Datasets:

vblagoje

/

Law-StackExchange-Flat

like 0

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?

Generally, providing links to websites will not violate copyright law. This would include YouTube videos. It is possible that if the sole or primary purpose of your app is to facilitate copyright infringement - for instance, by linking to copyright-infringing material - you may be liable under local laws. This would depend on your jurisdiction, and the amount of copyright infringement required to be facilitated will vary.

Obergefell and its implications on other family rights

Now that same sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, I was wondering what the impact of this decision would be on laws that limit the abilities of same-sex couples to adopt children and other benefits. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court did not set out the level of scrutiny to be used in determining discrimination against same-sex couples. How would the courts determine the level of scrutiny when deciding cases where same-sex couples are discriminated against? (e.g. the wedding cake issues?)

Chief Justice Roberts, dissenting, says ( at p. 24 ): The equal protection analysis might be different, in my view, if we were confronted with a more focused challenge to the denial of certain tangible benefits. That indicates to me that there is probably a majority on the court that thinks same-sex couples should have the same adoption rights and other tangible benefits as opposite-sex couples, but that would have to be tested in court. Regarding level-of-scrutiny, this opinion says nothing on the issue. But, given that Justice Kennedy follows a fundamental rights analysis, it could be argued that it is likely strict scrutiny, or at least a level of scrutiny higher than rational basis. Vacco v. Quill , 521 U.S. 793 (1997), citing Romer v. Evans , 517 U. S. 620, 631 (1996) (emphasis added, internal punctuation removed): If a legislative classification or distinction neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold it so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end.

Is it always permissible to republish the Metadata of a website?

If you right click in this website and select "View page source", you can find between hundreds of lines of code the following: <meta name="twitter:card" content="summary"> <meta name="twitter:domain" content="law.stackexchange.com"/> <meta property="og:type" content="website" /> <meta property="og:image" itemprop="image primaryImageOfPage" content="http://cdn.sstatic.net/law/img/apple-touch-icon.png?v=ff6a1ab1aaef&a" /> <meta name="twitter:title" property="og:title" itemprop="title name" content="Ask a Question" /> <meta name="twitter:description" property="og:description" itemprop="description" content="Q&amp;A for legal professionals, students, and others with experience or interest in law" /> This information is normally set in order to be found in web search engines or to share in social networks. For example, the meta property called "og:image" contains the link of an image that will be published if we copy/paste this url in Facebook. Or the "meta tags" (not available on this website) will allow some old fashioned search engines find your website. So as this information is meant to be public in order to get found, is there any problem if I copy this information and publish it in another website with attribution? What about the image?

Please Note: This was written before the title change of this question and may no longer be applicable According to the Harvard website : In Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. 499 US 340 (1991) the United States Supreme Court held that copyright does not extend to a mere compilation of facts. In this case, it was a telephone directory much the same as the one in ProCD v. Zeidenberg 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, the Court also ruled that something more than simple "sweat of the brow" labor was required before copyright protection would ensue, with some modicum of authorial originality necessary. Accordingly, it was held in Feist that copyright did not extend to a telephone directory, no matter how laborious a task its compilation was. The decision in ProCD v. Zeidenberg 86 F. 3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) is highly significant, therefore, in that it permits copyright or quasi-copyright protection to be extended to non-copyrightable material through the use of contract. One would have to consider each meta tag independently. For example, the "description" tag could by copyrightable since it is written for more than just the 'facts', such as a subtle advert for the site that is more than an objective description. However the 'og:type' would not be copyrightable since it would just be considered a fact. Now, if you are using it on another website and sourcing it properly, you could probably use it under " Fair Use " Uses That Are Generally Fair Uses Subject to some general limitations discussed later in this article, the following types of uses are usually deemed fair uses: Criticism and comment -- for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment. News reporting -- for example, summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report. Research and scholarship -- for example, quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific, or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author's observations. Nonprofit educational uses -- for example, photocopying of limited portions of written works by teachers for classroom use. Parody -- that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known, work by imitating it in a comic way. A copyright would exist on the image. One would have to know what license currently applies to the image to know for sure, however, the "Fair Use" to copyright would still apply. With Fair Use, the entity type that uses the image is important. There is much more leniency when a non-profit uses copyrighted information than when the information is used in commercial activity. (With, of course, more exceptions.)

Is Denver International Airport (DEN) cannabis-friendly?

Denver International Airport (DEN) has a number of smoking lounges, something I've never seen in any other airport anywhere in the States. Are those lounges allowed to sell cannabis, since it's now all legal in Colorado?

No, they are not. The airport is supposedly under federal jurisdiction (according to a DEN employee), and the federal government does not allow such sales to take place. Thus, all smoking lounges in DEN are cannabis-free. Apparently, according to an employee within DEN, some people do manage to get past the security and into those lounges with their own pot, but, they're not allowed to keep at it, either.

Legal Identity for Conjoined Twins

Conjoined Twins are identical twins who share some physical connection. In particular, some share the same body, although both possess separate heads. As such, what are the legal ramifications for dicephalic twins, inasmuch as personhood, citizenship, and criminal prosecution are concerned?

Well they are two distinct people, as you reveal by using plural verbs throughout your question. I don't think anyone would endeavour to argue that two conjoined twins, each possessing his own head, mind and personality, are in fact one person (is that your question?). The difficulty is criminal prosecution. Of course the guilty twin can be proceeded against and tried, but he cannot be incarcerated without unlawfully abridging the freedom of his (innocent) twin. In many jurisdictions this is simply unacceptable. The only example I was able to track down was this headline: Judge Releases Siamese Twin To Avoid Jailing His Brother http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9503EFDC1630E03ABC4A52DFB6678382639EDE Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall. If it is somehow unclear which twin is responsible for a crime committed by one of them, then in any common law jurisdiction—absence proof that they acted together—they must be both be acquitted.

Process Service - Why the secretary of state?

I understand from Wikipedia that many states in the US require that companies have a designated agent in each jurisdiction where they do business to accept service. It seems that at least in some states, such as New York , the secretary of state is required to be the agent on which process is served. (a) The secretary of state shall be the agent of every domestic limited liability company that has filed with the department of state articles of organization making such designation and every foreign limited liability company upon which process may be served pursuant to this chapter. (b) No domestic or foreign limited liability company may be formed or authorized to do business in this state under this chapter unless its articles of organization or application for authority designates the secretary of state as such agent. What I haven't been able to figure out is what this accomplishes, assuming the LLC itself is in New York - why can't I accept service at my business address, or my lawyer's address, etc? I find the situation rather confusing in light of the fact that in New York, personal service is required for some family law issues.

What does it accomplish? It guarantees that all corporations doing business in New York can be served. (A company's having an agent for the service of process does not prohibit people from serving the corporation directly. The secretary may be "the agent upon which process may be served" but is not "the sole agent upon which process must be served." And besides, process need not be served on an agent; it can be served on the company itself, at its office or on one of its officers.) With this requirement, New York makes it impossible for a company to avoid service of process by closing or moving its offices, by sending its officers and employees out of state, or by making itself unavailable by any means. No matter what steps a company might take to avoid service of process, the process server can always resort to serving the company's agent: the Secretary of State.

Process Service - Why the secretary of state?

I understand from Wikipedia that many states in the US require that companies have a designated agent in each jurisdiction where they do business to accept service. It seems that at least in some states, such as New York , the secretary of state is required to be the agent on which process is served. (a) The secretary of state shall be the agent of every domestic limited liability company that has filed with the department of state articles of organization making such designation and every foreign limited liability company upon which process may be served pursuant to this chapter. (b) No domestic or foreign limited liability company may be formed or authorized to do business in this state under this chapter unless its articles of organization or application for authority designates the secretary of state as such agent. What I haven't been able to figure out is what this accomplishes, assuming the LLC itself is in New York - why can't I accept service at my business address, or my lawyer's address, etc? I find the situation rather confusing in light of the fact that in New York, personal service is required for some family law issues.

In a state, the secretary of "state" (interior, actually), is a registrar with which all corporations in the state must register. As a result, the secretary of state is the person/entity that has access to all corporations, and with whom all corporations must interact in order to derive their status as corporations in that state. That would be why serving the secretary of state "qualifies" for service. Allowing the secretary of state to be served (on behalf of the corporation) means that a corporation doing business in New York can always be served.

How can one go about amending the law?

If one feels that the law is not clear enough, or might have loopholes that should be fixed, how would one go about starting a process to possibly amend it? For example, in Texas, a lot of landlords charge exuberant fees for residential lease re-assignment, even if the tenant goes about finding a new person to whom the lease would be reassigned all by themselves. E.g., not only would the new tenant still need to pay application and administrative fees (which often amount to 200 USD in Texas), but also the old tenant would still have to pay a non-trivial re-letting fee (which I've seen being anywhere from 200 USD to 85% of the monthly rent). This doesn't make much sense.

