Datasets:

vblagoje

/

Law-StackExchange-Flat

like 0

How to make people follow city laws regarding dogs on a leash?

I live in Toronto. There is a by-law that all dogs should be on a leash when inside one of the city parks. But nobody follows this. People with big dogs let the dogs run free and they sometimes get too close for comfort. Pointing out the law to the owner results in unpleasant conversations, involving expletives. The owners treat the parks as their own backyard, without any concern for others. What should I do? Should I consult the Toronto Parks department? I am not too sure of getting any answer.

According to this press release, Toronto is "stepping up enforcement" of its leash by-law. You should call 311 to report violations: http://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledgebase/29/101000050429.html You can find more information here: http://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledgebase/47/101000050447.html http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=b6c9dada600f0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD You can find a list of areas where dogs are permitted to be unleashed here: http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=5a81dada600f0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=b6c9dada600f0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD I note, however, that the press release says that "A dog is considered running at large if it is unleashed, off its owner's property and not under its owner's control." Reading this strictly, where all three conditions must be met, a dog owner is permitted to unleash a dog if it is still possible for the owner to control the dog. I don't know how the courts have interpreted this, but it could certainly be interpreted very widely.

Re: "Our mass infringement", is LearnHub doing anything illegal?

On meta ELU, there's a question: Mass infringement of our copyright , which goes on about how some SE sites are being "scraped"; cut and pasted with no attribution, to sites such as LearnHub.org. From what I gather, their site hurriedly put up: Question is already asked and answered on Stackexchange.com and shared under Creative Commons - Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic Is that enough to fulfill their legal obligation? Was it ever required, or is LearnHub just crossing their T's and dotting their I's? I must admit, my eyes glazed over reading this and this , my take-away being that it's not even required here legally, that's just our site rules.

Go to the Source If you follow the Legal link at the bottom of the page and read the terms of service, among other things, it says (my emphasis): 1. Access to the Services Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Stack Exchange may offer to provide the Services, as described more fully on the Network, and which are selected by Subscriber, solely for Subscriber’s own use, and not for the use or benefit of any third party . ... Subscriber certifies to Stack Exchange that Subscriber is an individual (i.e., not a corporate entity) at least 13 years of age. ... 2. Network Content ... The Network is protected by copyright as a collective work and/or compilation, pursuant to U.S. copyright laws, international conventions, and other copyright laws. Other than as expressly set forth in this Agreement, Subscriber may not copy, modify, publish, transmit, upload, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce (except as provided in this Section), create derivative works based on, distribute, perform, display, or in any way exploit, any of the Content, software, materials, or Services in whole or in part. Subscriber may download or copy the Content, and other items displayed on the Network for download, for personal use , provided that Subscriber maintains all copyright and other notices contained in such Content. From time to time, Stack Exchange may make available compilations of all the Subscriber Content on the Network (the “Creative Commons Data Dump”). The Creative Commons Data Dump is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license . By downloading The Creative Commons Data Dump, You agree to be bound by the terms of that license. Any other downloading, copying, or storing any Content for other than personal, noncommercial use is expressly prohibited without prior written permission from Stack Exchange, or from the copyright holder identified in such Content's copyright notice. In the event You download software from the Network, the software, including any files, images incorporated in or generated by the software, and the data accompanying the software (collectively, the “Software”) is licensed to You by Stack Exchange or third party licensors for Your personal, noncommercial use, and no title to the Software shall be transferred to You. Stack Exchange or third party licensors retain full and complete title to the Software and all intellectual property rights therein. 3. Subscriber Content You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license . You grant Stack Exchange the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to use, copy, cache, publish, display, distribute, modify, create derivative works and store such Subscriber Content and to allow others to do so in any medium now known or hereinafter developed (“Content License”) in order to provide the Services, even if such Subscriber Content has been contributed and subsequently removed by You. ... Consequences Under Clause 1 Subscribers to Stack Exchange must be individuals (natural persons in legalese). The proprietor of LearnHub.org are unlikely to be an individual and are therefore not a Subscriber under the terms of use. Under Clause 2, everything on Stack Exchange is copyright and some things are trade marked as well. The copyright for posts vests in the Subscriber and is licenced to SE (CC BY-SA 3.0) or vests in SE directly as the creator. Clause 8.1a. of CC BY-SA 3.0 requires SE to grant a licence to any recipient of a distribution (e.g. on a web site) on the same terms. For this reason the limitations on the copyright in Clause 2 can only apply to those items where copyright vests in SE directly; not to the content of the Subscriber posts. Assuming that it is only Subscriber posts that they are reproducing then they either need to: Comply with CC BY-SA 3.0 and attribute the work as required by that licence; what they have put up does not on the face of it do that because: They are referring to an earlier version of the licence Attribution under 3.0 is detailed in Clause 4.c. and this doesn't meet the criteria. Have been licenced by the original copyright holder; which seems unlikely. Meet the fair use criteria; attribution would not be required but would certainly be polite. Fair use turns on the specific facts of the case - on the face of it they could put forward a credible argument that their use is fair use. Complications Jurisdiction matters here; copyright laws are not uniform across the world. For example, Australian copyright has a much more limited "fair use" concept than the US and also creates a "moral copyright" of the author that exists independently of the copyright of the owner . For signatories to the Berne Convention ; the country of origin for simultaneously published works (which online posting is) and therefore the law applying is the country that gives the shortest term of protection. The convention is annoyingly silent of what that means if there is more than one qualifying "Country of Origin"; this leaves scope for litigants to try to apply the most favourable domestic law that could be applicable and the case could be brought in any of several jurisdictions. This is the stuff that makes lawyers rich!

Terminology for contracts in multiple Languages

My company is having contracts drafted in both English and Japanese and we want to have the English version take priority over the Japanese. Is there a specific legal term for this structure?

I don't know of a specific legal term but such clauses are quite common in contracts which consist of more than one document. The English words "priority", "prevail" and "precedence" have the meaning you want, however, "precedence" runs the risk of being confused with "precedent" which does have a very specific legal meaning. A clause similar to: If there is any inconsistency or ambiguity between the English and Japanese language versions of the contract, the English version shall prevail. You need to make very sure that this clause can be translated unambiguously into Japanese!

Poker considered as gambling?

I heard a lot of people say that Poker is a game of skill, not a game of luck. And often, you see the same winners in the finals of poker tournaments. Does that mean online poker sites do NOT require a gambling license to operate?

Game of skill? Nonsense. There are skills that can help you out / prevent you from making bad decisions, but it's still gambling nonetheless. There is no gambling license you can obtain to operate an online poker site, or really any other online site that allows gambling, in the United States. It is completely against the law. In fact, the FBI shut down a few of these poker sites back in 2011 for fraud. Read up on United States v. Scheinberg .

Poker considered as gambling?

I heard a lot of people say that Poker is a game of skill, not a game of luck. And often, you see the same winners in the finals of poker tournaments. Does that mean online poker sites do NOT require a gambling license to operate?

Poker has a gambling element. Although it is also a game of skill in which better players tend to win, they also do so "randomly." Unlike a game of total skill such as chess, in which a better player can avoid losing, that's not true in poker; even the best players sometimes have "bad luck." For this reason, poker is regulated as a "gambling" game, that's legal mainly in licensed casinos.

What is a Transition Bond Company?

I've come across the term Transition Bond Company , and I'm trying to figure out what it is – in relatively plain English, since I lack any legal background whatsoever. The context in which I've seen the term used is in connection to regulated utility companies in the US (e.g., electric companies). Any explanation?

"Transition bonds" are debt for which the collateral is "transition property." Periodically U.S. states authorize utilities to levy a charge on individual consumer bills. The reasons they may do so are varied ( e.g. to compensate a former monopolist during the transition to a competitive utilities market). The right to levy this charge now and in the future is a type of (transition) property. Since this right has value in the form of a future stream of revenue, it can serve as collateral when debt it taken on (here in the form of bonds). The utility with the property rights can form a subsidiary called a "transition bond company" that handles the bond issuance. Here are a few examples of state laws to the above effect. Massachusetts Connecticut

What is a good formulation for a minor share agreement of USA company (Inc.), before the company shares/options are issued?

The company "Foo Inc" is registered in the U.S. It has not issued any shares or stock options yet. A company CEO (Alice) needs to make a signed agreement with a third party (Carol) that Carol receives a certain minor amount of company shares or stock options when they are issued. Will this agreement be a legal obligation? What is a good formulation for such paper? What are the consequences if Alice does not fulfill this obligation and Carol decides to sue Alice?

TL;DR Yes One that covers the essentials and leaves out the crap Carol would sue the company, not Alice. She could seek an order for specific performance and/or damages. General Corporations Background Stuff I speak from an Australian jurisdiction but the general principles will be applicable to the US; the particulars may vary. There will be overarching legislation that governs the operation of companies. In Australia this law is national, from my limited understanding incorporation of companies in the US is a state matter. This legislation will dictate what companies can and can't do. Typically, such laws require a company to have a constitution which is essentially a contract between all the shareholders with each other and with the company. The law will say what must, may and must not be addressed in the constitution. It is here that such things as issuing new shares and options and transferring existing shares will be addressed. You say "It has not issued any shares or stock options yet." This cannot be true; in order for there to be a company there must be at least one shareholder. Specifics Issuing stock options or shares may be a power granted by the constitution to the CEO but is usually reserved to the board or more rarely to the members (shareholders). So Alison must determine if she, in fact, has the power to bind the company to such an agreement with Carol or if she needs board (or membership) authorisation. As an aside, if Alison does not have the power and signs the agreement anyway, then Carol would probably have the legal right to force the Company to honour it; this is because third-parties are entitled to the presumption that an officer of the company does have the power. The company would have to issue the shares to Carol and seek redress from Alison for breaching her duty to the company. Such an agreement would generally be considered a contract binding the company (not Alice) and Carol providing that it met the threshold requirements: Intention to create legal relations (on the face of it - yes) Agreement Consideration (the company is giving shares to Alice - what is Alice giving the company? A "free" promise is only enforceable if executed as a deed.) Legal Capacity (e.g. Is Alice drunk? Is the company insolvent?) Genuine Consent (Is there a mistake, undue influence, duress, unconscionable conduct etc.?) Legality of Objects (a contract cannot be formed to cover illegal activities) If the agreement constitutes a contract then it is legally enforceable. A good formulation for any contract is one that, in line with the complexity and value of the contract, covers: the obligations of each party (who will do what and when) is clear about when the contract has reached completion covers reasonable contingencies ("if this happens then this person will do that") provides a reasonable dispute resolution mechanism (negotiation -> intense negotiation -> mediation -> arbitration -> litigation) a severance provision which states that if any part of the contract is illegal or unenforceable then that provision shall be excised (in the absence of this if any part of the contract is null then legally the whole contract is) For your contract it should cover: What Carol does and when What the company does and when Considers reasonable contingencies and their consequences (e.g. failure of a party to perform, extraneous events like insolvency etc.) Has a way of resolving disputes a severance provision The consequences of not fulfilling the terms of a contract can include: Affirm that the contract continues Terminating the contract Repudiating the contract (i.e. there never was a contract) Seeking an order for Specific Performance Seeking an injunction Seeking damages

What is the penalty for illegitimate quoting?

I recently saw this Tweet and it made me wonder, in general, can a person be penalized for attributing a false quote to another person? If so, what would that penalty be? If it’s a law, is it a state law or federal law? President Obama at the UN: "Please accept this nothingburger in place of a respectable climate plan" — Duncan Meisel (@duncanwrites) September 23, 2014 (Answers regarding the U.S. are sought, but answers regarding other nations are welcome as well.)

In the US, it is not illegal to lie in general. This includes lying about someone: it's not illegal per se to lie about them. What is illegal is slander and libel: lying about someone in a way that hurts their reputation. The defamation doctrine in the US is generally a common-law doctrine (i.e. the rules and limits are based on court decisions, rather than on laws passed by legislatures), although it may differ state-by-state. Depending on the state, some defamation may be criminal; there is no federal criminal defamation. US defamation law is largely defined through its interaction with the First Amendment. While libel is not constitutionally protected, punishment for libel is seriously limited by the need to avoid either punishing protected speech, or chilling potential protected speech (i.e. discouraging people from saying something that would in fact be protected, because they aren't sure whether or not it's protected). Libel in the US only applies to a false statement of fact , or an opinion which implies some false fact. If it can't actually be proven incorrect, it can't be libelous in the US. The question of whether it's a statement of fact doesn't just depend on the literal speech; it includes things like the context, and is a question about what a reasonable person would think. If I were to claim that someone was "literally Hitler," for instance, no reasonable person would think I was seriously claiming that the person was the former leader of Nazi Germany. Now, no reasonable person who is familiar with Twitter would ever assume that the tweet meant Obama literally stood up in front of the UN and said "Please accept this nothingburger in place of a respectable climate plan." So, it only counts as libel if a reasonable person would think it implies some fact. But a reasonable person familiar with Twitter would most likely think Miesel is saying "The president's pollution plan is a pointless piece of political puffery planned to placate principalities and potentates." This is basically a matter of opinion. Even to the extent that it's not a matter of opinion, public figures in the US cannot win a defamation suit unless they show "actual malice:" the speaker must actually know or actually strongly suspect that their statement is false in some material way. It's not enough that a reasonable person would think "this might not be true;" the speaker themselves must doubt the truth of it (they must be reckless, not just negligent). Courts are also extremely deferential to defendants in these cases. While it is technically possible for a public figure to prove defamation, it is exceptionally difficult. If the person didn't know they were falsely attributing the quote, and honesty thought it was correct, they're in the clear. If the quote isn't supposed to be a statement of fact, but it implies false facts, but the speaker honestly thinks those facts are true, they're in the clear. Private figures don't have to meet the actual malice standard to prove defamation. They still need to show that the statement is a statement of fact or something implying false facts; if it's obviously a summary of something they really said, possibly with added editorial comment, they can't prove defamation.

What is the advantage of setting up separate IP holding companies?

I find that many companies set up separate companies to hold intellectual property. Examples follow: Dunkin' Brands Group, the company which operates the Dunkin' Donuts and Baskin-Robbins chains, has associated intellectual properties assigned to DD IP Holder, LLC and BR IP Holder, LLC , respectively. Gearbox Software, developer of the Borderlands franchise and Battleborn , has associated intellectual properties assigned to IPerion, LLC , and Necromonger, LLC , respectively. What are the advantages of maintaining an IP holding company(ies) separate from the operating company? What disadvantages might there be for doing this? Answers should be in the context of United States law.

Placing assets (real or otherwise) in a holding company separate from the operating company serves a number of purposes. It is a form of insolvency insurance; creditors of the operating company have no recourse on the assets of the holding company. It can be a tax minimization mechanism: The holding company charges a licence fee to the operating company, either splitting profits for a jurisdiction with a progressive tax rate or transferring profits to a tax haven. It can offer different investment profiles: some people want to own IP and collect rent, others want to operate businesses - splitting the functions allows shareholders to take different stakes in each company. This works for both private and public companies.

What is the advantage of setting up separate IP holding companies?

I find that many companies set up separate companies to hold intellectual property. Examples follow: Dunkin' Brands Group, the company which operates the Dunkin' Donuts and Baskin-Robbins chains, has associated intellectual properties assigned to DD IP Holder, LLC and BR IP Holder, LLC , respectively. Gearbox Software, developer of the Borderlands franchise and Battleborn , has associated intellectual properties assigned to IPerion, LLC , and Necromonger, LLC , respectively. What are the advantages of maintaining an IP holding company(ies) separate from the operating company? What disadvantages might there be for doing this? Answers should be in the context of United States law.

For these examples, the principle motivation is probably to separate the different brands into different companies for accounting and for potential future sale.

Why are judges allowed to read news and media opinions?

I find it interesting that apparently judges are allowed to read news and opinions about the litigation in front of them, whereas juries would not be. Why is there such a distinction, and are there any limitations to ensure fair rulings? For example, this is regarding Citing previous Malibu Media’s sheer abuse of court process, New York judge denies early discovery (via DSLR: King v. TWC ), where the judge apparently cites some industry study about copyright trolls, and explicitly names the plaintiff as such, denying its motions and dropping the lawsuit.

Your question slightly misrepresents what the article says: Yes, the judge denied the motion which led to the collapse of the case, he did not make a ruling on the substance of the case. The distinction is significant to my mind as the judge was using non-evidentiary knowledge (i.e. what he read in the paper) to make a decision on process ; in this case a process that would have put a lot of people to a lot of inconvenience. It would not be proper for the judge to have used such knowledge to inform a judgement . It is also not clear from the article if the academic paper in question was actually introduced by the defendant as evidence. If that was the case then it is only right and proper for the judge to consider it. As to why a judge is allowed to read the news and a jury is not, I can offer several ideas: A judge must document their reasoning process in a judgement which is subject to review - if they were to make a decision based on matters not supported by the evidence then an appeals court could correct it. Alternatively, juries are specifically prohibited from revealing their reasoning process to anyone . Judges do their jobs for years, perhaps a whole career - to prohibit them from consuming media is a) unworkable and b) a serious impediment on their lifestyle. Juries are empaneled for weeks or months - such sacrifices are more reasonable. Judges are (supposedly) trained and impartial professionals who are more readily able to make the distinction between evidence and news. Newsworthy cases are relatively rare

Is occupation distinct from "source of income"?

