000_page.htm):

>
> Users are required to register the font after a “reasonable”
> evaluation period if they like the font and continue to use it.
> However, determining what is “reasonable” is left for the user to
> decide. The Code2000 download doesn’t degrade or expire and there are
> no annoying pop-up screens. This has been left open-ended
> intentionally. In some cases, members of minority script user
> communites — those who need a font like Code2000 the most — can least
> afford it. Clearly, if registering the font means your family doesn’t
> get enough food on the table, even for one meal, then it is not
> reasonable to register the font.
>
>
> But, if you can afford the small fee, and you like the font and
> continue to use it after a reasonable evaluation period, then register
> your shareware! After all, I need food on my plate, too.
>
>
>

Now, since the author has disappeared (the PayPal account specified for payments is part of a domain registration that expired and was later repurposed), one could argue that,

* no amount of time is “reasonable”,
* tracking down the copyright holder would entail enormous costs (having to contact [hundreds of people](https://www.whitepages.com/name/James-Kass?fs=1&q=James+Kass)), so that that one's “family doesn’t get enough food on the table”,
* one cannot “afford the small fee” (though it is only USD 5.00),

but could these be enough grounds for continuous free usage without risk?

Can one rely on copyright holder's vague language?


I often get asked by some fast food restaurants and other businesses to make a donation to such and such cause when I try to pay at the cashier.

If I say yes, who gets the tax credit?

Me or the business?

Who gets the tax credit, if I say yes to "Would you like to donate a dollar to xyz" at the cashier of a shop in the U.S.A.?


I often help people out on different stack exchange websites and never have any issues whatsoever. I usually answer questions on the Apple stack exchange website.

I was wondering, if I give out incorrect advice and someone damages their computer or device more, can I be liable in anyway for those damages? I'm not that familiar with the law, so I though I would ask before I answer certain questions, that I'm not 100% sure on.

I understand if they don't follow the advice I'm not liable, but if they willingly follow my advice themselves and if my advice was slightly incorrect, causing more damage, could they attempt to sue me for the damage it causes?

Can I be liable for damages for wrong advice I give on a Stack Exchange site?


Is it legal to make a film with lightsabers in it in a different universe than Star Wars? Is it legal to make a sci-fi films where there are no Jedi, but people wield lightsabers that are very similar to the ones in Star Wars? Assume for the sake of the question that every character in the film is blue-skinned and they wield orange-colored lightsabers and it's set in a sci-fi universe completely different from that of Star Wars. Is this considered a derivative work and thus infringes copyright, or can it be considered to be an original just because the setting is different?


Is it illegal to redistribute or extend the signals through the internet on otherwise open and free satellite channels?

If not in the US, how is it related to the international scene? The question of it's legality is not clear cut, as the signals are already open.

The internet company would merely be **replacing the need** for a satellite dish which is otherwise required to receive the analog signal and instead received by an ethernet cable directly from the internet company to your computer or device, and not through the satellite dish to your **reciever**.

Can someone try to shed some light on this?

Legality of redistributing free to air satellite channels over the internet


As it commonly known, the [right to be forgotten](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten) is a fundamental right in the modern informational society. It is the right of an individual to obtain erasure of his personal data from the online and offline directories immediately upon request without undue delay.

The perfect example of implementation of this fundamental rule is [European GDPR rules](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation) which clearly state principles and obligations in [Article 17](https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/) and recitals 65 and 66. Everybody working in EU and EEA areas is obliged to abide this law and individuals have tools and mechanism to prosecute legal entities that break these regulations.

What about US? Is there any similar law within US legal system which I can use effectively to push for observance of my right to forget? I.e. to push websites, web-services and other online/offline entities to delete my personal data.

Is there any way to punish them by law if they deny to do that?

Right to be forgotten in US legal system. Practical approach for erasure?


Suppose you purchase a CD containing some computer software (e.g. a video game) and a perpetual license to use that software. Included on the disc are songs encoded as, for example, mp3 files. These are not encrypted and can be read/copied by a standard operating system. The mp3 files form part of the software in the sense that the software contains code to play the music as part of its usage experience (e.g. as background music for a title screen or menu).