Call, write, or visit the office of your legislative representative. This page can help you figure out who that is. They have the ability to introduce a bill into the legislature that would change the law, and that's the best way to change a law like what you're trying to do here. Be sure to tell the legislator exactly what you think should be changed (e.g. "We should change section ABC of the Texas Property Code, < citation>, to say that 'no landlord can charge a fee of more than X for Y in Z conditions,' or something similar.") Then concisely summarize your reasons why. Consider consulting politics for more strategy on who and how to ask to increase the probability of success. Be sure to give some consideration to the reason why the landlords charge such fees and the costs they have to incur associated with lease assignments/changes. Try to craft a proposal that addresses those concerns, perhaps in some alternative way, and communicate the degree to which you think you understand and have addressed those opposing views. Also try to think about what new challenges or issues would arise if your proposal went into the law. The job of your representative and/or their staff includes listening to (a concise presentation of) your concerns and how you think the law should be changed, and representing those views in the legislature. S/he also has other constituents, including landlords, to answer to as well, and has to balance those potentially opposing interests before deciding what (if anything) to do. The degree to which you think the representative listens and represents your interests may determine whose campaign you support (including who you vote for and what you say to your friends/neighbors/family) in the next election. Another strategy is to negotiate with your next landlord to take those fees out of your lease agreement, and then the contract which governs your specific agreement might be changed to address this concern. If you want to change the law for everybody, you might have to convince a lot of people that it's a good idea. If you want to change the "law" for what affects you personally, you might only have to convince one person (your own landlord) that such a change is a good idea, at least in your case.

Is it legal to share a script that scrapes a website and presents in a different format?

Most news sites and tech blogs provide only a summary in their rss feeds. If I write a script that scrapes their website and extracts some useful data, can I share the script as open source. Does it depend on each and every website and needs prior permission? If scraping is not allowed without permission, who is guilty, the person who wrote the script or the one who used them? Note 1: I am not redistributing website's content, just sharing the script that helps to read the content in different form. I am specifically interested in Indian and US Law. Note 2: The script may be specific to particular website and may access data that is accessible only with user's login credentials. Note 3: script means a program or software application E.g nytimes offer subscription offer at $3.5 a week for web+smartphone access. But for tablet access, it is $5.00 a week. Can I sell an app for tablet that parses the page from the web interface and converts it to tablet friendly format. The app will use login credentials from the user to login using a virtual browser to download the content and format it such that it is better readable in tablet? Do I have to get permission from nytimes to sell the app? I don't care about this special case but in general can the provider legally restrict how the content is consumed by the end user.

Check the website's terms of service. Check to see if you're violating these terms, and check to see if the script you are making enables other people to violate them. Courts don't often look kindly on actions whose sole purpose is enabling someone else to do something that is prohibited. If you're making a script that helps people do something they're allowed to do, in a way that's better for at least somebody and makes nobody worse off, that's often a different story. Major websites will generally indicate whether or not you're allowed to do this. Some sites are fairly strict about prohibiting scraping (e.g. Craigslist, which at one point shut down Padmapper 's alternative more-useful presentation of their content). Others, like Wikipedia, much more actively encourage reusing content from their sites as long as you meet certain conditions such as a link back to the original source .

Is it legal to share a script that scrapes a website and presents in a different format?

Most news sites and tech blogs provide only a summary in their rss feeds. If I write a script that scrapes their website and extracts some useful data, can I share the script as open source. Does it depend on each and every website and needs prior permission? If scraping is not allowed without permission, who is guilty, the person who wrote the script or the one who used them? Note 1: I am not redistributing website's content, just sharing the script that helps to read the content in different form. I am specifically interested in Indian and US Law. Note 2: The script may be specific to particular website and may access data that is accessible only with user's login credentials. Note 3: script means a program or software application E.g nytimes offer subscription offer at $3.5 a week for web+smartphone access. But for tablet access, it is $5.00 a week. Can I sell an app for tablet that parses the page from the web interface and converts it to tablet friendly format. The app will use login credentials from the user to login using a virtual browser to download the content and format it such that it is better readable in tablet? Do I have to get permission from nytimes to sell the app? I don't care about this special case but in general can the provider legally restrict how the content is consumed by the end user.

Without too much detail knowledge of both US and Indian law, I can't really think that this wouldn't be allowed. In some jurisdictions, distribution of software programs may be restricted or prohibited if any use of such programs would very likely, or automatically, lead to copyright violations (e.g. "hacker tools"). However, this is a very exceptional scenario and doesn't apply here for various reasons. The owner of a website publishes content on the Internet with the intention that users can access it (either all users or only those who have subscribed to the content etc.). The website owner then cannot prescribe how exactly users access the content. For example, each different browser may display a website differently, with some browsers like Safari already now providing text-only views, and in the end your script is not very different from a browser. The only critical situation I can imagine is when somebody uses your script to scrape content from a website and then republishes it. Even then this "somebody" would be responsible and liable, not your script. Think again of the browser analogy: If I download a copyright-protected movie from a website via Mozilla Firefox and then put it on my website, I can't imagine a legal principle that Mozilla should be liable. Neither are you.

Is it legal to share a script that scrapes a website and presents in a different format?

Most news sites and tech blogs provide only a summary in their rss feeds. If I write a script that scrapes their website and extracts some useful data, can I share the script as open source. Does it depend on each and every website and needs prior permission? If scraping is not allowed without permission, who is guilty, the person who wrote the script or the one who used them? Note 1: I am not redistributing website's content, just sharing the script that helps to read the content in different form. I am specifically interested in Indian and US Law. Note 2: The script may be specific to particular website and may access data that is accessible only with user's login credentials. Note 3: script means a program or software application E.g nytimes offer subscription offer at $3.5 a week for web+smartphone access. But for tablet access, it is $5.00 a week. Can I sell an app for tablet that parses the page from the web interface and converts it to tablet friendly format. The app will use login credentials from the user to login using a virtual browser to download the content and format it such that it is better readable in tablet? Do I have to get permission from nytimes to sell the app? I don't care about this special case but in general can the provider legally restrict how the content is consumed by the end user.

Such scripts are all over github, so even if it were illegal, it is de facto legal. However, there's a more obvious proof of its legality; every web browser on earth does exactly what you're describing. As does every RSS reader. Every network / traffic analysis tool. Every screen reader. Every network proxy, cache, and (depending on your perspective) router and switch. I'll admit that I'm unfamiliar with the legal precedent, but I do know the precedent in reality, and reality is overwhelmingly in your favor.

E-Z Pass violation code and law description?

E-Z Pass is an electronic toll collection company in the East Coast of the USA. I have an account with them, and it works great. I forgot to update my credit-card and the account was not able to automatically add money to the account balance. As a result, I got two violations. Both violation letters state that the violation is "UNAUTHORIZED USE OF ETC SYSTEM". I searched for my State's (MA) law about this, and found the Code Of Massachusetts Regulations 730 CMR -- Massachusetts Turnpike Authority section 7.04 Electronic Toll Collection ("ETC") . In Table 11 describes the General Subject Matter to be rooted in section 700 CMR 7.04(1)(a) that reads: 7.04: Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) (1) Use of the ETC System. The Department establishes the terms and conditions governing the use of an ETC system and requires that account holders accept these terms and conditions. (a) Unauthorized Use. No person may use the Department's ETC system or possess an electronic device that the Department issues for use with its ETC system unless: 700 CMR: MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 7.04: continued The electronic device is properly programmed to assess the appropriate toll charge that the Department determines is appropriate from time to time for the classification of the vehicle that is using the ETC system (i.e. commercial versus passenger vehicles), in accordance with the classification for that vehicle designated by the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles and in accordance with the vehicle classifications enumerated in 700 CMR 7.03; and the person is duly registered with the Department as a current account holder; the person is operating an authorized ETC-equipped motor vehicle with the permission of the account holder of the ETC-equipped motor vehicle; or the person is using an electronic device of an electronic toll collection system of another jurisdiction that the Department accepts for use in its ETC system. I did not contact them within the required 60 days, and for each of the violations they added late fee. Question is, can I dispute those violations based on the fact that they used a wrong violation description? (similar to how you can dispute a traffic ticket if there are errors on the ticket itself?) Is the description wrong of the violation type? I do have an account, and it was good, but just did not have money at the time.

EZ-Pass is an interstate consortium, so unless your "violation" was a summons citing a state Statute I would assume the "violations" were sent to you pursuant to the consortium's Terms and Conditions, making this a contract question (and something you would address accordingly, by either attempting to negotiate an agreement with the counterparty or waiting to see if they will sue you at which point you can defend yourself in court). If your violation is a demand under state law, and you can show that you did not violate that law, then it should be straightforward to have the demand dismissed by a letter or appearance to the summoning authority where you show your exculpatory evidence.

Do commission only employees need to be paid vacation pay?

Note: I'm making this company as if it were located in Ontario, Canada. So all the proper rules and regulations of that region would apply to this company. I'm currently using the software Quickbooks to set up a mock company and figure out how to pay employees that are commission only . When I create a new employee in the company I select the commission-only option for payment which is what I want. But after selecting this option the employee's vacation pay policy becomes this: As a commission-only employee, John does not accrue vacation or sick time. Any vacation or sick time policies you've set up do not apply to John. I was under the impression that ALL employees have to be paid a minimum of 4% vacation pay. After looking on some of the government's website regarding vacation pay and commissions, I can't seem to find any mention of an exemption for commission only employees. Thus contradicting what the Quickbooks software is telling me. Therefore my question is: Do commission only employees need to be paid vacation pay?