As per California Government Code, section 12955 , it's illegal to discriminate housing accommodation based on the source of income. However, what about the occupation itself? For example, is it possible to have an apartment complex dedicated to those in the field of engineering? Or where all occupants are engaged in (unrelated) technical startups?

The Code defines "Source of income" as : lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or paid to a representative of a tenant. There's nothing to suggest that the occupation is a relevant consideration otherwise. What it would mean is that if the occupation of a person is relevant to their source of income, it would be illegal to discriminate on that basis. I would consider occupation distinct from source of income - I could (but don't) have a family trust that is my source of income, and my occupation is volunteer work. My occupation is very clearly not my source of income.

Does a contractual notice period apply to internal transfers?

I work for a UK company. My contractual notice period is one month. Recently I've successfully applied for an internal post at a higher salary. My understanding is that I will start work in the new post in one months time, at the new salary. My manager says that the amount of time before I start in the new role is up to their discretion, say about 3 months. Moreover, that because I'll be working in my current role with my current responsibilities, then I'll be paid my old salary. My questions are: is this legal and what can I do about it?

This will depend in part on the industry you are in, the terms of the position that and the employment contract you have signed. You may have covenant or some other confidentiality clauses in your contract of employment, so I will not ask you to provide specifics. However, if you do, please be wary of any such obligations. I'm not a lawyer, but I have not been able to locate case law that would support an action for you. However, here are some points I might raise. I would want to know why you believe you would be starting in a month. If this is what was advertised, then it is possible you may have some valid claim. It is almost certainly the case that, if you haven't signed a new contract, they are not obliged to give you your new responsibilities and salary. There could be just reasons for this - if a company advertises a position on the basis that a position will be vacated, and then it isn't, for example. If you are, in fact, continuing to fulfil your current duties, then I wouldn't see any reason why they would be obliged to pay you the new salary. Can they keep paying you at your current rate for fulfilling your current duties? Yes. What can you do about it? Legally? There's not enough information here to find out. You can retain a solicitor to review any paperwork if you feel like you have a case.

Does a contractual notice period apply to internal transfers?

I work for a UK company. My contractual notice period is one month. Recently I've successfully applied for an internal post at a higher salary. My understanding is that I will start work in the new post in one months time, at the new salary. My manager says that the amount of time before I start in the new role is up to their discretion, say about 3 months. Moreover, that because I'll be working in my current role with my current responsibilities, then I'll be paid my old salary. My questions are: is this legal and what can I do about it?

I am not familiar with the jurisdiction, I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer. The "notice period" as I understand it is the notice that you have to give before you quit and that they have to give before they make you redundant; that is, it is related to termination of employment. It does not apply here. Your employment is not being terminated; you are being promoted. The promotion would take effect from (and the higher salary be payable from) the day you assume the duties of the position. This could be tomorrow, next month, 3 years from last Saturday - whatever the company requires. It may be illegal for them to de jure give the promotion and then delay so long that you have that they have de facto denied that promotion. "3 years from last Saturday" probably falls into that category; "3 months" probably doesn't

If Person A gets permission to use Person B's computer, but uses it for illegal activities, who is held liable?

I had this idea to make a network where people can get paid to let other people use their computer for computing purposes. Let's say they got permission to use Person B's computer under terms and conditions, basically saying: "I will not do anything illegal using this computer." And they agreed upon the terms. But Person A used Person B's computer to do something illegal like, let's say, distributing paid music for free (without permission) using that computer as a server, so they are violating copyright law. But how can one say "Person B is innocent!" in a valid way, before they have to even leave for court. Oh, and Person A and Person B both have unlimited liability .

This is likely to depend on whether Person B is aware of what Person A is doing, regardless of any imputations Person A makes as to the nature of their business. If Person B is aware, or it is found that Person B ought to have been aware, that Person A is doing something illegal, then they may be held contributorily liable for damages suffered. For instance, in (what is still) a landmark case for copyright infringement, A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (2001), Napster was found to be contributorily guilty of copyright infringement. A defense that they attempted is they weren't aware of it - which was thrown out on the basis that they should have, and could have, known that it was happening. I'm not a lawyer, but you'll need to give a lot more information about the situation for liability to be determined. Oh, and also — both of them could be held liable. It's not necessarily a case of one or the other.

Does "so as to" limit the application of a permission, or define it as a possible use case

I have been asked to sign an employment agreement which includes The Employee irrevocably appoints the Employer as the Employee’s lawful and authorised attorney to sign a document or do any thing and generally to use the Employee’s name so as to give to the Employer the full benefit of this clause. in the clause relating to Intellectual Property. My main concern here is that so as to reads to me as if it was an example of possible usage, and not a limitation of authorisation. Something along the lines of "appoint us as your attorney so we can sign paperwork, such as those required for this clause, on your behalf." Using the example from https://english.stackexchange.com/a/129573 Ensure that the firewall is properly configured so as to prevent an attacker from infiltrating our network. could seem to support this since a "properly configured firewall" can do more than just protect your network from infiltration. If the phrase for the purposes of was used instead it would read as though authorisation was being granted, but would be restricted to this one specific use case. In terms of legal documents (and probably everywhere else?) does so as to restrict the authorisation to only the provided purpose?

Contractual terms must always be read in context. Given the context, it is unlikely that the term could support the definition that you are worried about. It is clear that the purpose of you appointing the company as your attorney is to allow them to perfect the IP rights you have given them by the other parts of the clause; not to allow them to sell your house or make end-of-life decisions. If you are worried about it, ask them what they mean and ask for the clause to be clarified to your satisfaction.

Public domain status of works by the state of Texas

Stuff written by employees of the US government as part of their employment are supposed to be public domain simply because they're a US government employee, per Wikipedia . So what about for the state of Texas? More specifically, what about student publications like The Daily Texan that are owned by a state-owned university?

The situation in Texas is unclear . It is worth mentioning Texas as a state where the law may require statutory authorization in order to copyright state documents. Although the statute does not explicitly state such as a requirement, it can be inferred from an attorney general opinion. At a bare minimum, the Department of Health, the State Preservation Board, the Water Development Board, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and county governments all have statutory authority to hold copyrights. In your specific case, there's an additional complication. Something is only a work of the State of Texas if one of the following is true: 1) it was created by a government employee as part of their job duties, or 2) it was a work for hire . It's quite likely that neither of the above is true for a student newspaper, rendering the question of Texas-owned copyrights irrelevant.

Public domain status of works by the state of Texas

Stuff written by employees of the US government as part of their employment are supposed to be public domain simply because they're a US government employee, per Wikipedia . So what about for the state of Texas? More specifically, what about student publications like The Daily Texan that are owned by a state-owned university?

State government works in the US are not uncopyrightable in the US in general; the copyright law just doesn't protect federal works.

Sexually Discriminatory Uniform

In my school/sixth form the uniform policy states that girls are not allowed to wear trousers and boys are not allowed to wear skirts. Despite multiple attempts to come to a civil solution to this situation we, the student council, have failed to get this amended so that it does not discriminate. Surely in this day and age such discrimination cannot be legal in the UK? Do we have any legal grounds under which we can formally challenge the school about this blatantly sexist policy?

The answer is a clear maybe . See https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/types-of-discrimination Discriminating on the basis of sex is illegal, however, applying different rules on uniforms is probably not discrimination under the law. To be discriminatory it must put the class of person at an unfair disadvantage, be harassment or victimisation. You would have to demonstrate that refusing to allow females to wear trousers puts them at an unfair disadvantage (and vice versa because these are separate discriminations) - victimisation is not an issue here, harassment might be but it would have to be actually happening. You should look at things like comfort, practicality, sports, play etc.; the problem is that the better your argument for girls the worse it is for boys.😓 The steps you can take are spelled out in the link, starting with communicating with the organisation. So marshal your arguments and write them a letter and then move on to mediation. At the very least you should get an insight into why they oppose your position. If you deal constructively with their concerns you may get what you want.

Is there a recourse against UPS for not delivering packages on time?

I have a "new" address and ZIP code that appears to confuse UPS and consistently causes them to delay delivery of packages to me. I've tried filing complaints with UPS itself, but to no avail: I tried talking with their local dispatcher but they still don't do much other than help finally locate and deliver the individual missing-package-of-the-week. As a consumer, I don't even get to select which carrier the merchants I buy from will use so, as far as I'm concerned, UPS has a sort of monopoly here. I've tried filing a BBB report, but it appears that BBB doesn't concern itself with requests for compensation other than refunds. I would like to make some sort of punitive claim against UPS, even if it is just symbolic. What recourse do I have against UPS for their negligent service to me?

Private carriers typically (and UPS in particular) only have a contractual obligation to the person who pays to send the package. Unless you're the one directly paying UPS to deliver the package you have no legal recourse because you're not a party to the "contract of carriage." It does seem like you're suffering due to contractual and operational failures of UPS, but your recourse is against the merchant you paid for the goods, because you also paid them for delivery. The merchant has recourse against UPS under their contract if they want to pursue it. Legally : UPS does not have a monopoly on shipping, and their contractual duty is only to their customer. The best you can do is encourage those from whom you purchase to aggressively claim against UPS for delays, and to use other carriers when possible.

How hard should a car insurance company try to keep a policy holder up to date?

This is a situation that I find myself in currently, albeit much abbreviated: The insurance for our car was due to be renewed. Having not heard from the company, we logged into the on-line portal and saw "No action required, your policy will be renewed on XX/XX/XXXX" . Assuming the company's own portal would be correct, we let it roll over (as we did the year before, without issue). Then, we got pulled over by the police for no insurance, so we re-checked the portal and it stated the same, No action required . We phoned up customer services and they (unhelpfully) said, "We sent you an e-mail [Which we never received] and we won't issue a Letter of Indemnity because we sent that [single] e-mail" We checked our inbox, we got all the monthly news updates, but no e-mail about renewal. So, now we're stuck with a producer that we cannot produce because their portal claimed we had to do nothing. My question is this: If an insurance company are not planning on renewing your policy because they "require more information", yet their own portal claims the opposite, how liable are they? Additional information: All other renewals we had with them, we got no correspondence until a week after the renewal date (when we received the digital and hard-copy certificate). We assumed it would be the same this year also. No payments have been missed, the last one being taken on the first of the month (3 days before the renewal date). They claim this is for the final month of the period covered by the old policy. They are refusing the Letter of Indemnity as they deem a single e-mail - without any attempted follow up by phone or mail - is sufficient to state intent (contrary to the portal) of not renewing. Also note that we proved this e-mail was never received by microsoft customer servers who kindly restored all deleted messages to ensure it wasn't a client error). UK law provides that drivers must be insured (see selected answer). Please let me know if any other information is required.

Although your question didn't ask about the criminal side of this, it's important to consider the offence of driving without insurance in the UK. Section 143 Road Traffic Act 1998 provides that— (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act— (a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act ... (2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence. (3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves— ... (c) that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above. If it's not too late, it may be worth challenging the matter in court on the basis of a s143(1)(c) defence (i.e. you didn't have reason to believe that your policy was not in force). You should speak to a solicitor immediately if you want to consider this. As mentioned in the previous answer, you may have a claim against the insurer if you can provide that you were misled into believing that your policy had been renewed automatically. You should read the terms and conditions carefully to discover whether they were entitled to communicate on matters of renewal solely by email. Again, you should speak to a solicitor to establish whether you have a realistic prospect of success. (in case you're curious, the 'security' mentioned in s143 refers to a sum of £500,000 which, if deposited with the Courts Funds Office, exempts an individual or corporation from the insurance requirement)

How hard should a car insurance company try to keep a policy holder up to date?

This is a situation that I find myself in currently, albeit much abbreviated: The insurance for our car was due to be renewed. Having not heard from the company, we logged into the on-line portal and saw "No action required, your policy will be renewed on XX/XX/XXXX" . Assuming the company's own portal would be correct, we let it roll over (as we did the year before, without issue). Then, we got pulled over by the police for no insurance, so we re-checked the portal and it stated the same, No action required . We phoned up customer services and they (unhelpfully) said, "We sent you an e-mail [Which we never received] and we won't issue a Letter of Indemnity because we sent that [single] e-mail" We checked our inbox, we got all the monthly news updates, but no e-mail about renewal. So, now we're stuck with a producer that we cannot produce because their portal claimed we had to do nothing. My question is this: If an insurance company are not planning on renewing your policy because they "require more information", yet their own portal claims the opposite, how liable are they? Additional information: All other renewals we had with them, we got no correspondence until a week after the renewal date (when we received the digital and hard-copy certificate). We assumed it would be the same this year also. No payments have been missed, the last one being taken on the first of the month (3 days before the renewal date). They claim this is for the final month of the period covered by the old policy. They are refusing the Letter of Indemnity as they deem a single e-mail - without any attempted follow up by phone or mail - is sufficient to state intent (contrary to the portal) of not renewing. Also note that we proved this e-mail was never received by microsoft customer servers who kindly restored all deleted messages to ensure it wasn't a client error). UK law provides that drivers must be insured (see selected answer). Please let me know if any other information is required.

I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer Jurisdiction specific legislation regarding consumer protection, misrepresentation and insurance is all going to be applicable here and I don't know it so I can't address it. I also assume from you question that this insurance is required by law and that you commit an offence if you don't hold it. That said, here is some general common law background. First you need to determine if you are insured or not. A general insurance policy (like car insurance) is an enduring contract i.e. you have the one contract from when you sign up to when you leave (other types e.g. professional indemnity are a new contract every year). Within the terms of the policy will be details of how the contract is terminated - read them. Since the contract was drafted by the insurance company I would bet good money that they have placed the onus for renewal firmly on your shoulders. I would also be willing to bet that even if they have not insisted on your compliance in the past, there is a term in the contract that a specific waiver of a term on their part does not create a precedent. It is here that you need to do some research about if by their actions and the impact of the local law you are, in fact, insured even if they say you aren't Second, did you commit an offence What is the law here? Is having a "reasonable belief" that you are insured a defence? Third, what is their liability So, if you are not insured and did commit an offence then it is arguable that the insurance company, by their negligence, caused you to unknowingly commit that offence. In order to establish negligence as a Cause of Action under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant: had a duty to the plaintiff, breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person), the negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged If I were running their defence I would: Concede that a duty was owed Argue that it was fulfilled by putting the relevant information in the contract and the indemnity I sent you lest year with its prominent expiry date - you would have to show that I needed to do more (and you would certainly point to the fact that my website said all was A-OK) Argue that I did not cause you to drive without valid insurance - you, knowing you did not have an indemnity, nevertheless wantonly drove in violation of the law. I reckon I've got a shot here. You would have had to have suffered real loss. A fine may not be recoverable - there are good public policy reasons why you shouldn't be reimbursed for government sanctions. Recommendation Don't fight a legal battle over this. Point out to the insurance company that you have been a loyal customer and if they do right by you then you will continue to be loyal and tell all your friends and relations on Facebook and Twitter how great you are. If they do wrong by you then ...

Is it necessary to renew a tenancy agreement which states: "Expire on (but continuing thereafter by virtue of statute..)"

I have been living in UK for 10 years, lived in 5 different places. Only one of my previous landlords used to renew the contract every year. By renewing I mean signing a new contract and new dates but NO changes. Is it necessary to do that? when there is no changes in the circumstances or the line above validates the contract even after the expiry date?

If this is a typical private sector tenancy, then it would initially be a fixed-term one year'assured shorthold tenancy' a type of assured tenancy. The Housing Act 1988 says : If an assured tenancy which is a fixed term tenancy comes to an end otherwise than by virtue of— (a) an order of the court of the kind mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) or any other order of the court, or (b) a surrender or other action on the part of the tenant, then, subject to section 7 and Chapter II below, the tenant shall be entitled to remain in possession of the dwelling-house let under that tenancy and, subject to subsection (4) below, his right to possession shall depend upon a periodic tenancy arising by virtue of this section. So if the tenancy was not renewed then it would be replaced with a periodic tenancy. This has different rules to the fixed-term tenancy. Whether renewing the tenancy is necessary or not depends on whether either party strongly prefers the fixed-term tenancy to the periodic.

If no open source license is given on a github account, what rules apply?

The GitHub help pages says that You're under no obligation to choose a license. It's your right not to include one with your code or project, but please be aware of the implications. Generally speaking, the absence of a license means that the default copyright laws apply. This means that you retain all rights to your source code and that nobody else may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work. This might not be what you intend. Even if this is what you intend, if you publish your source code in a public repository on GitHub, you have accepted the Terms of Service which do allow other GitHub users some rights. Specifically, you allow others to view and fork your repository. Would a forked repository be able to be used to produce something commercially?

I'll quote from my answer on a similar question from Programmers.SE : ...[T]he Github TOS have this to say about material hosted on their site: By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories. Hosting on Github means that the author grants others the right to "view" and to "fork" the repository. Here, "fork" probably just means "use Github's fork feature", which creates a repository clone, hosted on Github. GitHub's use of "fork" here probably refers to the software feature of the website github.com called "Fork," which allows users to create a verbatim copy of a repository on github.com. The TOS do not require the author to grant any other specific rights, like the right to prepare derivative works or to redistribute copies of the work, so "fork" here probably is not used the general sense of "produce a derivative work." Thus, the code's presence on GitHub does not grant you rights to reuse the work in ways protected by copyright (commercial or otherwise) without a explicit license from the author.