My question is whether you have an implied license to use the music out of context, such as:

* playing the music file with a third party media player application (i.e. not in the manner originally intended by the software designer)
* transferring the mp3 files to another device (e.g. a portable music player) for the purpose of listening to them independently of the software on the CD.
* trans-coding the music from one (unencrypted) file format to another (for example, compressing the music from .wav to .mp3).

I am in the UK, but am also interested in hearing about international approaches to this issue.

Listening to software music out of context


I would like to rewrite an old story, written in the 16th century, in the hope that more people may benefit from its message. The latest reprint was in 1971 in Great Britain.

Is it legal to rewrite a book written in 16th century English in modern American English?


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?


My friend's beauty salon and beauty product shop was inspected some time ago and in the inspection report it is noted "Surveillance camera in the shop".

**Now I am wondering what the inspector might have actually meant with that note on her inspection result? Is there a law that requires notice to be posted?**

I can't find anything in <http://www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/laws_regs/act_regs.pdf> regarding cameras so it might be mentioned under different regulations.

Do I need to post a notice in beauty salon if surveillance camera is on premises (California)?


That is, the company employs you and pays you wages in return for money (even though you do no work for them).

Is it legal to pay a company to employ you in the UK?


I know this is a confusing matter and there's been number of questions here and articles elsewhere, but maybe it would be simpler in the situation explained below.

Assume there's a non-US company selling software on App Store and providing certain subscription services. The following information has to be provided to Apple:

1. Do you have any U.S. Business Activities?
2. (if Yes for 1.) Are you required to file a US income tax return with respect to the payments you receive from Apple?

Assume the following:
The company is located in a country that has a tax treaty with US. The company does NOT receive any income other than from Apple. The company does NOT have any employees, contractors or any other personnel, office or any physical assets in US. The only thing US-based that the company DOES have are cloud servers physically located in US provided by a US cloud company, used in order to provide subscription services mentioned above. The location of these servers is not critical for the business, chosen for latency reasons and can be changed for the same or other reasons at any moment later.

Based on this, how should the questions above answered?

Furthermore, what exactly having or not having "effectively connected income" would change in this situation, what's more beneficial? Is there a "if in double choose ..." option?

What are "US Business Activities" and "Effectively connected income", again?


As I understand it, the Right to be Forgotten was promulgated solely as an EU regulation[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten#European_Union).

Assuming that the UK follows through and leaves the EU, would search engines no longer have to remove results related to British subjects?

What effect does Brexit have on Britons' Right to be Forgotten?


Can you sue a foreign company in a civil suit even if it doesn't operate within the country in the United States? Let's say you decide to sue a company headquartered in another country and that only operates in that country. Can you still sue that company from the United States?


I am a software engineer. While I was working for a previous employer I built a software system from scratch. Part of my employment agreement was anything made for that employer on company time or using company resources belonged to them. Approximately 6 months ago I left that position and took a position with a different company.

A few months ago I realized that several of the technologies and techniques I have learned while working with the new company could be applied to that system to make it much better. I have been thinking about rebuilding a similar system on my own and trying to sell it. As far as I am aware there are no patents or anything like that on any parts of the system.

Given that the new system will be very similar to the first system I built, and utilize many of the techniques I figured out while building the first system, will my former employer have any rights to the new system if it’s built entirely with my own personal resources?

Intellectual property after leaving job


In this context, I have in mind a typical business transaction, not a complex contract with explicit terms and so forth.

Suppose a business receives an order from a customer, and payment for the order is received in whole or part, but the business has issues with delivering on it's end because of circumstances outside of it's control, like a bad receiving address, or a bad email (often used as the customer's gateway to access virtual products). The business surely has a duty to attempt to contact the customer to complete the order, but what if the customer proves unreachable based on the means available to the company (phone, email, mail, etc.)? In other words, you call, but they never call back, or your only contact method is email, but it bounces back.

If the order was placed via a credit card, the business can easily issue a refund despite the inability to contact the customer. Even with payment by check, the business can send out a refund check to a mail address, assuming there's been no evidence of a bad receiving address. The question is, does this business have a legal duty to any such actions? I know credit card companies will typically not process refunds for transactions older than 60 days, so is there a time limitation after which the company may assume the order "complete" and retain the funds?