I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. The Labour Program has issued an interpretation on the definition of "wages", and specifically includes commission. In section 166 : “wages” « salaire » “wages” includes every form of remuneration for work performed but does not include tips and other gratuities; and in Section 183 : “vacation pay” « indemnité de congé annuel » “vacation pay” means four per cent or, after six consecutive years of employment by one employer, six per cent of the wages of an employee during the year of employment in respect of which the employee is entitled to the vacation; And assuming that the employer and employee are, in fact, in an employee-employer relationship, it is likely that he/she will be entitled to 4% of the wages during the year of employment, including commission.

Child support calculation in Ohio

Under Ohio law, a person's income must change by 30% or more either up or down to trigger the CSEA to reevaluate the support order amount. If the income changes by a lesser amount there is no administrative review. However, a judicial review is still possible 1 : this involves the parties (parents) visiting a magistrate and request a recalculation of the support order amount. What specific part of the Ohio Revised Code both authorizes this reevaluation and provides the specific process to follow to request a judicial review? What specific citation in the O.R.C. would one quote when filing a motion with the court? 1 This claim was made by a state employee who was not able to provide any further instructions other than "talk to a lawyer." Given that this appears to be a simple process not involving arguing the law in front of a judge, it would be much cheaper to do this without paying a retainer.

The Ohio State Bar agrees with the state employee that you can go to court. The statute in question seems to be 3119.79 ; that statute provides that a court recalculates upon request (there are other sections for other kinds of review, but 3119.79 is the "any time, for significant changes" one). The actual order doesn't need to be changed unless the recalculated amount is at least 10% greater or less than before, or if there has been a significant change in circumstances not forseen when the order was last reviewed. Unfortunately, the statute itself doesn't give much more procedural details; the Ohio courts have a website with some of the forms , but they have no instructions for use. It seems like the forms there are acceptable everywhere (Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 84), but some courts have their own forms (e.g. Cuyahoga County ), which may have more details or instructions. Check with your local clerk of court for more details. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, let alone an Ohio lawyer. This is just "here are some forms and the relevant law;" it does not substitute for proper legal advice.

Diplomatic Immunity and Statute Law

I know an Ambassador who committed a crime and fled abroad on diplomatic immunity. Will he be able to return to his native country in the future under statute barred or statute of limitations rules? He would have been jailed for five years if he wasn't a Diplomat.

There are several options that the Home country has. It can choose to waive diplomatic immunity and allow the Host nation (Saudi Arabia in this case) to pursue legal charges in their own system. The Home nation can choose to pursue charges as though the crime were committed on national soil. Typically once charges are brought the statute of limitations is suspended but this may vary by nation. The Home nation can choose not to pursue charges. In this case once the statute of limitations expires then the former diplomat would be free at home. And would enjoy the immunity from prosecution for the incident in the Host country as well. However since the diplomat appears to have fled before charges could be brought, if Saudi Arabia were to gain possession of the former diplomat it could pursue legal action against the diplomat as an international fugitive. The former diplomat could attempt to invoke diplomatic immunity and it would be up to the Home country to either back their former diplomat, or they could choose to deny the claim since the former diplomat fled and they could interpret that as surrendering his diplomatic post and in effect renouncing his diplomatic status.

Can a country start sending troops before declaring war?

Can a country send invasion forces before an official declaration of war? So, if the US wants to invade France, can they, under international law, officially declare war by the time their aircraft carriers are already half way across the Atlantic, with clear orders to invade? Would it be different if they were going through their own territory, or a third country's, with permission?

This is a hard question, but a good question. The following relates to the issue from the perspective of the USA. You ask "...if the US wants to invade France, can they officially declare war by...", You have to make clear what you mean by "can". If you mean whether or not the US has the physical ability to do this, then of course they do. If you mean whether they are allowed, then this is another question. When you ask whether something is allowed, then you have to make reference to a moral code or a law that determines what is and what isn't allowed (legal). Normally each country will have laws that govern what is and what isn't legal for it's citizens to do. That hard part is how this applies to nations. There are two sides to the question. (1) What are the leaders allowed to do under their own laws, (the domestic laws) (2) what are countries as entities allowed to do? (the international laws) It sounds a bit like you are asking about the second thing. Here treaties govern what is and what isn't "legal". However, usually when someone breaks a law, other entities have the power to enforce that law and decide (judge) whether the person has broken the law. The question is: who decides whether a country has broken a treaty or an international law? And if a law is broken, what exactly can be done about it? This is hard to answer. Consider for example the conflict in Ukraine. Here many will argue that Russia has piratically invaded Ukraine. There should be war between the nations. But Russia denies this and other world powers have done little beyond imposing sanctions. This illustrates how hard it is to deal with this question. One question that comes up is what the purpose of international treaties are if a country can just violate them without much consequence. Pointing out two points about this. (1) If, for example, a president wants to convince his/her own congress that the country should engage in war, then it makes a stronger point if you can show how the country you want to engage has violated international trities. (2) After you have won a war, you might want to prosecute the leaders of the loosing power. Here you will stand stronger if you can make references to some international law that existed before the conflict started. This second point is illustrated in the Nuremberg principles . Here it was exactly stated that " Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment. " According to the US constitution "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". That means that historically Congress has the power to decide where to wage war. The War Powers Resolution says, for example, that " The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities ... ". Note that this doesn't mean that the US has do formally declare war before going to war. Example: The Iraq War was authorized by Congress, but there never was a formal declaration of war . It is interesting that you ask about the timing for when the declaration should be given. The Japanese wanted to deliver their declaration of war just before the attack on Pearl Harbor. But because of issues with decrypting the message from Japan to the Japanese Embassy, the declaration wasn't delivered until after the attack . Remember also in all of this that the winning party to a conflict, usually decides what was and wasn't legal! One good reference for more on all of this is the report by the Congressional Research Service called " Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications ". Here you can see more on what I have tried (and failed?) to say above.

Can a country start sending troops before declaring war?

Can a country send invasion forces before an official declaration of war? So, if the US wants to invade France, can they, under international law, officially declare war by the time their aircraft carriers are already half way across the Atlantic, with clear orders to invade? Would it be different if they were going through their own territory, or a third country's, with permission?

Depends a lot on who is invading and who is being invaded. In the case of USA invading France, NATO and the European Union would have something to say about it, and the USA would be in big trouble for violating several conventions. They'd likely be faced with a lot of sanctions as well as a coalition of militaries backing up France. But if Chad were to suddenly move troops into the CAR, you might be lucky if you caught someone mentioning something about it on the news. The only countries which are expected to adhere to international law are those countries which were present at the signing of the various treaties. Countries will often debate legalities. NATO insists Russia invaded Ukraine illegally when they took Crimea, but Russia insists their actions were legal because the ligitimate Ukrainian government was overthrown by an illegal coup, and it's elected president was seeking assylum in Russia, so their invasion was against an illigitimate government. It's hard to enforce international law without going to war. Sanctions are the best the other countries can do, but without effecttve coercion, laws pretty much rely on the honor system.

What are the rights of the creditors of &quot;nondischargeable&quot; debts after a bankruptcy?

Suppose there was a bankruptcy filing, and there was $500,000 of debt that was ruled non-dischargeable. Let's say that the debtor kept a house that was less than the value of the exemption ($300,000 per couple in New York). Suppose the value of the debtor's house skyrocketed to $1 million. Can the non-dischargeable creditors then force the debtor to sell (or mortgage) the value of the house that exceeds the exempt value up to the amount of the $500,000 debt? Can the non-dischared creditors form a committee to monitor the debtor's assets, tax returns, income, etc. to collect any "excess income" over a reasonable living allowance after the bankruptcy?

Short answer, yes. Long answer, only a judge can order a person to act, and a judge would make efforts in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction to satisfy the debt if such an avenue were feasible and would not unduly burden the debtor (something similar to cruel or unusual standards in criminal punishment). The judge would not likely order a mortgage, since the judge cannot issue a mortgage, nor can he or she necessarily compel a third party to involve themselves in the current hypothetical fiscal debacle, but they absolutely could order someone to pay from excess income to satisfy a standard judgment. They could even go so far as to prohibit certain expenditures prior to satisfying the existing obligation (so that if you refinanced, you would have to satisfy the outstanding obligation prior to adding a new pool). They could certainly also seize assets, though generally one's primary residence is exempt from seizure, excepting certain criminal circumstances, but failure to obey a court order could lead to seizure. In the case that the value sky-rocketed, they could force the sale because it would no longer fall under New York's exemption, and could be used to satisfy a debt, under the presumption that a new, suitable residence could be procured from the remainder of the proceeds of the sale. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on the internet. For specific legal advice see a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction, and verify that these kinds of generalities apply to more than classroom case studies.

Is it legal to prevent a single parcel of land from being split?

I've spoken with a landowner in the rural area of Saratoga, California, who owns a single parcel with more land than he knows what to do with, and I asked him why doesn't he build an MDU or some such, to which he replied that the city will never allow to re-zone and/or split the parcel of the land he owns, and that neighbours and such will generally be against any such arrangements, because it'll increase crime and drive the property values down. However, upon what principle could an application to have the parcel of land split be denied? Wouldn't such restrictions unduly violate the property rights of the owner with such a large piece of land?

Minimum parcel sizes after a split are viable targets for regulation. Counties or townships (typically, or similarly niche jurisdictional units) set the numbers for what size of parcel subdivision is allowed. Though not a California example, here you can see that Sewickley Heights, PA has created ordinance against smaller than 5 acre lots, which ultimately leads to a number of effects that the borough collectively desires. These ordinance are laid out here. Pardon that I cannot say examples in CA.