How might the mention of "the acquis" amongst the principles of an international treaty affect its interpretation?

The Tripartite free-trade agreement was recently signed between various African nations, and includes the following text in its principles: The principles governing this Agreement shall be the following: [...] e) building on the acquis ; This term is not defined in the text. My understanding is that it therefore refers to the Community acquis , i.e. the "accumulated legislation, legal acts, and court decisions which constitute the body of European Union law". Please correct me if I have misinterpreted. My question is, how might this statement influence the way that the treaty is implemented? For instance, would this enable the dispute settlement mechanism to refer to precedents in EU law in reaching a decision? The full text of the agreement is available here .

Although the term acquis is very commonly (almost always?) used to refer to EU precedent, the word roughly translates as "that which has been agreed" and there's no reason that other legal communities can't use it to refer to their own body of previous decisions. Perhaps Wikipedia and Wiktionary are both misleading in their handling and redirection of this term. The intended meaning of this term within the Tripartite negotiation is explained by the Trade Law Centre in Redirecting the Tripartite Free Trade Agreement negotiations? v) Building on the acquis of the existing REC FTAs in terms of consolidating tariff liberalisation in each REC FTA Acquis is a French term meaning ‘that which has been agreed’. In the context of the Tripartite Free Trade Agreement it means that the negotiations should start from the point at which of the COMESA, EAC and SADC trade negotiations have reached. Tariff negotiations and the exchange of tariff concessions would be among Member/Partner States of the Tripartite FTA that have no preferential arrangements in place between them. This will both preserve the acquis and build on it.

When is it okay as a retail store owner to refuse service to a customer?

I was reading about the bakery that has been fined for refusing to provide a cake for a lesbian couple: http://jezebel.com/bakery-that-refused-to-bake-cake-for-lesbian-couple-mus-1715747809 ... and I wondered what rights retail store owners have for when they can or cannot refuse service. If a couple came into the bakery and smashed a display case (to go to an extreme) or used offensive language to the other customers, my assumption is that it would be legal for the bakery owner to refuse that couple service. (Please correct me if I'm mistaken.) However, it would be illegal for the bakery to refuse service to customers based on the color of their skin, sexual orientation, gender, etc. Could someone explain to me the legal distinctions therein? I believe there is something about the latter type being discrimination based on a "permanent condition" but that's the sort of thing I'm looking for some clarity about.

Federally, in places of public accommodation, discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin is prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was upheld in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States 379 U.S. 241. As summarized in that case, "Public Accommodations" cover: any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence any restaurant, cafeteria . . . any motion picture house . . . any establishment . . . which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or . . . within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment . . . In Oregon, there are additional restrictions imposed by the Equality Act of 2007 : Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older. In Oregon, a "place of public accommodation" includes: Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise. Other states may not have these extra prohibitions or different prohibitions. They may also have statutory exceptions for peoples' sincerely held religious beliefs. Why the legislature chose to specifically protect these classes is a policy question better asked on Politics.SE.

UK second hand car - should catalytic converter be covered under Sale of Goods Act?

I recently bought a second hand car from a fairly small dealership. Within 60 miles of driving the engine management light came on. I took it back and they diagnosed the problem as being the catalytic converter and said this wasn't covered by the warranty as it is classified as "wear and tear". They cleared the fault code and gave the car back to me, and said to bring it back again if the warning light comes back on. Again, after about 60 miles driving the light has come back on, so I need to take it back again. I'm certain that they knew about this fault before I bought the car - it's too much of a coincidence that it happened just after I bought the car. I think it should be covered by the 1979 Sale of Goods Act because any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that the fault was there before I bought the vehicle, but the dealer obviously disagrees. Am I covered by the Sale of Goods Act? Or should I just give in and get it repaired myself? I don't want to start mentioning legal stuff like this to them if I don't have a leg to stand on.

I am not a lawyer; I am not your lawyer. From the Sale of Goods Act 1979: (2)Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality. (2A)For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods , the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances . (2B)For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods— (a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied, (b)appearance and finish, (c)freedom from minor defects, (d)safety, and (e)durability. (2C)The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory— (a)which is specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention before the contract is made, (b)where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or (c)in the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample. Based on my interpretation of this, it would depend on the information about the car you were provided at the time you bought it. If the information you were given was such that a reasonable person would expect the catalytic converter to be faulty, then the Sale of Goods Act is unlikely to serve your interests, in this case. If the representations were that the car was fit for purpose, however, and a reasonable person would have expected it to run without fault for some reasonable amount of time, then you may be able to bring an action against the dealership. Note: The fact that a reasonable person would come to the conclusion that the fault was pre-existing is irrelevant if it was disclosed ahead of time. Additionally, the fact that it was a used car may change what would be considered reasonable in this case. In either case, I suggest you seek legal advice and/or a second opinion from another mechanic on your car. You may be able to find out more about whether this is, in fact, something that would be expected. Also, keep all documentation you have, including any advertisements for the sale of the car.

Log Viewing Specific Patient PHI?

Under the HIPAA and HITECH Regulations (US) is it required for a system to record an audit trail for every time a user accesses any PHI(Protected Health Information)? As I understand it, an audit trail of user logins is required, as well as any time a user adds, edits, or deletes PHI. Does simply viewing / accessing PHI need to be logged as well?

Simply viewing must be logged. 45 CFR 170.210(b) Record actions related to electronic health information. The date, time, patient identification, and user identification must be recorded when electronic health information is created, modified, accessed , or deleted; and an indication of which action(s) occurred and by whom must also be recorded.

Legal term for negotiator

For some reason I've been looking for an official term for a person or company (agent?) acting on behalf of other organization (principal?). Example is company A wants to construct a factory in country C. So company A hires company B to negotiate with officials of country C to make an agreement. Can you please provide a document with the term, esp. contracts, if possible?

The standard legal term you are probably looking for to describe Company B is " attorney-in-fact ." For contract purposes you can call the parties whatever you want. These are "defined terms," and what matters are the rights and responsibilities as enumerated in any contract. E.g., you could define Company B as "The Big Kahuna" and as long as that term is used consistently in the contract it's legally as good as any other. Other common terms could certainly include "Agent," "Negotiator," or "Intermediary."

What does the long underscore in United States case citations stand for?

United States court cases are commonly cited like this: Obergefell v. Hodges , 576 U.S. ___ (2015) So... what is "___" here?

Underscores are often used to indicate that the particular case has not yet been assigned to a specific volume (preceding the reporter abbreviation) or page (following the reporter abbreviation). In your example, the case will appear in volume 576, but the exact page has not yet been determined.

What does the long underscore in United States case citations stand for?

United States court cases are commonly cited like this: Obergefell v. Hodges , 576 U.S. ___ (2015) So... what is "___" here?

This is a citation of a slip opinion, an opinion that has not yet been bound into a volume. A permanent reference is not yet possible, so the blank lines serve as placeholders for the information that will be added when it becomes available. For this reason, the page number of the slip opinion is provided, when it is required, in parentheses after the placeholder citation. For example: See United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. _, _ (2013) (ALITO, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 7).

Pay electricity bill after being evicted on no contract?

I moved into a house and started paying rent of $110 per week however I was unaware that none of the other tenants (and hence myself) were on a contract so we were essentially squatters. The electricity bill was also in the name of another tenant living there. After a while we were evicted by the landlord as we did not have a contract. This was a surprise and disappointment at the same time since I needed a place to live and study (I am a university student). Now 8 weeks after we were all evicted the tenant that had the electricity bill received the final bill and now expects me to pay part of it despite the fact that I wasn't even living there for 2/3 of the billing period (4 weeks of the period I was there, then got evicted and 8 weeks I was not there and the billing period is 3 months or 12 weeks). My name is not on any rent or utility contract so I'm not even sure if I am legally obliged to have to pay that money to him (it's about $50). What are my options?

I am not a lawyer; I am not your lawyer. You do not cite a jurisdiction so this makes it very difficult to get a definitive answer. What follows is for Australia but the general principles are common law and would be applicable to other common law jurisdictions except where statues apply or case law has diverged. In the first instance, it seems that you were not party to any arrangement to pay for the electricity. So on the face of it you are not party to any contract requiring you to pay. Even if there was such an agreement: family, domestic, social and voluntary agreements (which this would be) are presumed not to be intended to legally bind the participants. Whether this presumption would be overturned would depend on the specific facts. On the face of it, there is no legal obligation to pay. Your options are: Do nothing; this puts the ball in their court, they can: Forget about it (it would then be over) Attempt to sue you with little prospect of success (which would cost them and you a lot more than $50 irrespective of who won) Do something illegal like beating you up (you really need to assess this risk) Tell everyone they know (in person and on social media) what a skiving prick you are (you could probably sue them for damages but that's not really going to happen, is it?) Pay them what they are asking Offer to pay them something less. Option 1 is likely to break any relationship you have with the person, Option 2 is likely to preserve it and Option 3 could go either way. Ultimately, like most legal questions, this is not about the law; it's about relationships ... broken ones mostly.

Pay electricity bill after being evicted on no contract?

I moved into a house and started paying rent of $110 per week however I was unaware that none of the other tenants (and hence myself) were on a contract so we were essentially squatters. The electricity bill was also in the name of another tenant living there. After a while we were evicted by the landlord as we did not have a contract. This was a surprise and disappointment at the same time since I needed a place to live and study (I am a university student). Now 8 weeks after we were all evicted the tenant that had the electricity bill received the final bill and now expects me to pay part of it despite the fact that I wasn't even living there for 2/3 of the billing period (4 weeks of the period I was there, then got evicted and 8 weeks I was not there and the billing period is 3 months or 12 weeks). My name is not on any rent or utility contract so I'm not even sure if I am legally obliged to have to pay that money to him (it's about $50). What are my options?

In general in the absence of a contract one has no clear legal obligation to pay for a shared service. Note, however, that the absence of a written contract does not mean that no contract is in force: Courts have often held that oral and even implied contracts hold the same force of law as a written contract. If you want legal advice you need to talk to a lawyer. But if I paid someone $110 for rent who was not authorized to rent a living space, was evicted for that fraud, and hadn't explicitly agreed to pay the unauthorized renter a share of the electric bill, I would just ignore it.

Can I be sued for posting a night picture of the Eiffel Tower under CC-BY-SA?

I am an American tourist visiting France, and take a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night, the tower being the main and central subject of the picture. Going back to the US, I upload this picture to my website under a CC-BY-SA license. Can I be sued for infringing the copyright of the Eiffel Tower's lighting design?

Yes . Your work is a derivative from the Eiffel lightning so you could be sued (the Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel may not be too interested in prosecuting you at a foreign country, and thus you might get away with it, but they certainly can). You can license your copyright in the photo, but their copyright still remain, so the full photo cannot be used as CC-BY-SA unless they also licensed their piece or until it expires. Depending of the contents of the photo you could claim that it is Fair Use (applicable to using the photo on your website, not to your claim that the photo is CC-BY-SA) or de minimis (if the eiffel tower was not the main focus, you should take into account the how it is interpretated in US and France). You seem to think that by publishing from US you don't need to care about French copyright but that's not the case, since both are signers of the Berne Convention. However, a possible outcome of being sued in the US and winning might be that court ruled that the Eiffel lightining is not really copyrightable.

Can I be sued for posting a night picture of the Eiffel Tower under CC-BY-SA?

I am an American tourist visiting France, and take a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night, the tower being the main and central subject of the picture. Going back to the US, I upload this picture to my website under a CC-BY-SA license. Can I be sued for infringing the copyright of the Eiffel Tower's lighting design?

If it is subject to US law (and my understanding of the Berne convention Article 5(4)a is that it is) then no . As detailed here http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-architectural-photos.html ; architectural copyright came into force on 1 December 1990 and any buildings constructed before then (e.g. the Eifel Tower) are not protected. I do not know when the current lighting installation was made but I think you would be safe even if this happened latter because: It is debatable if the illumination of a piece of architecture is itself covered by copyright. The plans that document the design of the lighting clearly are as is the tower itself but I don't think that the term "architecture" can be extended to cover just the illumination; but I may be wrong about that. Except for buildings that can’t be viewed from a public space, the copyright owner of a post-1990 building (the architect, developer or building owner) can’t prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the building. (17 U.S.C. 120).

Can a debt collection agency tell a half truth about who they are?

I am in Washington state. Recently, I've been receiving calls from Conserve, a company that provides private and confidential services to private and public companies (as stated by the agent on the phone). This immediately made me suspicious, and when I asked for more information, they simply stated that they could not give me any more information. I told them that the person they were looking for was not available, and they stated that they would call back later. Before I could tell them not to, they had hung up. I looked up the company, and found that they are a debt collection agency, and on their website, it states that This communication is from a debt collector, and is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. As far as I am aware, if it is a debt collection agency calling, don't they have to inform of this, before I tell them any information? There is not automated message that states this, and it is from a different number each day. The reason I am certain that it is a debt collection agency calling, is because the person that they are looking for, has told me about debts that they have, and have received letters attempting to collect a debt. What steps can I take in this situation to either prevent them from calling, or have them at least let me know who they are?

They don't have to inform you that they are a debt collector. Because that can be a violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692b(2) by exposing that the person they are attempting to collect from has a debt. They are required to: identify himself, state that he is confirming or correcting location information concerning the consumer, and, only if expressly requested, identify his employer -- 15 U.S.C. Section 1692b(1) They also may not use any language indicates that the debt collector is in the debt collection business or that the communication relates to the collection of a debt 15 U.S.C. Section 1692b(5) What they do not have the right to do is harass you. They can not attempt to contact you again 15 U.S.C. Section 1692b(3) unless they have reason to believe you lied. I would contact the company back and inform them that you wish to have your number removed from their calling list, and that future calls may be a violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692b(3) . Also, send them a notice in the mail. If they continue to attempt to contact you, report them to the FTC. You may also be entitled to monetary damages as well. See FTC The judge can require the debt collector to pay you up to $1,000, even if you can’t prove that you suffered actual damages. You also can be reimbursed for your attorney’s fees and court costs. To file a claim with the FTC, go to there online claim for debt collectors Its worth it to show that you won't joke with them. I had a "debt" with T-Mobile (really, I had a billing error in their favor, and they admitted to it, but would not stop the debt collectors) and they violated the rules. I tried to work with them, 6 months later, they damaged my credit. I contacted FTC about it and T-Mobile with in 3 days had the debt cleared and reversed on my credit. They also paid for my damages. All I wanted was the debt cleared. Note: for calls being recorded, always make sure you follow local laws and inform the other party that the call is recorded. If they have a right to record you, you have a right to record them. You must always infrom them as well.

Can a debt collection agency tell a half truth about who they are?

I am in Washington state. Recently, I've been receiving calls from Conserve, a company that provides private and confidential services to private and public companies (as stated by the agent on the phone). This immediately made me suspicious, and when I asked for more information, they simply stated that they could not give me any more information. I told them that the person they were looking for was not available, and they stated that they would call back later. Before I could tell them not to, they had hung up. I looked up the company, and found that they are a debt collection agency, and on their website, it states that This communication is from a debt collector, and is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. As far as I am aware, if it is a debt collection agency calling, don't they have to inform of this, before I tell them any information? There is not automated message that states this, and it is from a different number each day. The reason I am certain that it is a debt collection agency calling, is because the person that they are looking for, has told me about debts that they have, and have received letters attempting to collect a debt. What steps can I take in this situation to either prevent them from calling, or have them at least let me know who they are?

If... The person calling you is included in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") definition of debt collector 1 : (6) The term “debt collector” means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. Notwithstanding the exclusion provided by clause (F) of the last sentence of this paragraph, the term includes any creditor who, in the process of collecting his own debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts. For the purpose of section 1692f (6) of this title, such term also includes any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the enforcement of security interests. The term does not include— (A) any officer or employee of a creditor while, in the name of the creditor, collecting debts for such creditor; (B) any person while acting as a debt collector for another person, both of whom are related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if the person acting as a debt collector does so only for persons to whom it is so related or affiliated and if the principal business of such person is not the collection of debts; (C) any officer or employee of the United States or any State to the extent that collecting or attempting to collect any debt is in the performance of his official duties; (D) any person while serving or attempting to serve legal process on any other person in connection with the judicial enforcement of any debt; (E) any nonprofit organization which, at the request of consumers, performs bona fide consumer credit counseling and assists consumers in the liquidation of their debts by receiving payments from such consumers and distributing such amounts to creditors; and (F) any person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another to the extent such activity (i) is incidental to a bona fide fiduciary obligation or a bona fide escrow arrangement; (ii) concerns a debt which was originated by such person; (iii) concerns a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person; or (iv) concerns a debt obtained by such person as a secured party in a commercial credit transaction involving the creditor. And... They do not fall under the exclusions provided for in § 1692p of the Act, 2 : Subject to paragraph (2), a private entity shall be excluded from the definition of a debt collector, pursuant to the exception provided in section 1692a (6) of this title, with respect to the operation by the entity of a program described in paragraph (2)(A) under a contract described in paragraph (2)(B). Then... They are required to identify themselves as a debt collector by the FDCPA (15 U.S. Code § 1692e(11) 3 , my emphasis): ... disclose in the initial written communication with the consumer and, in addition, if the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in that initial oral communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose , and ... disclose in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector , except that this paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action. Or, in plain English: If you are the person for whom they are calling/to whom they are writing, they must disclose that they are a debt collection agency in all communications. If the initial communication is oral, they must also disclose that they will collect information for this purpose. However If you are not the person the debt collector is calling for, § 1692b (2)-(3) applies 4 : Any debt collector communicating with any person other than the consumer for the purpose of acquiring location information about the consumer shall— (2) not state that such consumer owes any debt; (3) not communicate with any such person more than once unless requested to do so by such person or unless the debt collector reasonably believes that the earlier response of such person is erroneous or incomplete and that such person now has correct or complete location information; If they contravene the FDCPA... You may report them to the Fair Trade Commission (FTC), which is empowered to enforce the FDCPA administratively. You can also file a private lawsuit against the company. Violation of the FDCPA is actionable per se , without you needing to prove actual damages. You may be awarded statutory damages up to $1,000 plus legal fees, unless the debt collector can prove that this occurred despite procedures designed to prevent it. 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1692a 2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1692p , text truncated 3. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1692e 4. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1692b , text truncated

In England and Wales, how can a plaintiff remain private and confidential?