I'm concerned only with US Law. Specifically, the business I have in mind is in the State of Idaho, but most customers are not Idaho residents.

Can a business keep funds it has collected if it cannot complete an order agreement because the paying party proves unreachable?


I'd like to create some original art using images from art history. Let's keep the question widely applicable and say that I might be interested in anything from old paintings and engravings to pen and ink magazine art to early photography, but all of it would be pre-1900s. Many of the images I'm interested in go back much further, all the way to the late 1500s. I live in the United States, but might want to source images from overseas.

Presumably the copyright holders for these images are all long expired, and if I've got things right because they predated the copyright law enacted in the early 1900s these images should all be in the public domain.

A quick google and a perusal of some art books tells me it isn't that simple. Image archives, whether online or in photo book form, generally appear to make a copyright claim on the images they contain. This makes my want to get a generally more robust idea of what I can and can't do with art historical and early photographic images before I go any further.

**My question is, what should I know about copyright law and using images that were created prior to the 1900s?** What is the best legal practice for reusing images like that in original artwork?

How does copyright law apply to reusing images from before the 1900s?


How can the federal government set a minimum wage? It seems like that would be reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment.

Is the interstate commerce clause? That seems iffy to me.

What gives the US federal government the power to set a minimum wage?


Are there statutes that prohibit an individual from texting another individual if the receiver request cease and desist with communications?

Cease and desist texting


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). p. 69.

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

1. Is the Best Answer from [Yahoo Answers](https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110707063743AAwVmAD) beneath wrong? I'm assuming that the rogue, Fletcher, didn't have a solicitor.

>
> One solicitor is accepting a duty to make sure the transaction is completed before title transfers..that's all.
>
>
>

2. How could Grey induce "the defendant to detain the sugar and indemnified him for doing so" (gold), if the "the sugar was held to Fletcher’s order" (red)?

What does "hold to order" mean?


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?


If I write a book and I cite the works of other authors, what are the legal requirements for the citation? For example, I want to take about 1 or 2 sentences verbatim from the book titled 'The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People'

I assume that I have to include the name of the author and the name of the work, which I am citing. What else must be included?

Citing other works within my book


A company advertises positions and receives far more applications from members of one sex than from the other. The company wants to interview the same number of people from each sex. It chooses the following policy: applicants are ordered within each sex and interviewed in pairs. If they run out of applicants from one sex the remaining applicants in the other sex will not be interviewed.

Is this legal in the UK?

Is it legal to invite applicants to interview on the basis of sex?


If my game would have outlines on the characters just like in the mobile game Brawl Stars, but with a completely different implementation (I sure hope so. I mean, I don't have access to their codebase to check), and the characters themselves look completely different. Would this cause legal issues?

The intent is to create a cartoon effect, rather than just copying.

Creating a game, where characters have outlines like in Brawl Stars


Source: [*Introduction to Law in Canada*](http://emond.ca/introduction-to-law-in-canada.html) (2014). p. 173 Bottom.

>
> Superior Courts
> ---------------
>
>
> Like the inferior courts, the superior courts fall into two categories: provincial/territorial
>  and federal.
>
>
> ### Provincial and Territorial
>
>
> The **provincial superior courts**, as noted above, are constituted under [section 92(14)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_92(14)_of_the_Constitution_Act,_1867#CITEREFWhyte1985) of
>  *the Constitution Act, 1867,* with their judges appointed ***federally*** under section 96 of the
>  Act. Because of this they are sometimes referred to as **section 96 courts**. Why are the
>  judges in these provincial courts appointed federally? Though these are provincial courts,
>  they can, under section 92(14), hear not only matters falling under provincial legislative
>  power (for example, motor vehicle accident cases) but also `some matters falling under federal legislative power (for example, bankruptcy cases)`. (See Chapter 5 for a discussion of
>  how legislative power is divided under Canada's Constitution.) The fact that the judges in
>  these provincial superior courts are federally appointed ensures balance. Balance is needed because of the power these provincial courts have to adjudicate certain federal matters.
>
>
>

1. Why did the framers allow provincial superior courts to adjudicate `some matters falling under federal legislative power (for example, bankruptcy cases)`? Why didn't the framers confine to the Federal Court?
2. Why blur the distinction between provincial v. federal jurisdiction?