Is it legal to restrict housing to certain occupations?

I've spoken with a landowner in the rural area of Saratoga, California, who owns a single parcel with more land than he knows what to do with, and I asked him why doesn't he build an MDU or some such, to which he replied that the city will never allow to re-zone and/or split the parcel of the land he owns, and that neighbours and such will generally be against any such arrangements, because it'll increase crime and drive the property values down. However, what if said MDU had a restriction that only certain occupations could partake in it? Would it be possible to build a condo or an apartment complex, yet have some kind of restrictions such that you have to be an engineer or executive or some such, in order to either own or lease the condo / apartment? Or, perhaps, that each unit has to, (1), have at least a single occupant with an income much larger than what's normally considered adequate to service the rent, and, (2), no roommates from craigslist unrelated to the occupant? Could it be made that some such covenant has to survive all future sale/lease/rent of any unit?

Not in the state of California. California law prohibits discrimination based on source of income; only discrimination based on amount of income is allowed. See the California Government Code, section 12955 . It is not even legal to indicate a preferred source of income in the advertisement; landlords may ask prospective tenants about the source of income, but may not discriminate or indicate preference for a particular source (provided it's a lawful source). Also, you can't really force a city to re-zone based on "I'll make sure this bad thing doesn't happen." If the city doesn't want to re-zone, they won't re-zone. You have no right to force them to re-zone; this is especially true when the property was purchased under those zoning rules (if the buyer didn't like them, they didn't have to buy).

OVI/DUI Rights and Requirements

I have been trying to find a definitive answer about what you are legally required to provide an officer at an OVI/DUI checkpoint in Ohio. I know that Ohio is a "Stop and Identify" state. However, that only applies if you are reasonably suspected of committing a crime. Also, that is just name, address, and date of birth. So are you required to identify yourself at an OVI/DUI Check Point? Are you required to provide registration, proof of insurance and a drivers license? I know you can invoke the right of silence and refuse consent to search but what do you actually have to answer? Please only respond if you can provide actual state documentation or a case that sets precedent.

The following is not legal advice. In general, Florida v. Royer says that only if there is a reasonable reason for doing so, a person may not be detained. For example: The person approached, however, need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way. He may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds. If there is no detention - no seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment - then no constitutional rights have been infringed. The question came up how DUI checkpoints are related to this because here people (in vehicles) are briefly detained. Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (See also here ) says that "Petitioner's highway sobriety checkpoint program is consistent with the Fourth Amendment." That is DUI check-points are legal. You are technically being detained for a short period of time. But, as you point out in your comment below, you don't have to submit to any test. The police at the stop will access you from the outside. Delaware v. Prouse (see also here ) was cited in Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz and says that Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Also, I find the following in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz referring to the Delaware v. Prouse it is stated that the Supreme Court ...went on to state that our holding did not cast doubt on the permissibility of roadside truck weigh-stations and inspection checkpoints, at which some vehicles may be subject to further detention for safety and regulatory inspection than are others. So, if there might be some "inspection points" where you can be subjected to "further detention".

Typo on Lease, Who is Responsible?

The lease agreement for my rental home clearly says that the landlord is responsible for paying for garbage services. However, after asking why I hadn't received our garbage bins yet, the leasing company told me that there was a typo on the lease and that I am responsible for all utilities (citing advertisements for the house which said as much). Who is legally responsible for paying for the garbage utilities?

The advertisement is simply an invitation to treat . The lease was the contract offer, and your signature and payment were acceptance of that offer . The advertisement doesn't bind either party (other than as prohibited by deceptive advertising statutes), and you are allowed to negotiate an offer that differs from the invitation to treat.

Typo on Lease, Who is Responsible?

The lease agreement for my rental home clearly says that the landlord is responsible for paying for garbage services. However, after asking why I hadn't received our garbage bins yet, the leasing company told me that there was a typo on the lease and that I am responsible for all utilities (citing advertisements for the house which said as much). Who is legally responsible for paying for the garbage utilities?

We are sorry, but there was a typo in the contract, one zero is missing. The project fee should be $100,000 instead of $10,000. What do you think? Typo This is not a typo. It is, clearly and unambiguously, stated in the contract. What may be counted as typos in a legal document? E.g. Vehicels that are wider than 5 foot is prohibited on this road. Although the spelling is wrong and grammar is incorrect, the original meaning is reasonable and obvious. IMHO, claiming that there is a typo on a legal document to avoid responsibility is a very irresponsible act. Legally binding An advertisement is not legally binding. As mentioned, it is an invitation to treat. It has, absolutely, zero legal effect. A contract is a mutual agreement between two parties that are meant to have a legal effect . Since the contract states that the landlord is responsible for paying utilities, you have several options here: Ask the landlord to renegotiate a new contract, during which you can negotiate a new rent. In the new contract, include a clause which states that the old contract is voided. Note that before this new contract is signed, the old contract remain effective. Continue demand the landlord to supply utilities, which you are legally entitled. If they do not comply, you may sue them for breach of contract. Pay for utilities yourself, then sue the landlord for breach of contract, and ask for compensation of the cost of the utilities. (Note that these suggestions are based on the only information provided. You may have more options, such as terminate the contract since one party has breached. However, without seeing the actual contract and knowing the jurisdiction, it is impossible to determine the remedy here. You may consult a lawyer in your area for more details.)

In the case that multiple wills with conflicting terms are left, which one prevails?

Suppose I die and, on the day before, I have signed two wills with conflicting terms. If, for some reason, it is not possible to determine which of these was signed first, which terms will prevail? How is this decided?

In most places I imagine the issue would go before a probate judge who would attempt to determine the validity of each presented will, and if both were valid, then they would attempt to reconcile the disparities to the best of their ability. Broadly speaking, the process would look like this (I'm using UK law as an example): You die An individual is chosen to handle your affairs (executor or administrator [or possibly both depending on jurisdiction]) They choose a will to go off of (these steps could be reversed if the wills named different administrators, in which case each administrator would file for the grant of representation and consequently involve the probate judge earlier) Someone challenges and suggests using the other will (probably because they feel they're not getting what's theirs) A probate judge is involved The probate judge decides Appeals would be made to Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court That being said, every jurisdiction is different, and this is more of a template answer for English common law (and derivative courts), than an attempt to describe in detail any specific jurisdiction's procedures.

Remove liability for user submitted content

I run a website and recently had a small legal dispute with content posted by a user. A copyright owner wanted me to remove content, I acknowledged the request, requested for proof of ownership, confirmed ownership, removed the infringing content and the copyright owner left me alone. I'm happy to remove infringing content but not sure how explicitly I should tell content owners about this. I have a contact and copyright infringment link clearly available on my website where explicit instructions are left on how to make a report. Am I required to have a disclaimer telling users not to post copyright infringing content? I clearly do not want to be liable for such content. I've googled some templates and explanations about this but they refer more to taking ownership of user submitted content, not removing ownership. for reference my website is kek.host and I provide services which keep users anonymous such as text hosting, email forwarding, chatrooms. Edit : The servers are located in the united states currently, although that changes roughly once a week and across several countries including canada, australia, russia, netherlands and a few more I'm not yet aware of. Clarification of Question : Am I legally obligated to explicitly tell users not to upload copyright infringing or illegal content? For example, shops don't need "Stealing is a crime" stickers, it's just implied. Do the same rules apply to me?

Thank you all for the help in answering my question. I've spoken with a lawyer through a friend of a friend and he explained that as long as I provide a way for people to make complaints about illegal or copyright infringing content and respond or make [and log] effort to investigate promptly, I'm pretty much in the clear. In the end no disclaimer is needed, the idea that you wouldn't upload such content is already implied due to the nature of the content. So I'm gonna add this bad-boy as the entire disclaimer and call it a day. Goodluck with the beta, I'm sure I'll be back here.

How can I decide, whether I can include a particular image in my commercial blog posts and e-books?

Imagine I have a blog, on which people can download some free e-book. The purpose of the blog and e-book is to establish connection with potential buyers and eventually sell them something. Imagine further that I have found an image, which I consider including into my materials. What kind of algorithm can I use to determine whether I am allowed to include the image in my materials under American law? In particular: In this blog post there is an image from "The Matrix" movie with a copyright notice. Is it legal to include such images in your blog?

To answer the question "Is the use of a screencap from The Matrix in this blog post fair use?" This is clear-cut: no. 17 USC 107 : Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The purpose of the use: purely decorative. The text of the blog post makes no reference whatsoever to the image, and in fact, the meaning of the post would be unchanged if the image were removed. This is by far the biggest strike against it being fair use: "decoration" does not fall under any of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. The fact that the blog is (presumably) non-profit is irrelevant here. The nature of the work: The Matrix is purely a work of fiction, so you can't pull out a defense such as "public interest" for your claim of fair use. On the other hand, being a work of fiction makes a "criticism" or "scholarship" defense easier. The amount and substantiality of the portion used: the use of a single frame, and one that is not particularly plot-relevant works in favor of a claim of fair use, but also against it. Since the frame chosen doesn't reveal a plot point or anything, it doesn't reduce the value of the original work, but it also makes it harder to make a claim that the image illustrates a point of commentary or criticism. The effect of the use on the potential market or value of the original: None. Seeing this one random screenshot can't substitute for seeing the movie. This is the biggest point in favor of a claim of fair use, but "it doesn't do any harm" pales in comparison to the problems of point 1. If I were a lawyer contacted by the Wachowski brothers about suing the author of the blog post, my response would be "send a nastygram or a DMCA takedown, but don't waste your time with a lawsuit. The lack of damages (point 4) means you'll spend far more on lawyers than you can hope to get by winning in court."