Suppose that a plaintiff wants to bring a lawsuit but keep his/her identity confidential, in either a criminal or a civil case. The plaintiff refuses to tell either the general public or the media who he/she is. When is this possible? Who decides this request for privacy? Does the plaintiff ever have to choose between appealing a case to a Supreme Court (example), and preserving anonymity? For example, the plaintiff may fear public general condemnation, reprisals, for his/her safety. I ask this for England and Wales, but please feel free to discuss other countries.

In general, court hearings are held in public; and anyone is free to make a fair and balanced report of the proceedings. It is important that justice is seen to be done. However, in some circumstances that is not true—the obvious example is if a child is involved. It is not sufficient though merely that "[the claimant] wants to keep his/her identity confidential". Have a look at the Civil Procedure Rules (part 39): 39.2 General rule – hearing to be in public The general rule is that a hearing [including a trial] is to be in public. ... A hearing, or any part of it, may be in private if – (a) publicity would defeat the object of the hearing; (b) it involves matters relating to national security; (c) it involves confidential information (including information relating to personal financial matters) and publicity would damage that confidentiality; (d) a private hearing is necessary to protect the interests of any child or protected party; (e) it is a hearing of an application made without notice and it would be unjust to any respondent for there to be a public hearing; (f) it involves uncontentious matters arising in the administration of trusts or in the administration of a deceased person’s estate; or (g) the court considers this to be necessary, in the interests of justice. The court may order that the identity of any party or witness must not be disclosed if it considers non-disclosure necessary in order to protect the interests of that party or witness. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part39#39.2 If you can satisfy the court that one of (a) to (g) apply, the court may make an order anonymizing proceedings (for instance, you would only be referred to as "AB" in reports and judgements) or it might hold the hearing in camera (in private). However the other party may well wish to oppose your application. Indeed, even a newspaper hearing of your case but unable to report it is entitled to object: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/1.html (In re Guardian News) Conclusion In these circumstances, when carrying out the ultimate test of balancing all the factors relating to both M's article 8 rights and the article 10 rights of the press, we have come to the conclusion that there is indeed a powerful general, public interest in identifying M in any report of these important proceedings which justifies curtailment, to that extent, of his, and his family's, article 8 Convention rights to respect for their private and family life. For all these reasons, we would set aside the anonymity order in respect of M. ... Therefore, A, K, M and HAY will be named here and in the judgments on the substantive appeals, as Mr Mohammed Jabar Ahmed, Mr Mohammed Azmir Khan, Mr Michael Marteen (formerly known as Mohammed Tunveer Ahmed) and Mr Hani El Sayed Sabaei Youssef (or Hani al-Seba'i), respectively.

Is there a (preferably free) way to search small claims court records in the UK?

I want to check up on a second hand car dealer in the UK to see if they've had any small claims court cases against them (and preferably the result of these cases). Is there any publicly available resource to see this kind of information?

This answer applies only to England and Wales. Unpaid County Court Judgments, and those that remained unpaid for thirty days after being handed down, are a matter of public record. They are held on the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines by virtue of The Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines Regulations 2005 . Judgments against individuals and corporations are both held. The register contains— the full name and address of the debtor in respect of whom the entry in the Register is to be made; if the entry is to be in respect of an individual, that individual’s date of birth (where known); the amount of the debt; the case number; the name of the court which made the judgment; and the date of the judgment. (abstracted from r10 of the Regulations ). The registrar is currently Trust Online . The CCJ register can be searched for a fee of £4 per search. Registers for other parts of the UK are also held.

Why was the due process clause added to the 14th Amendment?

The 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment both have due process clauses . The texts are almost identical: The Fifth Amendment: [N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . . The Fourteenth Amendment: [N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . . From all I've read - including a comment by cpast - the two clauses are interpreted identically. So why was the clause added to the 14th Amendment? The one difference seems to be the use of "State" in the 14th Amendment - thus applying it not just on a federal level - but I would think that the Constitution would be automatically applicable in all state level cases.

Your assumption is incorrect -- the Bill of Rights proper does not apply to the states, and pre-14th Amendment only bound the federal government. See Barron v. Baltimore , 32 US 243 . States could do whatever they wanted, subject to federal legislation on the matters given to the federal government and subject to their own constitutions. After the Civil War, the federal government was much less OK with so-called "black codes," restricting the rights of freedmen based on explicitly racial distinctions, with not even a fig leaf of justification that it applied to all citizens. The federal government could prevent federal discrimination, but no tools existed to prevent state discrimination. Hence, the 14th Amendment, which bound the states to adopt certain standards in their lawmaking and let Congress take action against those that didn't.

Do landlords in Texas really have a duty to mitigate?

Texas State Legislature has the following Statute on the books: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PR/htm/PR.91.htm Sec. 91.006. LANDLORD'S DUTY TO MITIGATE DAMAGES. (a) A landlord has a duty to mitigate damages if a tenant abandons the leased premises in violation of the lease. (b) A provision of a lease that purports to waive a right or to exempt a landlord from a liability or duty under this section is void. However, I spoke with a number of corporate landlords in West Campus, Austin, TX, and at least a quarter of them seem to be very surprised about any such law. Those surprised landlords do, however, seem to admit both of the following: that some of their tenants did most likely already remove all of their belongings about mid-May and possibly already returned the keys prior to the standard July 31 move-out date (end-of-July move-out (and mid-August move-in) are standard amongst most apartments in the area) those same tenants that have officially moved out are still happily paying rent (having clearly declared such an intent when returning the keys), and are not specifically interested in subletting (possibly because of the hefty penalties as below). Thus, the aforementioned landlords do not entertain any sublet requests from the walk-ins interested in a summer sublet, unless a prior contact with an existing tenant was made by such a walk-in. Is this legal? Doesn't this have the effect of the tenant effectively waiving their rights, which explicitly aren't supposed to be waiveable? Or, alternatively, can a contract really be drafted to such an effect that removing all personal effects from the room is not deemed abandonment and does not violate the lease as long as "rent" is paid? can a landlord refuse to accept keys prior to the end of the lease term, or, if keys are nonetheless submitted to landlord's possession, pretend that the keys are merely submitted for safekeeping, even when it's perfectly clear that keys were submitted at the end of the Spring term in mid-May, and the tenant will not be staying the rest of the lease until end of July? I've also noticed that at least some landlords have substantial penalties should one wish to argue abandonment (at which point "rent" becomes "damages"): accelerated rent (which is a favourite pastime for rental agreements in Texas, even though the legality of it is unclear); subletting fees, equivalent to as much as 85% of one month's rent, and payable regardless of the outcome of the subletting. Doesn't such excessive penalties effectively force scared tenants to pretend that they're staying over the summer until the very end of the lease, even if they're leaving two and a half months early in a relatively cold market?

If you have already paid out the lease, there is nothing for the landlord to mitigate. Under abandonment, the rent is not paid for the term of the lease. The mitigation statute is to dampen excessive, unnecessary damages. If you pay your rent, there are no damages. (If you do not pay, the landlord would have some responsibility to entertain new lessors, thus mitigating damages - the amount the initial lessor would have to pay for the term of the lease + in some jurisdictions the lessor would have to pay any additional costs the lessor incurs while mitigating such as advertising costs.) You might be able to sue to recover if you paid out your lease, moved out and the landlord obtained a new tenant before your lease would have expired since you would have a right to the property for the term of the lease. This would be a case when accelerated rent would be an issue. If you paid out your lease, you have a right to that property. In the case of accelerated rent, you have paid out your lease. Since the Texas Property Code does not define abandonment , it is up to either the individual lease or a judge to define it. It is important for a landlord to act carefully when declaring abandonment, especially if the lease does not define it. If nothing exists in the lease about abandonment and the landlord removes all of the tenant’s property, a court could consider it to be an illegal eviction in violation of the tenant’s rights. This, of course, would be judged on a case-by-case basis. Abandonment is defined under the TAA lease as when: Everybody appears to have moved out in the landlord’s reasonable judgment; Clothes, furniture, and personal belongings have been substantially removed from the dwelling; and No one has been in the dwelling for five consecutive days while the rent is due and unpaid. or A dwelling is abandoned 10 days after the death of a sole resident. The TAA lease continues: abandonment ends the tenant’s right of possession for all purposes and gives the landlord the immediate right to clean up; make repairs; relet the dwelling; determine any security deposit deductions; and remove property left in the dwelling. See also ATC’s Security Deposit Law brochure.

What is a "revolution"?

Texas v. White is generally regarded as the case that established that US states cannot unilaterally secede. The majority opinion stated that the union between Texas and the other States could not be dissolved: . . . except through revolution or through consent of the States. How is "revolution" distinguished from secession and civil war? Did Chief Justice Chase ever elaborate on this, or did any other case ever examine this detail of the ruling? Is a "revolution" simply a militarily successful secession?

According to Dorf in " No Litmus Test: Law Versus Politics in the Twenty-first Century " revolution "is the repudiation of the existing legal regime." He goes on to state that "any change at all could be authorized by a successful revolution – in the sense that after the revolution the legal rules that existed under the prior constitution would have no further independent force." This essentially means that revolution is the complete dissolution of the then current government. Without a government, there can be no upholding of laws. Revolution is different from secession and civil war in that secession and civil war leave the existing government intact but repudiate that government's control over the seceding parties. A secession can occur without a revolution (though not in the US, as that case states). Likewise, a revolution can occur without a war. Secession can occur with or without a war. And a revolution can occur with a war and without secession. Succinctly: civilians revolt, factions war.

Can US courts be made to define whether a given search is reasonable (i.e. constitutional)?

In 2014, regarding the forced disclosure of the encryption keys of his email service provider company Lavabit, Ladar Levison wrote : The largest technological question we raised in our appeal ( which the courts refused to consider ) was what constitutes a "search", i.e., whether law enforcement can demand the encryption keys of a business and use those keys to inspect the private communications of every customer, even when the court has only authorized them to access information belonging to specific targets. The emphasis is mine. Assuming Levison's statement to be true, my question is: is there a way in which one or more relevant courts could be made to consider, and issue a verdict on, that question; and if so, how? Clarity on the matter would seem to be in the public interest, after all.

Federal courts can issue opinions on any issue for which an appellant has standing. They tend to rule only as broadly as necessary to decide the particular case or controversy in front of them. Federal courts can also deny appeals. For both of those reasons, they cannot be forced or made to define the limits of reasonable search. However, the US Supreme Court has clarified many times whether a particular behaviour constituted a search, and if so, whether it constituted a reasonable search. In Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the court held that attaching a listening device to the exterior of a telephone booth constituted a search, and that it was an unreasonable search. In Smith v. Maryland 442 U.S. 735 (1979), the court held that using a pen register to obtain the records of phone numbers that were dialed by an individual was not a search. In United States v. Jones 565 U.S. ___ (2012), the court held that installing a GPS on Jones's car was a trespass and per se an unreasonable search. In Heien v. North Carolina 574 U.S. ___ (2014), the court held that a seizure and subsequent search is reasonable if based on an officer's reasonable mistake of law. There are many more. As an example of the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly avoiding a broader ruling than necessary to decide the case before them, see United States v. Jones : It may be that achieving the same result through electronic means, without an accompanying trespass, is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, but the present case does not require us to answer that question. It was possible to decide the case based solely on the trespassory test, so the majority didn't go further.

Can US courts be made to define whether a given search is reasonable (i.e. constitutional)?

In 2014, regarding the forced disclosure of the encryption keys of his email service provider company Lavabit, Ladar Levison wrote : The largest technological question we raised in our appeal ( which the courts refused to consider ) was what constitutes a "search", i.e., whether law enforcement can demand the encryption keys of a business and use those keys to inspect the private communications of every customer, even when the court has only authorized them to access information belonging to specific targets. The emphasis is mine. Assuming Levison's statement to be true, my question is: is there a way in which one or more relevant courts could be made to consider, and issue a verdict on, that question; and if so, how? Clarity on the matter would seem to be in the public interest, after all.

Federal courts are not permitted to issue abstract opinions divorced from an actual legal dispute between two parties; the Constitution restricts federal judicial power to actual cases and controversies. Courts can decide broad questions when it is necessary or useful to decide an actual case , but only when it's necessary (anything not necessary for the holding in that case is not binding precedent). It is not possible to force a federal court to issue a broader opinion than needed to resolve the actual issue before the court; you can ask them to clarify the law for the sake of precedent, but can't make them do it.

Youtube Ad Revenue + Guitar tutorial video - Can I make ad revenue from teaching copyrighted guitar songs?

On youtube, can i do the following whilst collecting ad revenue? Teach someone to play a copyrighted song on guitar (i.e. ed sheeran)? Is this an infringement of copyright? I have found some research that suggests it may be ok: The NMPA National Music Publishers Association seem to enforce artist copyright rights. It appears Youtube have an agreement with NPMA to royalty share link

In order to answer your question we have to parse out an exact meaning for the individual fragments of the question: "Teach someone to play a copyrighted song" What do we mean by "teach someone" here? YouTube is a public medium unless you're using some unlisted videos or have some kind of external website where you are using YouTube strictly as a video hosting service. There is no one-on-one teacher-to-student interaction here outside of the possibility of some post-facto comments about the video. Is it more apt to say "publish an educational demonstration for ad revenue" for this part of your question? Now we can evaluate the second part of your question, "[Teach someone] to play a copyrighted song on guitar?" Are you teaching guitarists what the notes of the song (the score) are or are you teaching them specific guitar techniques? In complaints responsible for taking guitar tablature sites offline NMPA President David Israelite asserted that "[u]nauthorised use of lyrics and tablature deprives the songwriter of the ability to make a living and is no different than stealing." (Song sites face legal crackdown, BBC News) While you are adding your own educational value by demonstrating specific instructional techniques you are also putting the songwriter's score out in a published and public format outside of their control and earning ad revenue in the process. The 2011 NMPA royalty sharing agreement you linked to was just one settlement as part of ongoing litigation between the groups—with the most recent being a large settlement related to revenues related to "cover songs". In no way does the existence of such a settlement mean that you aren't still expected to obtain permission or seek agreeable revenue sharing terms for use of any material. Guitar instructors have been getting paid to teach their students to play copyrighted songs on guitar for decades but the difference here is that you are seeking to publish videos of yourself playing the artists' content and getting paid for people to watch them. Opinion: While I've learned a lot from these types of instructional videos myself and would love to make a "fair use" argument for you here I think it would still require you to make an effort in good faith to seek permission to use an artist's content. For artists within the mainstream music industry this may be practically impossible for you as an individual to negotiate but you could have luck with more progressive artists who are working on the digital frontiers outside of the industry.

Why is Supreme Court seeking brief from Attorney General?

It's a well-known concept that federal law preempts state law. Apparently, as per LA Times Op-Ed The case against Colorado's pot law , Nebraska and Oklahoma are suing Colorado to invalidate Colorado's recreational marijuana law, since the border cities of some border states have already collected far too many visitors from Colorado in their lock-up facilities. (Some towns/sheriffs even go as far as to claim that Colorado must share Colorado's revenues to allow the neighbouring states to prosecute such Colorado visitors!) The Op-Ed states that the situation is rather clear -- however outdated or incorrect it may be, federal Controlled Substances Act does preempt Colorado Amendment 64 (as well as the similar law of many other states where cannabis is not illegal), even if the previous attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., didn't feel like prosecuting anyone (but the office now has a new AG). But why is the Supreme Court asking the Attorney General for a brief? Isn't the law clear enough as it is? Can Colorado use the well-known evidence that the federal law is simply outdated and was never really correct to start with, contradicting medical advice since the start? Likewise, if some states do feel that prosecuting their own citizens who visit Colorado is a worthy pastime for their border cities, why don't they simply put their money where their mouth is, by raising the taxes on their own residents, to make sure their border cities have adequate lock-up facilities? Is the Supreme Court at all allowed to do something like the Jury Nullification here, to declare that the justice would not be served if the outdated federal law was to preempt the realities of the many states?