Why did s 92(14) (of the Constitution Act, 1867) permit Provincial Superior Courts to adjudicate some matters falling under federal legislative power?


<https://web.archive.org/web/20110713050011/http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/01/22/no-personal-jurisdiction-over-australian-defendant-in-flickr-right-of-publicity-case/>

>
> The court similarly found that any purported agreement with Wong via
> the Creative Commons license was not sufficient to establish personal
> jurisdiction. The Creative Commons license did not require Virgin to
> perform any of its obligations in Texas. Instead, the license
> permitted the photograph to be used anywhere in the world.
> Furthermore, Chang failed to show that Virgin performed any of its
> obligations in Texas. It used the photograph solely in Australia, the
> one place that, according to Virgin’s evidence, it was authorized to
> sell its products and services. Finally, because Virgin only used the
> photograph in Australia, the license that permitted its use was
> centered in Australia, not Texas.
>
>
>

What is personal jurisdiction and how can it allow someone to not respect the copyright of another individual? Also, does that mean that Chang can sue Virgin in an Australian court?


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


Company A and Company B have a business relationship lasting for years. All kinds of agreements are in place between them. License Agreements, Supply Agreements, Development Agreements and so on.

Company A gets acquired by Company C. After closing, former Company A now operates as Company AC.
What happens to all the existing contracts where Company A was a Party?
Do they get automatically transferred?

Having to assign all the existing contracts seems to be an "impossible" task, but i do not know the leagl basis for the transfer. Can anyone shed some light both in US and European jurisdictions?

Do existing contracts get automatically transferred to the acquiring company?


In looking at Texas stalking laws, especially since 2015, in Section 42.072, it appears that even the following actions are illegal:

Person A and Person B are in an online but intimate and romantic relationship. Both live in Texas.
From time to time one of them gets upset at the other and blocks the other from their social media page. But at some point they make up and resume the relationship.

Person A blocks Person B. This time for a month.

Person B thinks something is wrong so Person B attempts to contact Person A using email, social media, phone, texts, etc. Person B attempts for a month to make contact.
Person B sends several gifts to Person A's house. At no point does Person A respond in any way.

None of the messages Person B sends threatens violence in any way, nor is intended to annoy, harass or embarrass. (words used in the new Texas law)

Person B drove by Person A's house at one time, but didn't knock or attempt contact.

These attempts went on for about 2 months. Person B then gives up.

Person A then files stalking charges against Person B.

From looking at Texas law, it appears that Person B has unwittingly committed several violations of the law if Person A feels annoyed in any way.

Is this true? Or does there have to be intent? If so, how hard is intent to prove?

How broad are Texas' stalking laws now?


I recently purchased an LLC via LegalZoom and they made a mistake by adding a comma in my LLC Name. I was told that I had to cough up over $150 just to get it corrected through them so I wanted to do it on my own as the filing fee is only $30 or $45 if I wanted to drop it off.

The form is located here: <http://bpd.cdn.sos.ca.gov/llc/forms/llc-11.pdf>

My issue is that I don't know what some of these fields are for. What do I put in "4. Parties to the Document Being Corrected" and in "Document Provision"?

For the parties to the document being corrected, I assumed it would be LegalZoom, Inc. but maybe it's the Secretary of State? Not sure what to put in that field and if I am even allowed to correct it.

Current LLC is "Company, LLC", want it corrected to "Company LLC".

How to correct an LLC Entity Name in California?


Keyword: “hull splashing”

I have heard that any copyright created prior to 1924 is expired. Therefore, my question: If this is true, can I simply copy and sell any boat designed prior to 1924, i.e. the 12 foot dinghy?

In particular, I am not interested in the complete boat design, but only the hull, as this is the most difficult part to design right for a boat, and without extensive tests/CFD modeling, it can be quite tricky to get right.

Many thanks for your input.

Can I copy and sell any boat designed prior to 1924?