What prevents uber to draw up end user contracts?

What prevents companies like Uber to draw up contracts, which both the riders and drivers have to sign / agree to if they want to use Uber? This is in light of recent events related to Uber drivers being ruled as employees by Californian Court. And also the ban of Uber in Delhi due to incidents of rape and sexual assault by the drivers on women riders . Would companies like Uber not benefit by drawing up contracts, stating that drivers are contractors, if a driver has a problem with that they may not sign up. Similarly can they also not draw contracts for riders stating a limited liability and again if the rider has an issue with that they may not use Uber. Can such contracts be voided by the courts, even if they are signed by both parties? If they can do it, and it would help, why aren't they doing it? Or are they, then why is it not working for them? P.S: I am not saying that Uber has no responsibility of doing a background check on drivers (and making sure that Uber rides are completely safe), so that the safety of women as well as men and children can be ensured. Also if we are coming to it, some sort of verification of the rider will encourage women cab drivers to also operate an Uber.

Contracts that violate local law are void in just about every jurisdiction, as are contracts against clearly defined public policy. In many cases, laws are specifically designed to restrict otherwise valid contracts; for instance, in the US, an employment contract that pays less than $7.25 an hour will normally be invalid, even if the company and the employee both agree to the reduced wage. In employment law, where contracts are fairly common, the laws would be virtually meaningless if contracts took precedence. In the case of independent contractor status vs. employee status, California law does not consider someone to be an independent contractor just because their contract says so. "Independent contractor" is defined in California law to be any person who renders service for a specified recompense for a specified result, under the control of his principal as to the result of his work only and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished. ( California Labor Code, section 3353 ) If this definition isn't satisfied, it's irrelevant what the parties agree the status is; it's not an independent contractor status. According to the state department of labor, the test is that found in Borello v. Dept. of Industrial Relations (a California Supreme Court case), which lays out a multifactor test for contractor status and says that The label placed by the parties on their relationship is not dispositive, and subterfuges are not countenanced. Likewise, with product liability, a country can generally have laws mandating liability for people providing a product or service; the extent to which this happens depends on the jurisdiction. For instance, India may not want a big company like Uber to be able to block liability claims by putting some legalese in front of average consumers who aren't able to make a detailed risk-benefit analysis. Alternatively, India could decide that Uber is better able to take the risk from bad drivers than average consumers are, so the right policy is to assign the risk to Uber. Whether Uber should be able to avoid liability is something that every country can decide for itself based on public policy considerations; the point is that if they do decide that Uber should be liable for damages, their law trumps Uber's contract. Uber actually tries to limit liability in their EULA, and to avoid an employer-employee relationship in their driver agreement. Their US EULA and driver agreement says they aren't a transportation provider and you aren't getting transportation from them, and even if you are they aren't liable for damages. However, if that provision violates the law in some state, the provision is invalid. Likewise, if they claim it's not an employment contract but it meets the "employee" definition in some state, it's an employment contract.

Authority to enforce a law after it expires in New York

Recently, with the hubbub surrounding the expiration of the law authorizing rent control in New York City, Governor Cuomo issued a statement with this content, as quoted in the Daily News . The letter, obtained by the Daily News, states that despite any temporary lapses, the new rent laws once approved will be retroactive to June 15 — so “your legal obligations under existing leases and under the passage of the new rent stabilization program will not expire on that day.” The governor directed landlords to continue to follow the current law until a new law is enacted and any changes are fully understood. The legislative session is scheduled to end Wednesday and Cuomo has threatened to bring lawmakers back to Albany into special session every day if they adjourn without at least extending the existing law. So, how can a governor tell people that a law, which expired, will continue to be enforced (it's no longer current law), and how can the New York State legislature "backdate" a law, given Article 1, Section 10 of the US constitution?

There is a relevant Q&A here about how ex post facto is defined in the United States. Not all law is about crime, and that includes NY rent control laws; violating them does not lead directly to a criminal prosecution, hence a sufficiently strict definition of ex post facto cannot apply to them. And such a sufficiently strict definition has been the explicit one since 1798, when the Supreme Court ruled in Calder vs. Bull ("law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal [...] law that aggravates a crime, makes it greater than it was [...] law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime ", etc.). Notice that Article 1 Section 9 prohibits Congress (i.e., the Federal Government) from doing exactly the same thing, so if ex post facto refers to any kind of law, then there could not be any retroactive laws passed in the United States, period. However, the Supreme Court has apparently already set further, more recent, precedents , making it clear that this rule does not apply to tax law. I would assume in this case the intention is to retroactively extend the old law, i.e., if the old law expired on the 15th and the extension passes on the 20th, that extension will be retroactive to the 15th. If the extension then continues until a new law is in place, there will be no time period under which one or the other did not apply. Despite the wording in the news article, I do not think the intention is to make the new law retroactive, only the extension of the old one, for the simple reason that the legislature would never agree to pass such a brand new law later and no matter what it contains say it will be retroactive back to the original expiration date of a law it replaces even after they already extended that until there was a new law. That is borderline non-sensical. The Daily News blurb certainly makes it sound like it might be that way, but I think this is a bit of intentional obfuscation -- the way in which a partial quote is used in the first paragraph is indicative, and the Daily News is, well, the Daily News.

Is there a copyright on a license agreement

I need a license agreement for a product. Many similar products have their license agreement available online. I would like to take one of the better fitting ones and adapt it to my needs (adapt company name, product etc). Is there a copyright on a license agreement document? Would I be breaking it by doing such a derivative work? If the overall meaning is what I need, should I get a lawer to just rephrase it in order to avoid the copyright?

There are 2 conditions for a work to be protected under copyright: originated from the author involves the author's skill and labor (Note that "original" does not necessarily mean "creative". Also, the standard of "original" varies greatly between countries.) Under these conditions, it is fair to say that a legal document, such as a contract or license agreement, should be protected by copyright. Copyright, however, protects only the expression of the idea but not the idea itself . That is, while a document is protected under copyright, you can draft another document with different wordings which expresses the same idea. Merger doctrine Under the Merger doctrine , if there are only very few ways to express an idea, then the expression enjoys no copyright. This is because if that expression is protected, the protection would naturally extend to the idea itself. Therefore, common clauses in a contract or agreement are unlikely to be protected by copyright. Creative content If a legal document is sufficiently creative , it may also be protected under copyright. In American Family Life Insurance Co. of Columbus v. Assurant, Inc. , American Family Life Insurance Co. of Columbus (AFLAC, plaintiff) has spent significant resources to draft an insurance policy which customers find easier to read. AFLAC sued the plaintiff (Assurant, Inc.) for copying statements in their policy. The court asserted that the narrative nature of AFLAC's policy was sufficiently different from " the words and expressions [that] are commonplace within the insurance field ", thus entitled to protection as copyrighted work. Conclusion: contracts and agreements can be protected by copyright. However, it is unlikely that one which only contains common clauses is protected. Nevertheless, copying an entire document may not be a wise idea. If you have doubts in drafting one, you should consult a lawyer.

USA: Does a user who has falsely stated that he/she has read an EULA or similiar agreement risk liability solely for the false statement?

Many software products and Internet services require that users agree to an EULA or terms of service agreement before the product or service can be used. The user is often required to state that he/she has read and agrees to the terms. However, many users don't even read the terms and blindly agree to the contract. Does the user of the product or service risk liability solely because the user falsely claimed he/she read the agreement, even if the contract is never breached? Can the company providing the product or service take legal action on this cause alone?

The EULA is in most jurisdictions a legally binding contract; there is plenty of case law that supports this. You can only be liable under a contract for breaching its terms and only to the extent that the other party suffers harm from that breach. Clearly, if you haven't read the terms then you are greatly increasing the chance that you will inadvertently breach them but not reading them would not, of itself, be a breach and I can't see what harm could flow anyway.

Can states regulate the tint of rear side windows and rear windshields on a car?

There is a list of North American tint laws over at International Window Film Association (IWFA) (also html ). It is understandable why states might be interested in regulating the Visible Light Transmission of the tinting on the front windows -- to make sure the driver could be identified in case of accidents / hit-and-runs / other issues, by both the general public and the police. This is, apparently, why some states, like California, dictate that VLT of the front side windows must not be below 70%, whereas all other windows -- back side and the rear one -- could be as tinted as one pleases, e.g., even limo-style 5% or below is acceptable. However, other states seem to regulate all windows -- front side, back side, and the rear one -- and many mandate at least 35% VLT on all of the windows, whereas some north-east states like New York even go as high as 70% VLT on all windows, which, frankly, doesn't seem reasonable at all. This is especially interesting in light of some vehicles not having any back side windows, nor the rear window. What legitimate interests do the states have in regulating back-side and rear windows? Are those laws enforceable? Especially, as potentially a special case of the Window Tinting rules and laws in visiting jurisdictions question, would someone with a 70%/5%/5% tint and California or Texas licence plates, where such tinting is legal, can be legally forced to pay fine and/or remove the 95% tint from the back-side and rear windows in a state where it's supposedly not legal? What if it's a local vehicle?