First off, a court in the United States does not care if the federal law was good policy or bad policy. Courts do not make those decisions. A court cannot strike down a law for being a stupid idea; it can only strike down the law for violating a more fundamental law (i.e. state and federal constitutions, including striking down state laws for going against federal laws). Courts are not in the business of evaluating whether marijuana is dangerous, because that determination was made by Congress. As long as the law itself does not violate the Constitution (and being stupid doesn't make it violate the Constitution), a court cannot strike it down. If a law is validly passed under the Constitution, a court likewise cannot decline to strike down a state law that contradicts it. Valid federal laws preempt state law. This is not seriously disputed by courts. The question before the court is whether or not the CSA forbids Colorado from involving itself in the marijuana business. This is a question about federal law. While the Supreme Court will make the ultimate decision themselves, the US government generally submits an amicus brief on just about every Supreme Court case involving federal laws, outlining its position. The purpose of the brief is to get more arguments, in order to provide more for the court to think about. It is not even a tiny bit unusual for non-parties to submit briefs, and it would be incredibly unusual for the US to not submit one here. The Supreme Court cannot do something like jury nullification * . That's not their role in the world. No Supreme Court decision can say "well, this is the law, and it's clear, but we don't like it and are doing it another way." Their duty is to apply the actual law, not what they want the law to be. What they can do, though, is stretch words and make arguments to fit what they think it should be. Often, in cases they don't want to handle, they end up finding some technical point to avoid setting broad precedent. But they don't get to simply not apply the law because they disagree. * Technically, if they do that, they can't be overturned; however, it's just something that is not done.

Why is Supreme Court seeking brief from Attorney General?

It's a well-known concept that federal law preempts state law. Apparently, as per LA Times Op-Ed The case against Colorado's pot law , Nebraska and Oklahoma are suing Colorado to invalidate Colorado's recreational marijuana law, since the border cities of some border states have already collected far too many visitors from Colorado in their lock-up facilities. (Some towns/sheriffs even go as far as to claim that Colorado must share Colorado's revenues to allow the neighbouring states to prosecute such Colorado visitors!) The Op-Ed states that the situation is rather clear -- however outdated or incorrect it may be, federal Controlled Substances Act does preempt Colorado Amendment 64 (as well as the similar law of many other states where cannabis is not illegal), even if the previous attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., didn't feel like prosecuting anyone (but the office now has a new AG). But why is the Supreme Court asking the Attorney General for a brief? Isn't the law clear enough as it is? Can Colorado use the well-known evidence that the federal law is simply outdated and was never really correct to start with, contradicting medical advice since the start? Likewise, if some states do feel that prosecuting their own citizens who visit Colorado is a worthy pastime for their border cities, why don't they simply put their money where their mouth is, by raising the taxes on their own residents, to make sure their border cities have adequate lock-up facilities? Is the Supreme Court at all allowed to do something like the Jury Nullification here, to declare that the justice would not be served if the outdated federal law was to preempt the realities of the many states?

Requesting an amicus brief from the Attorney General effectively allows the court to determine the length and strength of arguments the Federal Government might bring. Additionally, the law is never clear enough as it is. That is why courts exist, to apply current law to the facts as it determines them, in the case before it. Can Colorado use the well-known evidence that the federal law is simply outdated and was never really correct to start with, contradicting medical advice since the start? No. Putting the implicit bias in the question aside, no matter how "outdated" or not "really correct" a law is, a court cannot strike the law down. A law can only be struck down if it is unconstitutional. (e.g. in the recent ACA case, Roberts railed against the ACA but stated that it is constitutional). Likewise, if some states do feel that prosecuting their own citizens who visit Colorado is a worthy pastime for their border cities, why don't they simply put their money where their mouth is, by raising the taxes on their own residents, to make sure their border cities have adequate lock-up facilities? Firstly, they wouldn't need to raise taxes, just increase fines on those coming across the boarder. I am sure there have been similar issues with Blue Laws, though I cannot find any examples at the moment. However, this may have implications on free travel between the states. Since that is not questioned here, I will not get into that. Is the Supreme Court at all allowed to do something like the Jury Nullification here, to declare that the justice would not be served if the outdated federal law was to preempt the realities of the many states? No. As I stated earlier, no matter how much the court disagrees with a law, if the law is not unconstitutional, it will not be overturned.

Can a Texas landlord have the rental contract microscopic / unreadable?

My landlord in Texas has the whole residential lease contract formatted for Legal paper, but, for whichever reason, they instead print the PDF as zoomed out on Letter, and the whole thing becomes unreadable small print with wide empty stripes left and right ("no text was cut", they proclaim). They claim their procedure was cleared with their legal dept. Is it in fact legal? For example, in California, Sec 1630 , has the following provision for some types of contracts: (b) All the provisions of the contract are printed legibly in eight-point type or larger.

Generally, contract terms and conditions must be legible, especially when one is trying to enforce the contract. If the court cannot read the contract as written, it can create its own reasonable terms. According to JD Supra (this is not for a rental lease, but a business opportunity contract): In one instance, a Texas business opportunity contract must have certain information in ten point type, including: the terms of payment; a detailed description of the acts or services that the seller will perform for the purchaser; the seller’s principal business address; the name and address of the seller’s registered agent in Texas; the delivery date; and a description of the nature of the buy-back or security agreement, if there has been one represented by the seller. TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 51.201 .

Is it legal to directly tie a campaign donation to how a US Congressman votes on a bill?

If you had a connection to a congressman, and spoke to him directly, and said vote yes (or no) on a bill and I will give your upcoming campaign $1M dollars, would that be considered legal under US law?

That is quid pro quo corruption and/or bribery, and is a felony. See ( inter alia ) 18 U.S.C. §201 , specifically (c)(1)(A), which imposes a fine or jail to anyone who: directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official

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

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?

See Golan v. Holder 565 U. S. ____ (2012). The question was whether Congress could pass a law that caused works in the public domain to regain copyright. The Supreme Court held that: The text of the Copyright Clause does not exclude application of copyright protection to works in the public domain. ... Historical practice corroborates the Court’s reading of the Copyright Clause to permit the protection of previously unprotected works. So, yes, works can come out of public domain and into Copyright protection. What about people who had been relying on the works not having copyright (i.e. people who had created derivative works, etc.)? That depends on how Congress intends the hypothetical law to apply to them. In the law in question in Golan v. Holder , Congress planned ahead for this, and included provisions for it in the law (quoting from Golan v. Holder ): Reliance parties may continue to exploit a restored work until the owner of the restored copyright gives notice of intent to enforce—either by filing with the U. S. Copyright Office within two years of restoration, or by actually notifying the reliance party. After that, reliance parties may continue to exploit existing copies for a grace period of one year. Finally, anyone who, before the URAA’s enactment, created a “derivative work” based on a restored work may indefinitely exploit the derivation upon payment to the copyright holder of “reasonable compensation,” to be set by a district judge if the parties cannot agree. Last, could Congress extend copyright for 10,000 years? In principle, the Supreme Court has not said anything against this, but they have indicated that there is some line beyond which a copyright term would no longer be considered a "limited time" as required by the Constitution. In Golan v. Holder they mention in passing hypothetical successive re-applications of Copyright to a work after it expires, calling it "legislative misbehavior": the hypothetical legislative misbehavior petitioners posit is far afield from the case before us. And in Eldred v. Ashcroft , they mention in passing hypothetical unlimited successive extensions of copyright, each of limited time, again calling that "legislative misbehavior": Concerning petitioners' assertion that Congress could evade the limitation on its authority by stringing together an unlimited number of "limited Times," the court stated that such legislative misbehavior clearly was not before it. I could imagine a court holding that the "limited times" clause in the Constitution does not permit Congress to extend copyright for 10,000 years, which is longer than the existence of the U.S. or any countries or even civilizations that the founders were aware of at the time of the Constitution's writing.

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

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?

First, this is a pretty broad question, but I will try to answer. Briefly ( from the wiki page ): All copyrightable works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain;[18] works created before 1978 but not published until recently may be protected until 2047.[19] For works that received their copyright before 1978, a renewal had to be filed in the work's 28th year with the Copyright Office for its term of protection to be extended. The need for renewal was eliminated by the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, but works that had already entered the public domain by non-renewal did not regain copyright protection. Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain. Under very rare circumstances, one may regain copyright protection . However, a reliance party may continue to exploit that derivative work for the duration of the restored copyright if the reliance party pays to the owner of the restored copyright reasonable compensation for conduct which would be subject to a remedy for infringement but for the provisions of this paragraph. ... as determined by a US District Court. With all that being said, there would be no change in the status of Shakespeare's works. (This would be more subject to the TRIPS than US law since Shakespeare is not from the US.) Would works that lost copyright protection regain it? "Probably" Not. Your question asks for speculation about how the legislatures would change copyright law. If all that was changed was the length of the copyright, then no, they would not gain protection. However, if you can get congress to extend the copyright for 10k years, you can probably get them to allow owners to regain a lost copyright. Derivative works have their own copyright on materials not subject to the copyright of the main material.

Must a landlord warn potential rentees about previous pest infestation?

Must a landlord warn potential renters about previous pest infestations? I am mostly interested in the following locations: California, United States Massachusetts, United States Paris, France Seoul, South Korea I have a particular interest in bed bug infestation.

According to Tenant Hub , pest control is the landlord's responsibility. NOLO states that: When the rental agreement is signed, landlord must provide tenant with any pest control company disclosure landlord has received, which describes the pest to be controlled, pesticides used and their active ingredients, a warning that pesticides are toxic, and the frequency of treatment under any contract for periodic service. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1940.8, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 8538) It therefore seems that landlords would indirectly indicate there was a past infestation by the disclosure of pest control measures currently in place.

Advantage in being first to copyleft a new algorithm?

Say I have created a new (DSP) algorithm. Will I have some advantage if I open source the algorithm under copyleft licence (GPL etc.)? From what I know about licensing this should lock people out from using the exactly same code as closed source, but would they be able to "rewrite" the algorithm as closed source? Note: I fear this may actually be two separate problems: open sourcing a known algorithm open sourcing a new algorithm I don't really know if the algorithm is new but it has not been released as open source yet. Since I am from the European Union do I need to look for software patents if I wanted to copyleft it?

Algorithms are not subject to copyright. A particular implementation can be copyrighted, but an algorithm itself can't be copyrighted. Someone re-implementing the algorithm with their own code has done nothing to give you copyright claims against their work, and is not bound by any software license you use. That's what patents are for.

Is it legal to restrict employee restroom access?

I went to the toilet at least 4 time a day on my last job. However my boss would restrict access to the bathrooms after 4PM, saying that we could easily hold it until work ends at 5PM. Is that legal?

It is mandatory for the employer to provide sufficient restrooms (“ cabinets d'aisance ”), as per article R4228-10 . Other provisions regulate evacuation, ventilation, heating, disabled access, etc. There is no provision regarding when employees are permitted to use the restrooms. There can't be a single rule that works for every profession: some jobs don't let you leave your post whenever you like (e.g. machine operator, driver, guard, teacher, etc.). The most common dispute regarding restroom use is whether employees should be paid during that time. Some employers want to count restroom use as unpaid pause time. Strictly speaking, that's legal: an employee who is in a restroom is not at the employer's disposal, therefore this doesn't count as work time. However enforcing this is often logistically difficult and wildly unpopular, so in practice it's only done in places where employees must clock out to reach a restroom. I could only find one case with actual jurisprudence. In 1995, an industrial butchering company (Bigard) decided to limit restroom breaks to three fixed times a day . This was, as you might expect, unpopular; the employees went on strike, and eventually the labor court struck down this measure . That's a precedent, but it doesn't seem to have made its way to the appellate court. Your case is also slightly different in that the restrooms would only be inaccessible for an hour, which is shorter than in the Bigard case. So legally speaking, it isn't clear who will win. You'll have a better chance of success by banking on the unpopularity of the measure. Talk with your colleagues and your representatives and shop stewards. Point out that employees who are trying to hold it in are unlikely to be at the top of their productivity.

Is it legal to restrict employee restroom access?

I went to the toilet at least 4 time a day on my last job. However my boss would restrict access to the bathrooms after 4PM, saying that we could easily hold it until work ends at 5PM. Is that legal?

Not sure about France, but I would assume that it is legal if they have alternative restrooms for use that meet the laws in the area. They will still have to allow you to use the nearest restroom in the area ( and pay you while you walk there). The reason is because the bathroom in theory could may not be accessible for normal reasons such as maintenance, normal cleaning, busted pipes, ect. They would still have to provide reasonable accommodations for your needs to use a restroom. This may include having the other sex bathroom be joint use with some sort of office policy on how to enter, an alternate bathroom, so on. Cleaning of a restroom is normal and will shut it down from operations, that does not remove their obligation to provide adequate restroom services. Him saying you could hold it until work ends could be a violation of your ADA (Not sure what the equivalent in France is) and Labor rights. I would have him put the statement in writing and then talk to the labor department. If he is doing things like that, they most likely are violating other rights.

Do TAA members have to use TAA lease contract?

It appears that the TAA Apartment Lease Contract could only be used by a TAA Member . However, what about the other way -- does a TAA Member have to use the TAA Lease Contract?

Template leases and other such forms fall under the moniker of association member services. I don't have a copy of the association's bylaws but can't imagine how membership in the association would imply forfeiting the right to enter into a valid contract of one's own choosing ( i.e. one that satisfies mutual assent, offer & acceptance, consideration, capacity, and legal purpose). Edit: In Texas Apartment Association v. U.S. , 869 F.2d. 884 (5th Cir. 1989), para. 6 states "TAA's bylaws prohibit local affiliates from marketing competing forms or manuals, although some members prepare documents for their own use."

What is the typical sentence for BURGLARY - OCCUPIED DWELLING UNARMED?

Just asking for a friend in South Florida.

This is not a good question for two reasons: Criminal sentencing guidelines vary by jurisdiction and can be readily found by searching for sentencing guidelines and the jurisdiction in question. Sentencing "typically" depends on factors beyond the crime committed. These commonly include : whether the offender is a "first-time" or repeat offender whether the offender was an accessory (helping the main offender) or the main offender whether the offender committed the crime under great personal stress or duress whether anyone was hurt, and whether the crime was committed in a manner that was unlikely to result in anyone being hurt whether the offender was particularly cruel to a victim, or particularly destructive, etc. whether the offender is genuinely contrite or remorseful

What is the typical sentence for BURGLARY - OCCUPIED DWELLING UNARMED?

Just asking for a friend in South Florida.

According to the Florida Statutes, section 810.02 , this is probably a felony in the second degree, although there are circumstances you have not covered (using a vehicle to make entry, or causing sufficient damage, or assaulting an occupant of the structure, or during a state of emergency) that could make it a felony in the first degree. The relevant sentence is covered by either section 775.082 or section 775.084. According to section 775.082 , a felony in the first degree carries a sentence of up to 30 years in prison unless otherwise provided by statute; section 810.02 provides otherwise and first-degree burglary carries a sentence of up to life imprisonment. A felony in the second degree carries a sentence of up to 15 years in prison. If this is the third felony the offender is convicted of, section 75.084 (habitual felony offenders) applies and the potential sentence is life imprisonment for first-degree felony burglary, or up to 30 years for second-degree.

Am I obligated to sign contracts and fill out paperwork post termination?

I was asked to resign from a startup then sometime down the line the company asked me sign the following documents Terms of Resignation Employee Invention Assignment and Confidentiality Agreement 2014 W9 form Some background: I was a contractor in 2013 briefly Has been a full-time employee since after the contracting period I did early exercise some stock options Not all of my stock has been vested If anyone has knowledge or experience on the matter, please enlighten me? For example, do I have any obligation to return these documents? If I do not, are there any negative side effects on my vested stock?

If you want to protect yourself or any property interests you may have in this circumstance you have to talk to a lawyer. You cannot get (or trust) legal advice from the internet. I will, however, make the following personal observations: I only provide a W-9 to people who are paying me money, and who request it as a condition of paying me. I don't know of a legal requirement to supply it after the fact. However, not providing it to someone who did pay you more than $600 in a tax year could certainly make it difficult for them to comply with their tax filing obligations. I do not sign any agreements, assignments, or contracts, without what I consider to be fair consideration. E.g., if on leaving a job (as has happened) I am asked by a former employer to sign something that I am not already obligated to sign due to some prior contract, then I negotiate what is commonly called a "severance package." They pay me and/or extend benefits, and I sign something that limits their liability.

Am I obligated to sign contracts and fill out paperwork post termination?

I was asked to resign from a startup then sometime down the line the company asked me sign the following documents Terms of Resignation Employee Invention Assignment and Confidentiality Agreement 2014 W9 form Some background: I was a contractor in 2013 briefly Has been a full-time employee since after the contracting period I did early exercise some stock options Not all of my stock has been vested If anyone has knowledge or experience on the matter, please enlighten me? For example, do I have any obligation to return these documents? If I do not, are there any negative side effects on my vested stock?