Customer gives me an e-book or a document, I record audio of that document and send it to the customer. I am not redistributing that work, I only charge the customer. Will this infringe the copyright law? The customer could be giving me an e-book that he bought.

Convert document/e-book to audiobook


I would like to include images from the web on my personal website(non-profit & non-commercial use), how do I say that the images are not mine and they belong to their respective owners? does this relate to this

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'fair use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

Using Images from the Web for personal use


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?


Much of what I have been reading points to ISPs being allowed to *throttle*, ie. *slow down* access to certain "competing" websites and services.

If current "net neutrality" laws were to be repealed, would ISPs be legally allowed to completely block access to, or otherwise censor, such "competing" websites and services?

Would the end of "net neutrality" legally allow individual ISPs to block access to/censor sites and services?


Axanar is a fan made movie of Star Trek in preproduction, whose producers are being sued jointly by Paramount and CBS for copyright violation. When every news coverage article I found failed to question the applicability of copyright for the case, and [at least one](https://www.thewrap.com/why-star-trek-fan-film-producers-should-have-seen-cbsparamount-lawsuit-coming/) implies the cause is lost for Axanar, I started to question my convictions on what copyright is for.

Part of me wants to believe that the move is just FUD on the part of the plaintiffs, and the lack of question on the case by the media is simply due to the lack of expert understanding on the Copyright law by people in general (who tends to bundle together every type of intellectual property law into a single mess). But now I am starting to doubt it.

Copyright law is very specific for what is protected, so, motion pictures are protected, but if no one is making verbatim copy of part or whole of the work without authors consent, there shouldn't be any copyright infringement, right?

I mean, fictitious organizations name, fictitious star system names, characters names, spaceship designs and general concepts falls out of scope of Copyright, is that correct? Maybe other IP laws, like trademark, can apply to theses things, but not copyright as I understand.

So, is my understand about copyright deeply flawed and there indeed any sound legal basis for the motion? How so?

Why there seems to be a case on CBS/Paramount vs. Axanar?


I was trying to cancel my gym membership because I had a surprise surgery that put me out of physical activity for a few months, and I couldn't leave the house for one month, but they told me that no matter what I need to come in to cancel without exceptions.

Can they say this? Now they're trying to charge me for the months that I was unable to attend for but still "had a membership" because I "never canceled".

I regret not trying to email them after the phone call, I would have much preferred to have a record of this.

Canceling gym membership while in recovery


I was wondering what laws, if any, restrict donating money to criminals who have committed crimes which you support and want to encourage (lets assume the motivations are not necessarily so explicitly stated).

Musings:
On the one hand this seems basically the same as paying someone to commit a crime.
But on the other hand, accused criminals get donated money all the time to fight the ensuing court battle. Which seems like something that is clearly legal.

*This is in response to the recent flurry of donations and 100K bail given to the man who assaulted Dylann Roof. And was just wondering how exactly the law applies to such unique situations.*

Giving Someone Money Because of a Criminal Act?


Do the GDPR Regulations apply to processing data of a citizen who has dual nationality?

GDPR: Citizens with Dual Nationality?


There is a Website (for the sake of discussion) called www.maxgrav.com. The site has no content except a landing page (with no discussion on what the product is), which hasn't changed since 2011. The MaxGrav logo shows to be Trademarked (R) (though a search in USPTO showed no results). And supposedly there is a MaxGrav Inc. company name.

If I wanted to created a company called MaxGrav Solutions (www.maxgavsolutions.com) which is in no way modeled or named after this company, and the name was something I came up with before searching to see if a similar name was in use, and this name is available in my state...

**Am I in an way infringing upon their trademark or business name etc?** I'm thinking since the company has no real presence, and a search of MaxGrav doesn't show anything related to their site until the 3rd page of the search results, that no one could say that I am infringing upon anything? Especially if I grow my company and show an association of MaxGrav Solutions to MY company.

Can I use a (undeveloped) trademark or business name as part of a longer name for my business?


I have just resigned from my current company and I briefly mentioned I have unused annual leave left to take.

They have told me, it is company policy to pay leaving employees for unused annual leave, and thus their preferred option is that I do not take my remaining annual leave.

Is this enforceable in the United Kingdom by law?