The legitimate interests are officer safety - seeing into the car - and general driver safety - it's more difficult for a driver to see out of the car especially at night. Yes, taking a car into a state where your tint is illegal can get you a ticket in the new state. In some (most?) states the statute applies to vehicles driven in the state; this applies to all vehicles. Anecdotally most cops won't write a ticket for an out of state car and driver but they could.

Is it possible for me to break a lease that is co-signed if my health suffers from staying at the apartment?

Problem Overview I live in an apartment in Georgia and the tenant above me is smoking a lot of marijuana every day and has been doing so for the last three months. While inside the apartment, I continuously experience health issues because I seem to be more sensitive to the fumes than the average person. This evening, for example, my resting heart rate within the apartment has been consistently hovering over 100. I suffer under the symptoms even when the fumes are very weak and barely noticeable. The fumes are entering my apartment through the HVAC system even when the system is turned off, my windows are open, and two air purifiers are on. I spend virtually every day in my apartment for almost the entire day. Steps Taken and the Current Stage I'm 33% through my 12-month-lease that I signed with my roommate and my roommate refuses to break the lease even if I pay for the termination fees. Upon complaining to the smoker, the smoker denies everything. However, the fumes could be smelled from his windows when he used to have them open while smoking. Ever since I complained, the smoker has been shutting his windows. My roommate and I have complained to the management company in writing but it seems that they are afraid to do anything, possibly because of potential legal repercussions from the smoker. I have called the police twice, but they arrived 30-60 minutes after the smoking occurred and the smell had already faded. Data When the smoking occurs, I also notice several red bars appear on my air purifier air quality indicator. Many samples of my resting heart rate with a sensor reveal that it is 65-75bpm when outside the apartment and 80-110bpm when inside the apartment. My roommate smells the marijuana fumes too, but is not as sensitive to the fumes as I am and only experiences a subset of my above symptoms at a much milder level. The tenant above the smoker also notices the fumes, but only barely. Questions Is it possible for me to break the lease? Is it possible for me to sublease, even if my roommate disagrees with every person I choose for the sublease? (postponed for another question) What is the recommended action for me at this stage?

Short answer: Yes, you can get out. However, this will be harder than you may want it to be. You will need to check your lease agreement for an arbitration clause. If the lease mentions disagreements will be handled by arbitration (or an arbiter), you need to know that going into this. Arbitration clauses usually stipulate that the landlord picks the arbiter, who will almost always be predisposed to side with the landlord. This pamphlet sheds insight into the situation. Skip down to PDF page 22, section header "My neighbors are constantly playing loud music..." Summarized, you can get out but if other tenants are not as affected, it will be hard to prove it affects you differently. You do, however, have the benefit of knowing the particular situation is illegal (as compared to the pamphlet's example of playing music, which is only situationally illegal). First, get written, signed testimony from other tenants (your roommate, the one above the smoker, etc). Preferably, get these signatures notarized . The testimony should include an acknowledgement that the signer has smelled the marijuana and a statement about how often this occurs, along with the date of signature. Next, send a certified letter to your landlord. Keep a copy of this letter. In it, state your intention to move unless they fix the situation within thirty (30) days. Remind them you already have informed them of this situation. Inform them you have (hopefully notarized) testimony of the marijuana smoking from other tenants, remind them that this is illegal, and that this is affecting your health. You may also warn them that if they do not rectify the situation and you leave after thirty days, they cannot keep your deposit or charge you a termination fee- they have breached your lease contract through failure to maintain a safe and livable rental unit (a gentle reminder that you will seek legal action if they attempt to keep your deposit or charge you fees is appropriate). In the letter, request an immediate, written response with their intentions on the matter, and give a deadline (like 3 days from receipt). As a certified letter, you will know when they get it. The wording of this letter is important. You want to clearly state the facts without sounding self-righteous, angry, or vindictive. And proofread the heck out of it. If the landlord is faced with possible legal action for forcing an illegal tenant to follow the law, and certain legal action for trying to keep a legal tenant to remain in illegal, harmful circumstances, they may well decide to oust the smoker. If your scare tactic doesn't work, however, you should make good on the threat- really do leave after thirty days, and if they attempt to charge you for anything or withhold your deposit, you really should contact a lawyer. You should also, however, have the money saved to pay the termination fees, just in case. Because the smoke affects you differently, and there is no easy way to prove this, an unsympathetic court (or arbiter) may rule against you. (NOTE: I am not a lawyer, but I did have to break a lease and spent a good deal of time researching and discussing my situation with a lawyer. In the end I lost my deposit but did not have to pay any fees or missed rent.)

Without a lease, how to establish Maryland residency for driver&#39;s license?

I have worked/rented in Maryland for 18mo, but the coworker I rent a room from won't give me a lease (and I do not wish to create any problems with him by insisting). Can I get my driver's license with no lease?

The Maryland MVA 's ' sources of proof ' page lists these as proof of Maryland residency; at least two are required. Maryland vehicle registration card or title; Utility, telephone or cable/satellite TV bill; Checking or savings account statement; Life insurance card or policy (over 3 years old); Property tax bill or receipt; Mortgage account or proof of home ownership (Deed, Title, Bill of Sale or Statement from Maryland Assessment and Taxation); Residential rental contract (apartment lease or other rental of real property)(current formal contract or agreement between landlord and tenant which includes all signatures); First class or priority mail from a federal, state or local government agency to include the contents and envelope, excluding mail from the Administration; Copy of federal or MD income tax return filing not more than 18 months old, with proof of filing; Installment contract from a bank or other financial institution; Sales tax or business license; Major credit card and Department/Retail store credit card bills (Wal-Mart, Sears, Lowe's, Exxon, etc); Residential service contract (refers to services performed at the address of residence; for example, cable or satellite television, TV repairs, lawn service or exterminator contract); Canceled check with imprinted name and address; Voter registration card; Selective Service Card. The documents you submit must also satisfy these requirements: Must include the applicant's name and residence address. May not be from the same business, company or agency. Must reflect a current, recent or valid date. So while a lease is a valid source of proof, as long as you can provide two from the list above then you won't need a copy of your lease to get your license.

Software Packaging laws

When Microsoft packaged Internet Explorer with Windows, they were sued for antitrust violations. However, today every operating system has its own built-in browser, including ones by the companies that complained about Microsoft (Google, Apple, Mozilla Corporation). What is the legal difference between what Microsoft did and what other companies are now doing today? Why do the courts target Microsoft when Apple was and still is taking advantage of its monopoly? Why can't Microsoft receive financial compensation for the damages Apple did to Microsoft?

From Baker, Donald I. "To Indict or Not to Indict: Prosecutorial Discretion in Sherman Act Enforcement." Cornell L. Rev. 63 (1977): 405: The Assistant Attorney General must ultimately decide whether to bring a criminal prosecution. He bases that choice in part upon articulated principles, in part upon intuition gained from experience, and ultimately upon the facts of the particular case. The choice to prosecute Microsoft and not Google, Apple, or Mozilla for (what you claim to be) ostensibly similar activities is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. My guess is that the Attorney General's office simply does not believe the actions of the other companies rise to the level of an antitrust violation. When they believe they do, they prosecute. ( United States of America v. Apple Inc. , et al., 12 Civ. 2862 (DLC) ). Microsoft settled their case . No other party is responsible for Microsoft's decision to settle, even if they were doing the same thing, and even if they are later found to be guilty for or come to a settlement agreement regarding the same thing.

Software Packaging laws

When Microsoft packaged Internet Explorer with Windows, they were sued for antitrust violations. However, today every operating system has its own built-in browser, including ones by the companies that complained about Microsoft (Google, Apple, Mozilla Corporation). What is the legal difference between what Microsoft did and what other companies are now doing today? Why do the courts target Microsoft when Apple was and still is taking advantage of its monopoly? Why can't Microsoft receive financial compensation for the damages Apple did to Microsoft?

The Sherman Antitrust Act was written in the 1890s. It does not deal with the packaging of web browsers. It deals with monopolies and 'trusts'. (In this context 'trusts' are contracts between companies to fix prices and create effective monopolies. This was a major problem with steel and oil in the 1890s.) It was alleged that Microsoft conspired to restrain the trade in web browsers, and attempted to create a monopoly in the web browser market place. The relevant text is 15 U.S. Code § 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1 ) and 15 U.S. Code § 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2 ) (At the time of the Microsoft prosecutions, the fines were lower.) The background: Microsoft were the dominant purveyor of computer operating systems at the time of the "browser wars", a time when numerous browser companies were selling internet browsers or otherwise providing them for free to the market. Microsoft started giving away Internet Explorer as an integrated part of Windows. They were also alleged to have changed or exploited the way Windows worked to make that integration very tight, to the exclusion of competing products. (By not exposing key APIs publicly.) The prosecution's case was that Microsoft used its market power as the dominant operating system provider in an attempt to monopolize the browser trade, which it regarded as a separate area of trade. It was argued that this was an intentional and deliberate process to exclude and kill off competitors. Paul Maritz, a senior Microsoft vice president, [is alleged to have stated] an intention to "extinguish" and "smother" rival Netscape Communications Corporation and to "cut off Netscape's air supply" by giving away a clone of Netscape's flagship product for free. http://www.webcitation.org/query?id=1298665666970514 In the first trial, the prosecution were successful, and a break up of the Microsoft Corporation into separate companies making different products was ordered as a remedy. However on appeal the DC Circuit Court of Appeals quashed the lower court's finding and held that the judge in question had not merely committed errors of law but acted unethically in other matters on the case. Microsoft and the Department of Justice later reached a settlement. Wikipedia has a nice description if you are interested in the soap opera side of the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp . It has been suggested in the other answer that the US Attorney General could simply decline, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, to prosecute clear breaches of the Sherman Act committed by Microsoft competitors. However, the Sherman Act also creates a duty on US Attorneys— it shall be the duty of the several United States attorneys, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/9 Now in your question you say, "today every operating system has its own built-in browser"—the background is quite different to that of the 1990s. Apple, Microsoft and Google, are competitors in many spheres. My belief is that it would be quite difficult to accuse any of them in conspiring to create a monopoly, because there are many alternative products one can use these days to achieve the same ends. Moreover, all of them have learnt from the prosecution of Microsoft that there are limits to how tightly products can be bundled.