Is it normal? Some of the forms can be normal to have requested before leaving. Will they impact your current stock options? They should not. Your vesting is a separate contract. I would review it to make sure. 1) Terms of Resignation This could be normal. You are not required to sign this form. This may be a severance package of some type, which may be in your benefit. I would have a lawyer review this document first. 2) Employee Invention Assignment and Confidentiality Agreement This should have been signed when you were hired on. not when you are leaving. Unless it is apart of something larger, I would be cautious of this document. 3) 2014 W9 form W9 forms are TIN verification. It sounds like there accounting is missing some documents. No this is very odd to have to fill out unless you are changing your tax status. You should bring all of the documents to a lawyer and have him/her review them with you.

Citations of the Declaration of Independence

I know that the Declaration of Independence is generally not considered law, per se. But have its principles ever been cited in the reasoning for a ruling?

The Declaration of Independence is often cited (along with the Federalist Papers) when the court is attempting to justify a particular interpretation of The Constitution by looking at the intent of the drafters. For example, in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 576 U.S. ____ (2015), in establishing that the people have ultimate sovereignty quoted the Declaration of Independence: Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... Following that (after also quoting some text from the Constitution), Justice Ginsberg concludes: In this light, it would be perverse to interpret the term “Legislature” in the Elections Clause so as to exclude lawmaking by the people, particularly where such lawmaking is intended to check legislators’ ability to choose the district lines they run in... As a second example, Justice Scalia, in his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. ___ (2015), refers to the Declaration of Independence: This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Is "hi-speed internet" the same as "broadband"?

FCC.gov regulates broadband in the United States, and as of early 2015, they define it as 25 Mbps download with 3 Mbps upload (up from 4 and 1, respectively, that it used to be prior to 2015). But a lot of people generally refer to non-dial-up internet as "hi-speed internet", you don't really see "broadband" in any promotional materials. Is "hi-speed internet", legally, the same as "broadband"? Or is it a loophole word that's non-regulated and means nothing?

According to the FCC Encyclopedia, Types of Broadband Connections : The term broadband commonly refers to high-speed Internet access that is always on and faster than the traditional dial-up access. Broadband includes several high-speed transmission technologies such as: Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) Cable Modem Fiber Wireless Satellite Broadband over Powerlines (BPL) So yes, it is. High-speed is essentially synonymous to broadband under this definition. Companies likely use high-speed in advertising more often because most non-tech people out there buying Internet services won't know what broadband means. But whatever high-speed Internet technology the company is using, it all falls under the broadband regulations.

What if a person cannot find a lawyer willing to fight against a powerful party?

Hereafter, for concision, I use the noun `leviathan' to mean a magisterial, mighty party that can retaliate against lawyers. I restrict this question to First World countries (e.g., the UK), which I assume can protect lawyers from such leviathans. Suppose: A commoner suffers an injustice at the hands of a leviathan, and wishes to take legal action. The threat posed by the leviathan, prevents the victim from finding a lawyer willing to represent his case. What can this victim do? Does the law offer or guarantee him any assistance?

There should be no more lawyers in an event such as that described by the OP. The Legal Profession, by its own constitution, exists to ensure that everybody can access our adversarial justice system through a diligent and competent advocate. For example, among the responsibilities stipulated by the American Bar Association : [A]ll lawyers should devote professional time and resources and use civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of justice for all those who because of economic or social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel. There are famous examples of lawyers, perhaps reluctantly and even at their personal peril, honoring their professional obligation to advocate in court on behalf of unpopular people and causes. One that comes to mind is John Adams defending the British soldiers who perpetrated the Boston Massacre. Of course, lawyers are people too so I wouldn't be surprised if there are counterexamples. But there shouldn't be any counterexamples unless every last lawyer in a jurisdiction resigned his professional membership and hung his head in shame.

Would a community website be liable if members took it upon themselves to start privately trading items between each other?

Consider a scenario where a community site, based in Switzerland, with an international member base has two memberships: free accounts and premium subscription-paying accounts. The primary service provided by the website is education as well as providing research tools. However, one feature of the paid subscription is a facility whereby members can send offers to the owner of an item they are interested in. Consider the below two members: Member X (free account) has posted photos and details of an item for community interest. Member Y (premium account) sees this and decides to offer to buy the item: After the following process, Member Y claims to have received a fake/inferior item: Member Y makes contact by entering a value and and clicks a button to submit the blind speculative offer to Member X Member X receives the offer price as well as Member Y 's country and community reputation, and can then choose whether or accept/reject/counter the offer Member Y transfers payment: through paypal (for example) and Member X then ships the item Considering that Member X never marketed the item for sale but only decided and agreed to sell after receiving an initial purchase offer from Member Y , as well as the fact that the site neither 1) sell items or 2) provides an online store for members to sell items... Is the site liable due to having a facility for subscription members reaching out to make blind bids to other members items?

I am not a Lawyer, I am not your Lawyer. This really depends on the country in which the company owning the website is domiciled and where it operates. For example, if the company is based in the U.S. and only markets in the U.S., only U.S. laws apply. If the company is based in the U.S. and markets in the U.K., they may be subject to U.K. laws. Assuming that the company is based in the U.S.: If the website does not market itself as a trading platform nor gives any reasonable expectation that it is a trading platform (e.g., by adding "contact to buy buttons"), then the company would have no reasonable liability for any transactions. They may still be involved with any legal case that deals with the transaction (emails and such). If Member Y made such claim, they would have to take it up with the Member X in court. Think about it this way: You see an item on Pinterest you like, you then contact the use to buy it, that user sells the item to you, you don't like it. Pinterest would not be liable for the damages done. Even if the site was a trading platform, they don't have any reasonable liability for goods sold on there site. Only direct sellers have liability. As an added protection, your TOS should include something like: site is not a venue for commerce. site is not responsible for communication. site does not pre-screen users (except for services that require an application) or the content or information provided by users. If users wish to conduct transaction on the site, site does not transfer legal ownership of items from the seller to the buyer. You may also wish to consider using a third-party escrow service or services that provide additional user verification. You agree that site is NOT a venue for commerce and as such is not responsible or liable for any content, for example, data, text, information, usernames, graphics, images, photographs, profiles, audio, video, items, and links posted by you, other users, or outside parties on site . You use the site service at your own risk.

Would a community website be liable if members took it upon themselves to start privately trading items between each other?

Consider a scenario where a community site, based in Switzerland, with an international member base has two memberships: free accounts and premium subscription-paying accounts. The primary service provided by the website is education as well as providing research tools. However, one feature of the paid subscription is a facility whereby members can send offers to the owner of an item they are interested in. Consider the below two members: Member X (free account) has posted photos and details of an item for community interest. Member Y (premium account) sees this and decides to offer to buy the item: After the following process, Member Y claims to have received a fake/inferior item: Member Y makes contact by entering a value and and clicks a button to submit the blind speculative offer to Member X Member X receives the offer price as well as Member Y 's country and community reputation, and can then choose whether or accept/reject/counter the offer Member Y transfers payment: through paypal (for example) and Member X then ships the item Considering that Member X never marketed the item for sale but only decided and agreed to sell after receiving an initial purchase offer from Member Y , as well as the fact that the site neither 1) sell items or 2) provides an online store for members to sell items... Is the site liable due to having a facility for subscription members reaching out to make blind bids to other members items?

There's a different way of approaching questions like this that could obviate what may be an expensive and unsettled legal question: Try to buy liability insurance. Let the insurance company underwrite, price, and assume the legal risk. Take advantage of the corporate shield. Maintain a minimum of assets in the company so that it is not an attractive target for litigation. Because being legally right is not an airtight defense against being attacked in civil litigation.

Copyright issues regarding an individual's likeness and name for a toy

I'm not sure if copyright is the correct term, but you likely understand what I mean. I'll flesh it out a bit more: Assume a toy was made in the likeness of a celebrity, and from its movement and sounds it is apparent that it is a likeness of the celebrity 1 , and that it would be sold using that persons name and (for the most part) sell because of that persons popularity. Although it's a matter of opinion, I know (being the designer) that it would be made out of respect for that person, but there is always a chance they may not like aspects of it. The celebrity comes from a country that I am not citizen of (neither of us are from the US). The sales would happen online and globally. My questions: can I be held accountable by the person for any profits I make from the sale of these toys? if so, what if I have already passed the profits on to a charity that (I suspect) they would approve of, would I be liable anyway? I figure it might be prudent to approach them first, but I was wondering where I would stand regardless ... 1 : their appearance, the way they move or their voice are copyright free as far as I am aware...

What you are talking about is personality rights , not copyright. Personality rights laws cover the usage of someone's name, image, or likeness; the actual laws vary greatly from country to country, so your best bet is to consult a lawyer in the countries you're interested in.

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

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.

Is there any legal remedy? Yes. What you describe is an open-and-shut case of copyright infringement . The question is how much effort and expense is involved in dealing with this. At the simple end of things, if the webpage host is in the United States, you can send a DMCA takedown notice to get the page removed; at the complex end, if the host is in a country with a lax copyright regime that isn't on good terms with your country (say, you're in the US and the host is in Russia), you may be looking at a decades-long international copyright infringement lawsuit to get the page taken down.

Why do VISA and MasterCard comply with U.S. sanctions that erode their business?

On what basis does the U.S. government prohibit American companies like VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, et al, from doing business on the Crimean Peninsula? Crimea is connected with, and backed by, the whole of Russia, which in turn is connected with China, with both being part of BRICS. The fact that Visa and MasterCard could not be used all across Russia would naturally make Russian banks start transitioning to more friendly payment processors like Sberbank's Pro100 and China's UnionPay. This, in turn, will simply erode the influence that American companies have across the whole of Russia (and also across the globe as more people switch to UnionPay, which is nowadays accepted in a whole lot of places including America), not simply the small area actually subject to the sanctions. Aren't all of these companies like VISA and MasterCard actually incorporated in the Bahamas, etc., anyways? Why do they comply with the request for sanctions? What would happen if they don't comply? What would they have to do to not be legally required to comply? See also: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-06/the-biggest-loser-from-russia-sanctions-visa The Chinese experience inspires Putin's advisers: UnionPay, whose cards are accepted in 135 countries, is now bigger than Mastercard and second only to Visa in processing volume.

Visa is incorporated in Delaware. So is MasterCard. In addition, both are headquartered in the US, have huge quantities of assets in the US, do lots and lots of business in the US in a highly regulated sector, and their very existence depends on their ability to interact with the US banking system. The US has the authority to regulate all of these things, under literally any definition of sovereignty. Therefore, they must comply with sanctions.

Why do VISA and MasterCard comply with U.S. sanctions that erode their business?

On what basis does the U.S. government prohibit American companies like VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, et al, from doing business on the Crimean Peninsula? Crimea is connected with, and backed by, the whole of Russia, which in turn is connected with China, with both being part of BRICS. The fact that Visa and MasterCard could not be used all across Russia would naturally make Russian banks start transitioning to more friendly payment processors like Sberbank's Pro100 and China's UnionPay. This, in turn, will simply erode the influence that American companies have across the whole of Russia (and also across the globe as more people switch to UnionPay, which is nowadays accepted in a whole lot of places including America), not simply the small area actually subject to the sanctions. Aren't all of these companies like VISA and MasterCard actually incorporated in the Bahamas, etc., anyways? Why do they comply with the request for sanctions? What would happen if they don't comply? What would they have to do to not be legally required to comply? See also: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-06/the-biggest-loser-from-russia-sanctions-visa The Chinese experience inspires Putin's advisers: UnionPay, whose cards are accepted in 135 countries, is now bigger than Mastercard and second only to Visa in processing volume.

The U.S. can't make a company "give away" market share. The U.S. does have the right to prevent a company from doing business in countries X and Y, in line with its foreign policy or other legal (e.g human rights) mandates. It is then up to the company to design its business plan so that it is not dependent on revenues from countries X and y.

Excluding Implied Warranties in Multi-national Contracts

I am selling specialized industrial products to a Polish company who will use them at a site in Poland. We have hired a Polish lawyer to help us understand/exclude as many implied warranties as possible under Polish law, but have set the applicable law under the contract to New York state law. Under US law, there are implied warranties as outlined by the UCC (fitness for purpose and merchantability): “Unless excluded or modified, a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind.” “Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.” For safety's sake, our lawyers have advised us to include the express warranties for merchantability and fitness of purpose in bold or ALL CAPS just in case, but during contract negotiations with our client they tell us that it is a typographical nightmare and they would kindly like us to remove the formatting so it doesn't look so hideous. What risks (if any) should we be aware of taking on if we remove the formatting from this standard exclusion of warranties?

I'm not a lawyer; I'm not your lawyer. It's difficult proving a negative. I can think of at least one case (in Australian real property law) where the formatting in contracts is prescribed, and deviation could render the contract void. UCC § 2-316 ("the code") states that (emphasis mine): (2)Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous , and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous . Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that "There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof." (3)Notwithstanding subsection (2) (a) unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like "as is", "with all faults" or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer'sattention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty; and ... The code simply states that it must be conspicuous. Putting all in bold or all caps would certainly do that if it distinguished it from the rest of the text. I'm sure you can think of other ways to make text conspicuous. If you remove this formatting from the exclusion and it is not otherwise conspicuous, the end user may be entitled to remedies.

What is the state of intellectual property when the owner goes bankrupt?

A company makes a great game called "AwesomeGame" that costs 20€. They sell thousands of copies of the game, but ultimately go bankrupt. What is the status of the game at that point? Do any intellection-property rights or protections of it still exist?

A bankrupt company's assets are transferred to its creditors. This includes intangible assets such as trademarks, copyrights, and other intellectual property. Whoever ends up with the rights to the game can continue to market and distribute it, or use legal means to prevent others from doing so.

What is the state of intellectual property when the owner goes bankrupt?

A company makes a great game called "AwesomeGame" that costs 20€. They sell thousands of copies of the game, but ultimately go bankrupt. What is the status of the game at that point? Do any intellection-property rights or protections of it still exist?

My understanding (IANAL, but was told some of this by a lawyer) is that (at least in England) unclaimed assets after a liquidation vest in the state as bona vacantia and intellectual property that the liquidator can't sell (not unusual) is included in this. I see the UK government now has a department that deals with this and will consider offers for such property: https://www.gov.uk/buy-intellectual-property-bvc8 No idea if France takes a similar approach.

How much street space can restaurants occupy?

In Paris, France, what define how much street space can a restaurant occupy?

According to the document Reglement des etalages et terrasses , page 15, such installations may not exceed 50% of the usable area of the sidewalk, and must leave a contiguous area of at least 1.6 meters in width for pedestrian traffic: Les installations peuvent être autorisées, soit d’un seul tenant, soit scindées, sans pouvoir excéder 50% de la largeur utile du trottoir. Une zone contiguë d’au moins 1,60 mètre de largeur doit être réservée à la circulation des piétons. If you are interested in looking directly at the laws concerned, these can be found at the beginning of the same document: Les dispositions du présent règlement sont établies en application des articles L.2122-1 à L.2122-3 du code général de la Propriété des personnes publiques, L.2512-13, L.2512-14 et L.2213-6 du code général des Collectivités territoriales et de l’article L.113-2 du code de la Voirie routière. Roughly translated, that means that the rules described in the present document are established by application of the articles L.2122-1 through L.2122-3 of the "general code of property of public persons", L.2512-13, L.2512-14 and L.2213-6 of the "general code of territorial collectivities" and of article L.113-2 of the highway code. More links: L.2122-1 L.2122-2 L.2122-3 L.2512-13 L.2512-14 L.2213-6 L.113-2

My company handed me a letter today telling me I owe them money because they overpaid me. Do I legally have to pay them?

I work an hourly job. I got a letter today telling me that they overpaid me and I owe them money. My job pays minimum wage and I'm not sure how they "overpaid" me, their computers pay me per second that I work. I can view the hours I've worked in the past but they're on a website that my company owns so I'm not sure if they're 100% legitimate. The company is large, there's a few thousand stores nationwide, so it's not a mom-and-pop shop. I turned in my two weeks one week ago, so they most likely knew about this before but didn't tell me. They haven't taken any money out of my account yet and I put a block on direct withdraws. However, I'm worried they will just take it out of my last paycheck. My question is, do I actually owe them money?

Go to know that you live in Washington. Per RCW 49.48.210 , They must give you written notice with their evidence. Per RCW 49.48.210, section 3, you can (and should) request a review of the employer findings. Since the employer gave you the money, and you nor they saw any error until now, you may be protected under estoppel ( WAC 388-02-0495 ). In the response letter, I would write something along the lines of " [Company Name] has paid IAW my expected rate and acted correctly when I received my money. I have also spent the money in good faith. Indeed, I still cannot see that any overpayment has actually happened. Please send me exact details why you believe that I have been overpaid, and why you believe that estoppel does not apply. Until this manner has been resolved per RCW 49.48.210, section 3, I request that you continue to pay my wages at normal rate for my time. I do not accept liability for the actions or inactions of [company name] and the claimed overpayment." Get receipt that the employer received the notice. Because it is in review, they don't have the right to garnish your wages. Challenge everything at the review. If something was changed or edited, challenge that. I would open up a new thread if they did that much. Best of luck

My company handed me a letter today telling me I owe them money because they overpaid me. Do I legally have to pay them?