My employment contract doesn't specifically say that.

Can a company disallow taking annual leave during a notice period?


I would like to create an application/website which is automating some processes on another website A. So my application would basically use website A like a normal user would (there is no API available).

Is offering an application like this considered illegal? Since I would not have a permission from website A to do this.

The website is hosted in France.

My app uses another website. Is it legal?


I'm opening a business via the e-residency program with Estonia. I am a United States citizen and reside there, as well. Who should I file taxes with?

I'm a US citizen opening a business in the EU: where do I file taxes?


I've been wondering about this. I know that, say, it is generally a crime to file a false police report, and the motivation for this seems logical because that it wastes police time and resources - and thus takes them away from being able to spend them on real leads, and thus also to degrade the public safety by that little bit.

But I also know that, if one admits to making a crime on a public forum, such as an Internet forum, it is possible that a prosecutor who is looking at such fora could potentially use the admission to bring charges, even if the admission is not specifically directed toward one. However, what I wonder about is if some of the above logic does not also, then, apply to a situation like this: if one were to, given this fact, *falsely* announce on such a forum that one had committed a crime that one actually did not, could it amount to having the same effect of wasting prosecutor/law enforcement time albeit in a more indirect way that sneaks through their attitudes, and thus potentially also be considered some kind of crime?

(I want to point out I'm not referring to making a false claim to be the perpetrator of a known crime, or to falsely claim someone else is that perpetrator to, say, get reward money. I'm referring specifically to announcing an *unknown* crime one did not commit, a crime that does not exist, on a public venue like a forum that is not *specifically* a channel to police or other authorities. If a prosecutor got ahold of it and tried to pursue it, and it were during the course of that proven a hoax, what would happen?)

FWIW, the country in question is the United States.

Is it a crime to falsely claim to have committed a crime to someone not a legal authority?


I am planning to build an online web app and a mobile app for learning vocabulary.

Functions:
- User can create lists (eg. personalities, phrasal verbs etc.) and add words to the list with definitions.
- These list can be made public.

If users were to copy dictionary definitions, for instance Oxford or Cambridge) and make the word lists public, is it a copyright infringement? Am I responsible for this activity? Can dictionary owners charge me against copyright issue?

Copyright infringment: using dictionary definitions


The story of the [monkey who took a selfie](http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/09/25/382768.htm) is, by now, probably widely known. Summary: a court said that the owner of the camera is not entitled to rights because the picture was taken by the monkey, not the human.

My question is the following: I saw a [video of a cat playing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0zgQAp7EYw) the piano.
(Hear me out...)

(Her name is Nora).
Now, I understand the *video* is the property of its author: a human being.

But what about the **"music"**. Just the notes.
I also understand that if the "music" was taught by a human being (like what happens sometimes in a circus) the music is the human's, but in this case, when (it seems) the "music" is really "played" by the cat (rather randomly), is it copytight-able ? I understand the anumal cannot actually have the property, but can his owner?

EDIT: I fogot to state one way this question can be tricky:
One difference is that the photographer didn't **own** the monkey, but the cat is definitely **owned**.

(The [countries](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/22/monkey-business-macaque-selfie-cant-be-copyrighted-say-us-and-uk) are UK and US)

On the intellectual property of animals, a story of monkeys and cats!


How is damage calculated when infringing a copyright? I am seriously wondering how it's calculated. Let's say someone post an image he found on Google without attribution on facebook or reddit, then how would the damage be calculated? I am thinking the case would be rejected, because those images that don't have any watermark, and can be found on Google is unlikely to generate a lot of money. Moreover, it might increase traffic to the individual's blog or website if he has one, so I am curious, because if significant money could be obtained, everyone on social media would get sued by some law firm.


1. Last year a client signed up for a yearly subscription of my product. He paid 14,99 € with 19 % taxes included.
2. This year the taxes are only 5 %.

How much does the client pay?

Why I asked: PayPal demands 14,99 € of my clients (I benefit of the tax reduction) and Stripe demands only 13,23 € (the client benefits of the tax reduction). EDIT: Both are gross prices with 5 % taxes included.

Who benefits of a tax reduction in subscription businesses? The company or the client?