Is there a good defense against libel if a fictitious character is clearly a &quot;composite?&quot;

The name I had in mind was "Hillary Rice Whitman," the first female President of the United States. Maybe I'd make it Hillary Elizabeth Rice Whitman. Is the creation of the "composite" a strong signal of fiction? Or, conversely, if one of those three or four people sued for something derogatory, is a plausible defense, no, that wasn't you, that was one of the others? Of course all these people are public figures so they would have a high "bar." But suppose they weren't public figures?

(Most of this post is focused on discussion of the surrounding issues, with little in the way of advice. If you actually have to deal with this problem, skip to the end.) American defamation law is extraordinarily weak (relative to Europe) thanks to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , which established the actual malice standard (you're only liable for defamation against a public figure if you knowingly published false information or wrote with "reckless disregard for the truth," which basically means you didn't care whether it was true). American courts are loath to interfere with freedom of speech or of the press just to make some politician happy. This suggests to me that a libel-in-fiction claim would be a long shot to begin with. Interestingly, we also have specific protection against foreign libel judgments , so I'll just be focusing on American law. On the other hand, it does happen (NB: In New York, the "State Supreme Court" is the lowest court in the state). For our purposes, here is the most relevant paragraph: Mr. Batra filed his lawsuit under a doctrine known as libel-in-fiction. To win his case, he must demonstrate that the identities of the real and fictional characters “must be so complete that the defamatory material” becomes a “plausible aspect” of the plaintiff’s real life, Justice Shafer wrote in her ruling, quoting case law. It seems to me that a composite character could not pass that test. But it's less clear to me that this standard is in use across the entire US (what case is the judge quoting from?). And frankly, you don't really want to be in court arguing over this sort of thing unless you're very clearly in the right. In this case, NBC has already lost, because they now need to go through discovery and probably a full trial. That's expensive. (Actually, this happened back in 2008, but I haven't been able to find any further information about this case via cursory Googling. I imagine they quietly settled, but I can't confirm that. If anyone has a more recent link, it would really help.) I found that link in this blog post , which seems to be very detailed and well-referenced. I would suggest consulting it for further information. If you look at the copyright page of a book, you may see a notice like this one: This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents either are products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental. I find it rather hard to believe you can actually disclaim liability with a notice buried in part of the book which no one reads (unlike contract law, the reader never explicitly "agrees" to this disclaimer), but it probably doesn't hurt. In short : Talk to your publisher, your editor, and their lawyer(s). They've dealt with this issue before and have a vested interest in helping you. If you're self-publishing, it's probably a good idea to discuss this and other legal issues (such as copyright registration) with a lawyer, since doing all those things by yourself can get rather complicated.

Does a boilerplate legal disclaimer protect authors of content on a website?

Specifically, if the website itself has legal disclaimers to protect itself from litigation arising from legal advice provided on it, would a similar disclaimer claiming to disclaim authors of content on the website protect those authors?

A disclaimer claiming to disclaim authors of content on the website can/cannot protect those authors depending upon: Visibility of the Disclaimer on the website On whether it can be proved that the disclaimer was included intentionally to be brought into the user's notice. Location of the dispute. In United States many courts have ruled in favor of the disclaimers if the were strategically placed not to be missed by the user. In European Union on the other hand there is a directive which strikes down legal obligations which have been imposed and this would make disclaimers unenforceable. For more information, please refer This Link

What is the &#39;right of possession&#39; and how is it transferred?

I am evicting a tenant because they are in arrears on their rent. I am pretty sure any self-help options are illegal here in Hong Kong (based on British law). Does having the right of possession protect him from being treated like a squatter? E.g. if a random guy moves into my apartment without permission I can just call the police to throw him out. So when do I exactly get back the right of possession? Does he need to physically hand over the key and move out his stuff? Or can the court revoke his right and award it back to me? It just sounds odd I have to claim my own property back... Ideally I would add a clause to the contract so a tenant waives this right when this kind of breach occurs. Then I should be able to just call the police to throw him out?

No, you cannot just call the police and throw him out. Here are two concepts which sound a bit abstract: " who does the property belong to " and " who can use this property ". Let's say I rent an apartment. One night, the landlord knocked on the door and asked to stay for the night. I have every right to kick him out. Why? This is my home . This area is for my private residential use. I certainly has ultimate decision power on what activities can happen inside this area. But the landlord owns the place. He can sell, transfer, or otherwise stop renting the place to me, provided that a reasonable time is given to notify the occupant . He cannot, out of no where, show up next morning and tell me I have 30 minutes to get all my stuff out of the apartment. That is just utterly unfair. Does he need to physically hand over the key? Well, not really. He needs to return the place to its original condition. He needs to remove all stuff brought by him. If he drilled a hole in a wall, he has to patch it. If he removed a cabinet, he need to put it back . Finally he needs to give you access. Physically handing over the key is one of many ways. Ideally I would add a clause to the contract so a tenant waives this right when this kind of breach occurs. Nope. You cannot. Even if you add this clause, the court would likely consider this clause unenforceable (but does not void the rest of the contract!). Such clause is to bias towards the landlord. You must give the occupant a reasonable time to respond to your request of asking him to move out. Let's suppose: I have already sent several notices, demanding him to move out, but after 3 months, he is still occupying the property If that is the case, you can take him to the court. He has no legal ground to occupy and continue to use the property which he does not belong. A reasonable time of a move out notice is usually 30 days, here in HK.

Does expected value bear upon the calculation of compensatory damages?

Suppose I am given a lottery ticket. This ticket has a 1 in 1000 chance of winning me one million dollars, and will otherwise be worth nothing. Before I can see whether I've won, some guy comes along and destroys the ticket. There is no way to buy a replacement, and no way of knowing whether the ticket would have paid out or not. The expected value of the ticket is clearly 1e6/1e3 = one thousand dollars. My question is, would the court do that math and award me one thousand dollars? It's extremely unlikely that I've suffered any actual loss, so obviously I can't recover a million bucks in speculative damages from the guy; and yet $0 in damages hardly seems fair. In other words: If the actual value of my loss cannot be determined with certainty, yet the statistically expected value of the loss can be, can I recover the expected damages? Bonus question: Suppose instead of the ticket being a gift, I had paid $500 for it, or $2000. (Remember, I can't buy another one.) Would either situation change the result?

Sort of. In this instance, it doesn't seem that the damages awarded (if any) would be compensatory damages , but speculative damages . A good definition is Possible financial loss or expenses claimed by a plaintiff that are contingent upon a future occurrence, purely conjectural, or highly improbable. These damages should not be awarded. For example, a plaintiff may claim that in ten years, as he ages, he may begin to feel pain from a healed fracture caused by a defendant (even though no doctor has testified this is likely to happen), and should therefore recover money from the defendant now. In order to be awarded compensation, a plaintiff must prove that there is a high likelihood that the future event would occur. The required likelihood may be subjective, in part because it is hard to estimate the odds of many claims. In the situation given here, there is a 0.1% chance of a payoff. That is most likely far too low to be considered likely. Now, if the plaintiff argued for compensatory damages , then s/he might receive an amount of money equivalent to the price of one lottery ticket - or the same ticket back. Assuming the original ticket is destroyed, the odds are the same (and even if it is not destroyed, the odds change by only a tiny amount); the same thing happens if the original ticket is returned, instead. The plaintiff has not lost any chance to win the million dollars. Bonus question: If you paid $500 or $2,000 dollars and wanted to be awarded compensatory damages, you might receive those sums of money. If you wanted to be awarded speculative damages, you would most likely receive nothing, because the odds are the same.

In UK: is it a requirement by the law to carry an ID

What if I get stopped by immigration officers and I have no ID on me? I am a British citizen.