I work an hourly job. I got a letter today telling me that they overpaid me and I owe them money. My job pays minimum wage and I'm not sure how they "overpaid" me, their computers pay me per second that I work. I can view the hours I've worked in the past but they're on a website that my company owns so I'm not sure if they're 100% legitimate. The company is large, there's a few thousand stores nationwide, so it's not a mom-and-pop shop. I turned in my two weeks one week ago, so they most likely knew about this before but didn't tell me. They haven't taken any money out of my account yet and I put a block on direct withdraws. However, I'm worried they will just take it out of my last paycheck. My question is, do I actually owe them money?

From mhoran_psprep’s answer on Personal Finance & Money: Ask for documentation proving the amount they say you were overpaid, and ask for time to review their claim. If it is a large amount that they can prove you owe, and if you were staying, then you could ask for the repayment to be spread over multiple pay checks. This would avoid the situation where you could get a very small check or even a check for zero. Because you are leaving, you could ask for time to reimburse them, but don't count on them agreeing to that deal. The lesson is to save all time cards, especially ones in which your hours are not consistent. Also save all pay stubs for the year. What you should do now is download all the time card and pay info on the website, before you lose access to it. These should be saved on your home machine, or printed and kept at home. Check to see if they made any time card adjustments. Many systems keep track of all changes made by the employee and by management; both before and after the employee signs the time card. If there are change you should be able to ask them to explain the changes. Addendum: if the company can prove that they did overpay you, then generally, yes , you do need to pay them back. You should likely retain a lawyer immediately to protect as many rights as possible.

Are there any federal laws in the United States regulating non-digital billboards?

Billboards can be quite a distraction to drivers, and some cities have banned digital billboards . However, I haven't been able to find any information on non-digital billboards, which don't seem to be significantly less distracting in many cases. Are there any federal laws regulating non-digital billboards to lessen distractions for drivers? I ask for federal laws because of applications to interstate highways. I don't know if any regulations would be applied by states or by the federal government, since billboards by the boundary of a state can distract drivers on both sides of the state line.

For interstate and federal highways at least, there are regulations. For example, the billboards in Times Square are illegal . But it turns out this billboard, and others plastering Times Square, may actually be illegal. Under a federal highway beautification law, the billboards are too big – the law states that [billboards] should not be larger than 1200 square feet. Last week, the city’s transportation commissioner said the billboards may have to be taken down, or New York could risk losing ten percent of its federal highway funds. The Highway Beautification Act and various amendments can be referenced here .

Usage of a gun's design

I am developing a game, and will be using guns in my game, I just am unsure of a few things. From what I understand, I need written permission to use the name of a gun due to the name being IP, but what about the gun's actual design? If I were to recreate a gun to give it the same 'Look', would infringing upon IP even be something to worry about? Edit: I am not looking for a way to rip-off someone's IP, just for information so that I can get some guns designed, I am not full of ideas for what they should look like, so I'd like to base the design off of real guns.

While a gun's appearance can have protection under "Trade Dress," in addition to having design patent protection, at least one video game has been found in court to have "fair use" protection for trade dress : See E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc., et al. . However, to determine the legality of a specific use of intellectual property you would have to consult a competent lawyer.

Are limiting voting rights to residents of Puerto Rico unconstitutional?

This is something that I have been thinking after the decision from Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriages. The Supreme Court based its decision on the fact that prohibiting same-sex marriages constitutes a violation of the 14th amendment, because rights were not granted to all US Citizens by equal. As many of you know, US citizens residing on Puerto Rico do not have the right to vote on federal elections, unless they move and becomes a resident of a state. This is because Puerto Rico is a territory, not a state, and federal voting rights are granted to states. This is true for both citizens that were born on Puerto Rico, and citizens that were born on a state, but decided to move to Puerto Rico. My point is, as US Citizens, we have the right to vote and choose the government that leads the nation. This is why I think this is a violation of the 14th amendment, because you are not granting "equal protection of the laws" to all of the US Citizens. My question is: is this can be considered unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment? I am not lawyer by any means, so maybe my premise is incorrect.

The constitution "does not confer the franchise [the right to vote for President] on "U.S. citizens" but on "Electors" who are to be "appoint[ed]" by each "State". (Rosa v. United States, 417 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. P.R. 2005)) Thus, since no citizen has the right to vote for President, it isn't the case that Puerto Rico's citizens are being treated differently in this regard. It is just that Puerto Rico has no representatives in the Electoral College.

StackOverflow logo change vs. user contributions and CC BY-SA 3.0

After the temporary LoveOverflow logo change, there has been a whole lot of fuss about SO and political matters, including a question on MSO claiming that displaying such a logo on a page with user contributions implies a connection between the contributing users and support for same-sex marriages, thus violating the terms of the CC BY-SA 3.0 license under which all user contributions are submitted. Whether or not this is true is heavily debated in the comments of the linked question, but (unsurprisingly) no-one on StackOverflow seems to be a lawyer, so I'm turning to you to ask: Does the recent StackOverflow logo change violate the terms of CC BY-SA 3.0 or not? Or could it be considered a borderline case? And if it does violate the license, would it be enough to include an additional footer notice along the lines of Contributing users are in no way connected to any political view of stack exchange inc or its staff. in order to comply with it?

I'm not a lawyer; I'm not your lawyer 1 For the avoidance of doubt, the thrust of this debate is: By placing a logo associated with a certain political movement near my user profile, does StackExchange violate Section 4(c) of the CC BY-SA 3.0 ? Subscriber Content is Content that is contributed by StackExchange users. The relevant sections of CC BY-SA 3.0 (emphasis added) are: c. ... The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors. For the avoidance of doubt, You may only use the credit required by this Section for the purpose of attribution in the manner set out above and, by exercising Your rights under this License, You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties. d. Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation ... Does changing the logo on all pages imply an endorsement of the site/organisation by the user? It is likely, though not definite, that this positioning of the logo will imply that the user endorses the website. However, actions taken by the user - such as creating an account, accepting the Terms, contributing content - are likely to affirm this view. Does changing the logo imply that the site/organisation supports a particular political view? Again, it is likely, not definite, that changing the logo will imply that the site/organisation supports a particular political view. Does changing the logo impute support of a political view to the user? In this case, however, it is highly unlikely that the change of logo would impute to the user support of the political view. In a case such as this, onus of proof is on the plaintiff - were this claim brought in court, it would need to be proven on the balance of probability (or, less likely, on the preponderance of evidence) that a reasonable person would impute support of the marriage equality (and perhaps some other) agenda to the user. Reasonable person does not mean any particular person, nor does it mean, all people. Part of the imputation must come from the purpose that the user subscribes to the site. Perhaps if StackOverflow were a site that promoted marriage equality or judicial activism, this could support an opinion that the user supports this view. However, StackOverflow is about programming, and programming doesn't imply that kind of agenda. Perhaps if the icon had been changed to something that suggested support for object-oriented programming, the icon could be taken to suggest that the user supports this agenda. Neither does the user's content suggest support for this cause - if they constantly made off-hand remarks about it in their posts, then perhaps, again, a reasonable person may make that imputation. In any case, the damages awarded to the user would likely be compensatory rather than punitive - the user would need to therefore demonstrate actual suffering or loss as a result of the change of icon. If there were actual damages or loss, the way in which the user contributed to them - perhaps by posting a thread that would be likely to be inflammatory and attract attention to the user - may reduce an award of damages. In the case of no actual suffering or loss, the user could be awarded nominal damages. Injunctions that could be awarded would need to be proportionate to the breach of license - the court could require references to this user to be anonymised. This is easily done. It is unlikely that the court would require all contribution by the user to be removed - this is unlikely to pass a public interest test. In relation to placing a disclaimer in the footer, US courts have generally accepted disclaimers if they are positioned such that a reasonable user is likely to see it... In the footer? It's not a great place, and easily missed. It could be better than nothing, though, and may help with the likelihood of someone imputing such opinions to a user. Essentially - it's extremely unlikely that a reasonable person would impute support of the marriage equality agenda on a user based on a logo change, because the support is not sufficiently connected to the primary purpose of the site, or the user's activities on the site. Even if the user were successful in showing that this is the likely conclusion of a reasonable person, the remedies available to them would be limited to damages (which limited to actual losses, including suffering), and an injunction (which is likely to be anonymisation). A disclaimer may not, on its own, actually preserve the validity of the license, but it may be useful on determining the likelihood of a reasonable person imputing opinions to a user. 1. This is larger than normal, because I think it is more important than normal.

How does a layperson know whether to hire a Queen's Counsel?

1. A layperson may not know whether his/her case is complex enough to hire a Queen's Counsel. So how does a layperson decide, when deciding hiring a public access barrister? 2. Are barristers obligated to advise a client on such a question? To wit, will a Junior Counsel truly choose to lose business, by tell a prospective client to hire a QC instead? And vice versa? Barristers may not be the most scrupulous humans (insert chiding joke about lawyers here).

For question 2, there is a firm requirement on barristers to inform the client if different counsel would be called for. To quote the Bar Standards Board handbook: rC17 Your duty to act in the best interests of each client (CD2) includes a duty to consider whether the client’s best interests are served by different legal representation, and if so, to advise the client to that effect. The guidance specifically mentions that if something should be handled by more (or less) experienced counsel, there is an ethical duty to tell their client.

How does a layperson know whether to hire a Queen's Counsel?

1. A layperson may not know whether his/her case is complex enough to hire a Queen's Counsel. So how does a layperson decide, when deciding hiring a public access barrister? 2. Are barristers obligated to advise a client on such a question? To wit, will a Junior Counsel truly choose to lose business, by tell a prospective client to hire a QC instead? And vice versa? Barristers may not be the most scrupulous humans (insert chiding joke about lawyers here).

Generally, the client will be hiring the barrister based on the advice of their solicitor; who is definitely not a lay person. That said: How do you, as a lay person, decide if your medical condition is serious enough to require a professor or an intern? Similarly, how experienced does your engineer or architect need to be? The answer is the same in all situations - you balance the extra expense with your assessment of the expected outcome. Most professionals genuinely have the best interests of their client in mind because: Most are genuinely ethical - consultants like barristers more than most because they are not beholden to an employer. Its bad for business if it is not. Reputation is everything ; consistently take on cases that you can't win or over-service your clients and word gets around. Barristers are officers of the court - they need to work with the judges on a regular basis and nothing pisses off a judge more than a barrister who doesn't know the relevant law. What makes you think any barrister is short of work? Most will happily pass over a client they can't service properly because there are a dozen more lining up.

In New South Wales, does the proportion of rent paid by co-tenants affect their legal rights?

If a co-tenant on a property (answers would preferably address residential cases, but commercial cases would be acceptable also) pays more rent than another, are they legally entitled to, for instance, more income from the sale of shared belongings? Would they be legally liable for more, if the tenants were penalised for some private nuisance?

Tenants, where there are more than one, are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the rent and are similarly jointly and severally liable for any laws that "the property" breaks. Joint and several liability means that they are each individually responsible, and the landlord or anyone suing for damages may pursue any or all for satisfaction of the debt (they may go after one if, for example, the others cannot be found). How the tenants settle this between themselves is independent of the lease. If the tenants have an agreement to split the rent in any proportion (including equal shares) then this may amount to a contract. However, family, domestic, social and voluntary agreements are presumed not to be intended to legally bind the participants. Whether this presumption would be overturned would depend on the specific facts - the existence of a written contract being a good one. Notwithstanding, it is difficult to see how paying more rent on a property would entitle you to a greater share of another, different piece of joint property.

Who is liable for damage?

Consider the following situation: The red car and blue car are both reversing in the above situation. Just as the red car was in front of the blue car's space, the blue car reversed out crashing into the red car. In this situation, is liability "knock for knock" (both cars paying for their own damage) or is the blue car responsible? (Assume this situation occured in Australia)

I see by your comment to @dw1 that you questioning what your insurance company says. Let's be clear - what your insurance company says is not necessarily the law! @dw1's answer is the correct legal position. "Knock for knock" is a commercial position adopted by Australian insurance companies in order to avoid expensive litigation when, in the scheme of things, who really cares. Now it may be (almost certainly is ) a term of your contract with your insurance company that you accept their ruling on this if you want to make a claim on your policy. That would mean you would pay the excess and the accident would be on your record. You do not have to do this. If you can prove your version of events then you personally can sue the other driver for their negligence. What will almost invariably happen is that they will make a claim on their insurance who will either a) settle or b) defend your claim and launch a counter claim against you (which your insurer will have nothing to do with because you chose to go outside the policy). You then go to court and the magistrate will want to know a) why you are wasting their time with this trivial case and b) what the evidence says. They will either rule or, more likely, refer you to compulsory mediation. At this point you have to ask yourself, do I really have time for this? I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer.

Who is liable for damage?

Consider the following situation: The red car and blue car are both reversing in the above situation. Just as the red car was in front of the blue car's space, the blue car reversed out crashing into the red car. In this situation, is liability "knock for knock" (both cars paying for their own damage) or is the blue car responsible? (Assume this situation occured in Australia)

All other things equal, the vehicle that enters and occupies the roadway first has the right of way. Absent any negligence or other violation on the red car's part the blue car should be found 100% responsible.

Do people generally have the right not to be photographed on private property?

Assume that I and other people are patrons on private property, and that the owner/occupier of the property does not object to my activities. If I wish to take photographs of something on the property and I inadvertently include other people in the photograph, what are my legal rights and responsibilities with regard to the photos? Am I required to cease taking photographs at their request? Assume this is in Australia; New south Wales, specifically, but I am interested in answers for other states also. Re: the possible duplicate - this is concerned with an individual's specific request not to be photographed, where no such assertion is made in the suggested duplicate.

Let's put to bed the myth of privacy that is at the heart of your question: in R v Sotheren (2001) NSWSC 204 Justice Dowd said “A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed" So they can ask you to stop; its bad manners if you don't but it is not illegal. If they are the controller of the property then they can stop you filming from their property but they cannot stop you filming into their property from outside (either public land or land where you do have permission). See How do laws affect photography of non-humans in public when people may be in the frame?

Starting a new business in the UK

My partner recently started trying to sell her crafts through Facebook and through a website (that i am in charge of), she hasn't sold much but it has only being going a month, so we weren't expecting anything spectacular! A few days ago an 'internet celebrity' posted a picture of her daughter wearing one of our items (because we had sent her one as a gift) and we have been getting a lot more interest (cannot complain), but as a result of this we received an email from a vaguely similarly named website asking us to stop selling immediately as it would be 'diluting' their brand and they were 'registered', but i cannot find any proof of this apart from a flashy website with their name 'copyrighted' (i didn't think you could copyright a name usually). This has worried us and now we are having to look at trademarking and registering, all very expensive! (compared with the minimal income), we would obviously register with the 'Tax Man' but i think we have up to 3 months from starting to sell (and i wanted to see if this business was viable). Please could i have some advice on what legally we need to do to prevent us from getting into 'hot water' as we are an honest couple just trying to make something out of nothing, and hopefully enjoy the journey! Thank you in advance. Andy P.S. we are based in England.

I speak from the perspective of Australian law - the general thrust should be the same but the nuances will be different. There are several different ways that intellectual property (IP) is protected, I quote from Australian Business Law, CCH Australia Ltd (my emphasis): Sales literature, software and promotional film about the product may be protected using copyright ; its shape or pattern may be registered using a design ; its invention may be patented ; its name may be registered as a trade mark ; and confidential information about it may be protected by action for breach of confidential information. Copyright exists in "works" (ie original literary, dramatic , musical or artistic works) and "other than works" (ie sound recordings, cinematograph films, television and sound broadcasts and published editions of works). As you say, a single word or even a short phrase cannot be protected by copyright but an artistic work like a logo incorporating words can, however, in that case it is only the logo that is protected, not the words within it. They have no copyright in their name Single words and other things (eg Cadbury's trademark of a specific shade or purple) can be protected by a trade mark. However, unlike copyright which automatically springs into existence upon creation, a trade mark must be registered in the relevant jurisdiction (the UK in your case); a US or Australian trade mark, for example does not prevent anyone dealing with it in the UK. In addition, trade marks are limited to a particular field - if Microsoft is a registered trademark limited to the field of computing (and I'm not saying it is or isn't); if you were to apply the word to your range of feather beds there would be no trade mark protection. Trade marks are publicly registered; look it up. If they do not have a trade mark then they cannot take action against you. Registering a trade mark is complex and can fall over for a number of reasons. First, it has to be capable of "distinguishing the product" - if the word(s) you are using are not made up and given that there are at least 2 products in the market similarly described (yours and theirs) then it is probably not trade markable. My advice - do nothing unless and until you get something more serious than a letter. If you have breached their rights then they need to prove it; which means issuing you with a summons. If and when you get that (and you probably won't) you can a) roll-over or b) fight. Worst case scenario is they can seek an injunction on you to stop - if they head this way you can just ... agree to stop before going to court. Theoretically they could also sue you for the damage you have caused their brand which is ... two-tenths of bugger-all. That said, I am not a lawyer, not familiar with the jurisdiction and not appraised of your specific details; pay some real money to a real solicitor.

What are the potential pitfalls of representing oneself pro se?

Where do pros se litigants most often fail? Is it because of ignorance of legal protocols? Is it because they use overly aggressive tactics that most lawyers wouldn't use? Is it because they failed to prove their case, when a competent lawyer might have succeeded? This question was inspired by one of the the answers to another one.

Most pro se litigants fail in the court procedure area. There are many intricacies about what must be completed by when. Determining jurisdiction can take a very long time, especially personal jurisdiction. These things set back cases repeatedly. Additionally, many pro se litigants fail a 12(b)(6) motion. This means the other side files a motion saying that the opposing party failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Typically, a pro se litigant fails to state with specificity each element of a claim and how the parties met each element. If the litigant does not know how to remedy the situation, it will not succeed. Most judges in small claims overlook procedural deficiencies so long as they are not too burdensome on the opposing party. If one is unsure how to proceed, contact an attorney.

How do websites (or apps) that use pictures or posters of movies not infringe on rights and still make a profit?

Sites like IMDB as well as Rotten Tomatoes and countless other websites or mobile applications (such as flixter, etc.) all use movie posters and images from movies as part of their content which is more or less the selling point of their business (or maybe more accurately how they convince users to keep using). How do companies get away with using images or movie posters for free, does that mean movie posters and content are fair use for commerical use?

It would be an overgeneralization to conclude that movie posters are "fair use for commerical use". The uses you see imply that low resolution reproductions of movie posters have been judged by IMDB, Wikipedia, and others to be fair use for the purpose of identification alongside commentary (or in a transformative function like browsing). As an example case, see Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd ., 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006), which held that it was fair use to reproduce thumbnail sized Grateful Dead concert posters in a book alongside a timeline.

How do websites (or apps) that use pictures or posters of movies not infringe on rights and still make a profit?

Sites like IMDB as well as Rotten Tomatoes and countless other websites or mobile applications (such as flixter, etc.) all use movie posters and images from movies as part of their content which is more or less the selling point of their business (or maybe more accurately how they convince users to keep using). How do companies get away with using images or movie posters for free, does that mean movie posters and content are fair use for commerical use?

For wikipedia: They will generally use a scaled down version under fair use as nomen agentis explained. If you look at the meta data for the images, it states how it is fair use ( See Inside Out Poster ). If it is found that the uploader did violate copyright by using a copyrighted version of the image that is not covered under fair use, then a DMCA notice is issued and the image is removed or replaced. For IMDB: IMDB actually pays for the licence to show the photos. Per their FAQ about using images from their site , they state that the images are licensed to them only. IMDB also charges a fee for high-resolution photos of the posters. This is an advertising fee more than anything else. For other sites: they may do the same as IMDB unless it's a community site

What did Samuel Alito (SCOTUS) mean by "super-legislative" power?

In Obergefell v. Hodges (the recent gay marriage ruling), Samuel Alito writes in his dissent (p. 73 of this PDF containing the electronic opinion): This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super -legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. What does he mean " super -legislative" power (as opposed to mere "legislative power")? Or is he engaging in mere rhetorical flourish?

Super-legislative refers to Alito's contention that the court is effectively legislating, i.e. creating new laws; and doing so by overriding the formal legislative bodies. It is implied by a belief that no existing laws or precedents recognize a right to marry. One common criticism of courts exercising legislative powers is that they are not constrained in the same way that formal legislatures are, such as through elections. One criticism of super -legislative powers is that they prevent future legislatures from any variation. As a (contrived) example, because of the specific ruling you mention, no future U.S. legislature can uphold a law prohibiting some same-sex couples from marrying, say those that don't plan on raising children together. The source of the United States Supreme Court's 'super' powers is based in the longstanding idea that it possesses the power of judicial review , by which the court can invalidate the laws of legislatures (or the actions of the executive branch). Interestingly, "super-legislative" as a phrase seems to have peaked in popularity, according to Google Ngram Viewer, in the 1930s and 1970s. An example from the Ocala Star-Banner article "'Super' Legislative Body", published on June 18th 1964: The Warren Court has gone off making its own laws again, usurping the legislative processes of this country.

What to do if your car inspection sticker expires?

What should you do if your inspection sticker expires while you're outside the United States? How will you take your car to the inspection center once you get back home if you're not allowed to drive? I'm specifically asking about the law in New York. Thanks in advance

I don't know what, if any, safe harbors are provided under state laws for this, but I have seen apparent Catch-22s like this resolved in the following practical manner: If your car is overdue for inspection, and you are cited for it, and you subsequently offer the officer or the court evidence that you got it inspected as soon as reasonably practical, they will withdraw the charge. (Of course, absent a legal safe harbor, YMMV at the whim of the officers.)

What to do if your car inspection sticker expires?

What should you do if your inspection sticker expires while you're outside the United States? How will you take your car to the inspection center once you get back home if you're not allowed to drive? I'm specifically asking about the law in New York. Thanks in advance

If your vehicle is outside New York State, you can apply for an inspection extension sticker. This gives you until 10 days after the vehicle returns to New York State to have it reinspected. This would be the case if you were traveling with your vehicle or if you parked it out of state while you were traveling (perhaps at Newark airport, for example). Source: http://dmv.ny.gov/inspection/inspection-requirements If your car is in New York State, however, it appears that you have to find another solution. You can presumably have the car towed to an inspection station, or you can risk the fine, which seems lower than the likely cost of towing ($25 to $50 if the registration is less than 60 days expired, $50 to $100 otherwise). Plus of course there's the likelihood that you won't have to pay the fine. You could also arrange to have someone take the car for inspection in your absence.

Choosing Which 20% to Inherit

A relative has recently passed away in Spain. I live in the UK. They have left me 20% of their estate, my brother will receive 80%. I'm expecting this might be 20% of cash and some items such as a mobile home and motorbike, etc. However they also owned land in Spain that contains an olive grove. I've heard that this land was bought naively when the relative was in the UK (before they went to live in Spain). I think the issue is that the land is undesirable, because it's part of an abandoned village that has renovation laws covering it, i.e. something like it can only be renovated back to it's original form and not flattened and rebuilt with new houses. Whatever the laws, my relative chose to keep the land and simply harvested the olives each year. My question is, when inheriting 20% of someone's estate, do you get to pick and choose what you take? I.e. could I take 20% of everything else, but leave my 20% of the land to my brother, or even the Spanish government/crown?

The following is for UK law - no idea what happens in Spain. The will is a set of instructions that the executor of the will is required to carry out. It is the executor that decides how to give effect to the deceased's wishes. If the will is as simple as "I give 20% to X and 80% to Y" then this is an unusually simple will (no make, I mean, its a right pain to give effect to). Then to give effect to this the executor must divide the estate by value. In general, you do not choose what you get, the executor does. However, if you, the other beneficiaries and the executor can reach agreement on distribution then the executor can give effect to that. Let's say, you can all agree that the value of the estate is (say): Cash and other negotiable instruments - $20,000 Personal effects Motor home $15,000 Motor bike $5,000 Other $20,000 Land in Spain $140,000 Then 20% is $40,000. If you all agree that you will take the Cash, the Motor home and the Motor bike then the executor can give effect to that. If you can't agree then the executor will be required to liquidate the assets and split the cash and/or put the assets in joint names; which makes you "partners" in the asset which you may not want to be. You can certainly gift anything you own to your brother after you get it but it would probably have to pass through your hands first for tax reasons

Do disclaimers need to be capitalized?

Are disclaimers of warranty, liability, and the like legally required to be in all-caps? For example, the "disclaimer of warranty" section from the GNU GPL : THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. On the other hand, Stack Exchange's disclaimer of warranty uses normal casing (well, normal for legal documents): Stack Exchange has no special relationship with or fiduciary duty to Subscriber. Subscriber acknowledges that Stack Exchange has no control over, and no duty to take any action regarding: which users gains access to the Network; which Content Subscriber accesses via the Network; what effects the Content may have on Subscriber; how...

Do they have to use all caps? Well, no. It's just that companies feel that's the easiest way to make the text "conspicuous" which is required by the Uniform Commercial Code explicitly in § 2-316. Exclusion or Modification of Warranties. (2)Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that "There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof." The term "conspicuous" is defined in § 1-201. General Definitions. " Conspicuous ", with reference to a term, means so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it. Whether a term is "conspicuous" or not is a decision for the court. Conspicuous terms include the following: (A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and (B) language in the body of a record or display in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language. So you could make the text all bold and italic. You could make the font color purple. It's just that most companies use the caps lock key, whatever their individual reasons may be. I'll also note that this is a commercial code and these rules are found under Article 2 - Sales . So you'll only see this requirement taking effect in terms/disclaimers for companies which actually let end-users engage in commercial activity (they're actually selling something). Any site which doesn't facilitate commercial activity will likely be using a warranty disclaimer as a note of "hey, this is a free site, so no you don't get a warranty or legal expectation of service of any sort."

Do disclaimers need to be capitalized?

Are disclaimers of warranty, liability, and the like legally required to be in all-caps? For example, the "disclaimer of warranty" section from the GNU GPL : THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. On the other hand, Stack Exchange's disclaimer of warranty uses normal casing (well, normal for legal documents): Stack Exchange has no special relationship with or fiduciary duty to Subscriber. Subscriber acknowledges that Stack Exchange has no control over, and no duty to take any action regarding: which users gains access to the Network; which Content Subscriber accesses via the Network; what effects the Content may have on Subscriber; how...

Students of the English legal system will all have heard of Alfred Denning (later Lord Denning), a prominent English judge in the twentieth century who really took issue with contract terms that purported to exclude liability under every circumstance. In a famous case in 1956, (J Spurling Ltd v. Bradshaw), Lord Denning came up with his famous "red hand rule", I quite agree that the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient. This did not follow from any English statute, but Denning found this to be part of the common law; therefore other jurisdictions using the common law might be persuaded of similar logic. So if someone is drafting a clause that excludes their liability in very general terms, it is wise to ensure it is brought prominently to the notice of the other party. An easy way to do that is to print it all in capitals.

Do disclaimers need to be capitalized?

Are disclaimers of warranty, liability, and the like legally required to be in all-caps? For example, the "disclaimer of warranty" section from the GNU GPL : THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. On the other hand, Stack Exchange's disclaimer of warranty uses normal casing (well, normal for legal documents): Stack Exchange has no special relationship with or fiduciary duty to Subscriber. Subscriber acknowledges that Stack Exchange has no control over, and no duty to take any action regarding: which users gains access to the Network; which Content Subscriber accesses via the Network; what effects the Content may have on Subscriber; how...

There is a history of some organizational and US government publications mandating all capital letters for certain terms in the publication. Here is a section of the Minnesota elections process Section 43 remove the requirements that voter instructions on a primary ballot be in all capital letters The Journal of Dairy Science requires it for sectional information. Section 5.47(3)(i) of the Dept. of the Treasury's rules on Subordinated debt issued by a national bank specifies: (3) Disclosure requirements. (i) A national bank must disclose clearly on the face of any subordinated debt note the following language in all capital letters I can personally relate that I have seen promotional and content rules that exhibit all-capital-letters printing in a telling pattern: the contest rules will have a block that prints the state-by-state exemptions and local laws. This block almost always has some of the state's information printed in all-capitals, whereas others are mixed or regular use of capitals. I think #3 is really exemplifying of the trend, since it is both federal, and well-aged. We can see that Minnesota used a similar font for much of their history, until recently. #4 is also very telling of how certain states have created local laws around it. So I would say that the legality of capitalizing disclaimer / disclosure information is relative to the body that has jurisdiction of the related field of work.

Is there any remedy for unnecessary insult by police in the course of their lawful duties?

Following up on Are there any remedies for abusive or insulting behavior by agents executing a search warrant? the more subtle question needs the following elaboration: My impression is that as far as the law is concerned there is no such tort as "maliciously making a mess" or "unnecessarily desecrating an individual or his property" in the course of a LEO's official duties. But to any individual subject to such abuse the difference between a respectful and malicious search may be life-shattering. To make it more salient let's consider a search warrant for some small amount of drugs issued on a residence. Suppose the owner of the residence claims to be a devout Muslim and keeps a Koran in a prominent place. He notes that the book is holy to him and asks the agents executing the warrant to don gloves before touching it. A respectful searcher would comply with the request, putting on gloves before inspecting the book, and replacing it when done. An indifferent searcher would rifle the book bare-handed and, perhaps, toss it aside hurriedly. A malicious searcher might say, "Muslim, huh? Well let me finish my bacon sandwich before I handle that." He smears the pages with bacon grease, then throws the book on the ground and goes out of his way to trample it every time he walks by. Is the law indifferent to the three scenarios? Update: Because religion might have special protection under the law, here is a non-religious example: I collect Legos and have spent thousands of hours building an enormous Lego city in my basement. Here are the three alternatives in this scenario: To inspect every concealable space the respectful searcher separates the structures to look inside, and then locks them back together. The indifferent searcher pulls apart every structure as much as necessary to expose their internal spaces. Because he exercises no exceptional care in how he breaks things it will take scores of hours to rebuild the city. The malicious searcher brings a hammer and begins smashing the Legos with glee. He frequently turns to the owner and asks things like, "So, you still don't want to tell me where the drugs are? This Lego airport is next!" The blocks are so broken that to restore the property the collector/builder would have to start from scratch. Meanwhile, the searcher shrugs off the destruction saying, "Something could have been concealed in those little dimples in each block, so I had to break them all to be sure." Update: The Lego example, third scenario, consists of destruction of property so might be more appropriate to the first question . Since the purpose of this question is to focus on the "insult" piece here is another example: A retired cop recently claimed that he observed fellow officers, "Pissing and shitting inside suspects homes during raids, on their beds and clothes." Obviously the property damage from that misbehavior is not worth suing over. But one would hope that there is some adequate remedy at law for such gratuitously abusive and insulting behavior. Further update: Andrew notes that this last example is just plain vandalism. So let's walk it back a bit into the grey area where police in particular seem to run unrestrained: Suppose the police throw all the resident's clothes on the floor, walk through some spilled staining agents, and then stomp through the clothes repeatedly. If they are called to account for it they say, "Oh, gee, sorry, we didn't notice the spilled dye, or the clothes on the floor. Our job is to search, not to take care of peoples' property."

The officers could incur liability under 28 U.S.C. 2680 (h) with jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1346 (b) . This would probably be considered "loss of property" or a "wrongful act". It is very rare for cases to go forward for this because of the costs of litigation against an officer. "[I]t is well recognized that ‘officers executing search warrants on occasion must damage property in order to perform their duty.’" Cody v. Mello, 59 F.3d 13 , 16 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238, 258 (1979)). “Before any due process liability can be imposed for property damage occurring in a lawful search, it must be established that the police acted unreasonably or maliciously in bringing about the damage.” Cody, 59 F.3d at 16. That actually means that the burden of proof is on the victim to show unreasonableness / maliciousness. It would probably be easier if the thing destroyed could not possibly have contained the item looked for. For instance, if they are looking for a 65" LED TV, they can't even look in a 64" dresser (or something smaller than the object that could not physically hold the object). This issue becomes moot when dealing with drugs.

Can google trends data be used for free in a commercial project?

I need to use google trends data in a commercial project. Does the google trends license prohibit free usage?

From what I can see in the Terms : Using our Services does not give you ownership of any intellectual property rights in our Services or the content you access. You may not use content from our Services unless you obtain permission from its owner or are otherwise permitted by law. The short answer to your question is likely no . It is possible that you may have fair use rights to it, though this is unlikely if you are using it for commercial purposes.

Can google trends data be used for free in a commercial project?

I need to use google trends data in a commercial project. Does the google trends license prohibit free usage?

From their Terms titled: About Software in our Services : Google gives you a personal, worldwide, royalty-free, non-assignable and non-exclusive license to use the software provided to you by Google as part of the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling you to use and enjoy the benefit of the Services as provided by Google, in the manner permitted by these terms. You may not copy, modify, distribute, sell, or lease any part of our Services or included software , nor may you reverse engineer or attempt to extract the source code of that software, unless laws prohibit those restrictions or you have our written permission. Do not sell or lease a product using Trends information (you could possibly sell a program that connects to the 'API' though). If I were in your position, I would contact and IP Attorney or email google.

Can sharing YouTube links violate copyright laws?

Suppose an app has a collection of links to YouTube videos about a particular topic (e.g., sports). Users can watch video by clicking on the Play video button. This will open up the YouTube video in the official YouTube app or browser if the user wishes to do so. Could this violate any copyright law, or the YouTube terms of service?

Copyright Law: Probably Not so long as you are not hosting anything other than a link. (This is a secondary source) Even if academics and technology enthusiasts prefer an absolute right to link on the Internet, the business world has an interest in regulating what information is shared.66 Businesses will protest free linking to their materials if it interferes with their sales or marketing messages.67 If a website operator *1090 desires to restrict certain content from being linked to or integrated in another site, the operator can require a password to view the site or can technically disable outside sites from in-line linking to images or media hosted by the site.68 Youtube ToS: You may have an issue with ToS 4. D. if you have ads on your webpage. Service here is defined as "by using or visiting the YouTube website or any YouTube products, software, data feeds, and services provided to you on, from, or through the YouTube website " But it does seem to allow you to use an embedded player in your site if you wanted. ToS 4. F.