There is no general duty to carry your identity with you when inside the UK, nor to identify yourself to any official. Many UK citizens have no photographic proof of identity at all. (My parents did not for many years, until they obtained fresh passports.) I am confused where you could be stopped by immigration officers. If you appear at a UK Border without your passport, it is a real headache, but immigration can find your record on the computer and will, if you satisfy them you are a UK citizen, eventually admit you. (They have no power to deny entry to a British Citizen, and must be satisfied you are not a British citizen to deny you entry.) For clarity, in respect of some comments, I am not advising that anyone should do this, but I am saying in the worse case scenario if somehow you end up without documents you can still be looked up in the computer, and your identity can be checked at the UK Border without a passport. In general you are not required to identify yourself to a police officer, unless you are arrested. http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/criminal/your_rights/500109.html If I am stopped and searched, do I have to give my name and address? Although the police will likely ask for your name and address, you are not required to give it unless the police arrest you or are reporting you for an offence. There are a small number of occasions when you may be required (by law) to identify yourself when you are simply going about your private business. If you are driving a vehicle the police may stop you and require you to identify yourself. If you do not have your driving licence, you may produce it at court at a later date; in the mean time the police can check your status by computer. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VII/crossheading/powers-of-constables-and-other-authorised-persons/enacted?view=plain If you are travelling domestically inside the UK by air, the police can stop you and require photographic identification at or after the security check point under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7?view=plain ) However, I travel within Great Britain by air several times a month and usually do not bring anything more than a credit card and a change of clothes, and I have never had any problems. Most airlines will "advise" you to bring photographic ID. If however you do travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, immigration staff are often interested in your status then. It is wise to have photographic ID on such a journey.

In UK: is it a requirement by the law to carry an ID

What if I get stopped by immigration officers and I have no ID on me? I am a British citizen.

I've yet to find any source for this, but no: to the best of my knowledge, there's no requirement to carry any form of ID at all times in the UK. It's purely used for specific situations, e.g. buying alcohol. I certainly don't carry my passport on me at all times, and I don't think I know anyone else who does. There certainly seems to be no statute requiring British citizens to carry ID. Should you encounter a situation where identification of some kind is required - speeding when you don't have a copy of your driver's licence to hand is the most common example - you have 7 days to show your documentation to the police.

Regarding &quot;Right to be Forgotten&quot;, what&#39;s the definition of a &quot;search engine&quot;?

§§ — The decision by Europe's highest court allows people living in Europe to ask for links to "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" material to be removed from search results , although it will still be available on the original web page [.] Google Search might be unambiguously considered as a "search engine", but what about other websites like Blogger, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Quora, StackExchange, 4chan, Reddit, etc? Are news websites which store their own archives of old news considered a "search engine", or " original web page", or both? (Notice that material must be removed from search results yet is allowed to remain available on the original web page.) Let's assume that John Doe (either an imaginary student, salaryman, politician, etc ) exercised his right to be forgotten. Then, : Does a blogger have the right to list links and prior search results of John Doe's past on his personal blog which is public ly available? If the blogger also writes about John Doe's past (i.e. the blogger creates original material ), would the blogpost now be considered "original web page" and allowed to be available?

The judgment ( Google Spain and Google (Judgment of the Court) [2014] EUECJ C-131/12 ) is definitive on this point at paragraph 41: ...the activity of a search engine consisting in finding information published or placed on the internet by third parties, indexing it automatically, storing it temporarily and, finally, making it available to internet users according to a particular order of preference... In your example, the blogger would be unaffected by the decision as his links are presumably collected and sorted by hand. However, the blog itself may be removed from Google et al at the request of John Doe.

What is &quot;fair comment&quot; in the context of a defamation suit?

Suppose there is a nationally known politician, and it is widely reported in the papers that some of his supporters fear leaving their college-aged daughters alone with him. And suppose someone writes a work that is purportedly fiction, but uses the politician's real name, and in the story, the hero expresses a fear of leaving his 18 year old daughter alone with him (no seduction is alleged, only "fear.") Under ordinary circumstances, this might be "dafamatory." But would the fact that this is "in line" with other scuttlebutt make it "fair comment," thereby providing a defense against "defamation?" How (if at all) would the fact that the politician is a public figure change things?

Fair comment is a defense against defamation claims where the statement at issue is an expression of opinion, reasonably based on (preferably disclosed or well-known) true facts, which is on a matter of public concern, and which is the honest opinion of the speaker which was not made specifically to cause harm. The basic idea is that on an issue of public concern, an honest opinion isn't defamatory unless it makes a reasonable listener think the speaker knows something that is in fact not true (the classic example is "In my opinion, Jones is a liar:" here the speaker implies he knows that Jones lied, which is a statement of fact that can be true or false). In your example, there are questions that have to be reached before fair comment even enters into it. First off, in US law any defamation claim has to be for a statement that a reasonable person would interpret as being a statement of fact or (if it's an opinion) implying a statement of fact (like "I think Jones is a liar"). This is context-dependent. "I wouldn't let my child be alone with someone like famous convicted pedophile 1 , famous convicted pedophile 2 , or politician " is more likely to be read as " politician is a pedophile." A marked work of fiction is unlikely to be read as a statement of fact. If the statement is read as a simple opinion, or as pure fiction, there's no defamation under US law. Once we've established that an express or implied statement of fact is at issue, fair comment asks whether the fact is true or false and whether it's an issue of public concern. But in the US, with a politician, you'd never go for the fair comment defense, because you have a much stronger defense -- a politician can only win the suit if they show that not only is the statement false, but the speaker actually knew or strongly suspected that it was false. It's not enough that a reasonable person would suspect it's false; it has to reach the level of recklessness, which is extremely hard to show (public figures in the US do not often win defamation suits). This is strictly easier than for fair comment. If the politician wasn't a politician, and was actually a private figure, then fair comment could enter into it. In that case, the question is whether the statement is a reasonable opinion drawn from the (true) facts that lots of people didn't want their daughters alone with the person. While it's context-dependent, that could very well be fair comment.

Restrictions on international data storage?

Firstly, I apologize for any brevity in my question and description. I'm under a NDA and can't really give out specifics. A company in the Netherlands is saying that it would not be lawful for them to locate their primary data storage (specifically, supplier and part information) internationally in the United States, underneath a parent company. From all of my research I have not been able to find any evidence that this would be illegal. Would anybody be able to give any advice on this?

I am not a lawyer; I am not your lawyer. I may have some of the terminology wrong, and I haven't researched specific statutes or sections, but I recall an interesting interaction between the USA PATRIOT Act and EU/Dutch Data Storage Laws. 1 EU Data Storage Statutes and Regulations generally require that owners of data (that is, those to whom the data refers, or those who the data identifies) are notified of access to the data by a third party. However, the USA PATRIOT Act contains requirements for the provision of data to law enforcement agencies, without notifying the owners. This conflict is a likely reason for the company being unable to locate data in the United States. As mentioned, there could (also) be contractual obligations that prevent them from doing so. 1. I'll put this link here though, because my quick-and-dirty answer has yielded this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2012/01/02/can-european-firms-legally-use-u-s-clouds-to-store-data/

Origin/purpose of &quot;Language&quot; section in legal agreements

I've noticed a number of legal documents recently ( FastMail's ToS , Apple's Developer Agreement , etc. ) which include a "Language" section containing more or less the following: It is the express will of the parties that this agreement and all related documents have been drawn up in English. C'est la volonté expresse des parties que la présente convention ainsi que les documents qui s'y rattachent soient rédigés en anglais. Whence did this practice originate and what is it for? Also, why state the same thing in English and French?

This language is almost certainly included in an attempt to make the agreement comply with the Charter of the French Language . The Charter is the legal document that sets French as the official language of the Canadian province of Quebec. Chapter 7, paragraph 55 of the Charter states that adhesion contracts, such as software licenses, must be in French, but "may be drawn up in another language as well at the express wish of the parties." Because the law seems to require a French version "as well" as the English version, it's not clear that the contracts in question are in compliance--but the language is straight out of the Charter, so it is clearly at least an attempted compliance with that law. The French is included presumably because otherwise a Francophone Quebecois end user might try to invalidate the license by claiming that his or her waiver was not well-informed.

Origin/purpose of &quot;Language&quot; section in legal agreements

I've noticed a number of legal documents recently ( FastMail's ToS , Apple's Developer Agreement , etc. ) which include a "Language" section containing more or less the following: It is the express will of the parties that this agreement and all related documents have been drawn up in English. C'est la volonté expresse des parties que la présente convention ainsi que les documents qui s'y rattachent soient rédigés en anglais. Whence did this practice originate and what is it for? Also, why state the same thing in English and French?

You see this most often when a legal document is available in multiple languages. Translation isn't perfect, so by stating that one language is the "official" version, it eliminates the possibility of having multiple, contradictory versions of the document, with all the potential problems that entails.

Does the European Commission have jurisdiction in the U.S.?

When U.S. corporations want to merge or are subject to acquisitions (for example Oracle acquiring Sun Microsystems in 2009) it seems they must seek approval from the European Commission --- which is another jurisdiction. Questions: Why must U.S. companies get European Commission approval? What could happen if the U.S. firms chose to ignore the European Commission's decision? Are there other juridical bodies in other jurisdictions that can stop U.S. mergers?

Countries, and supranational governments like the EU, have jurisdiction over companies that do business in their jurisdictions. Oracle is technically not a U.S. corporation; it's a closely related group of California and Delaware corporations. Very few companies incorporate under U.S. federal law (I believe some banking corporations are required to, but don't quote me on that). Almost all companies are incorporated under state law. However, if Oracle does business in Texas, it still has to obey Texas law. And if it does business in the EU, it still has to obey EU law. Some laws make distinctions in some corporate matters between domestic corporations (incorporated under that state's laws) and foreign corporations (incorporated under another state's laws). But if you do business in a state, including an EU member state, you still need to obey that state's general laws, including antitrust law. Short version: if you visit another country, you can't go around shooting people, then say, "your laws don't apply to me, I'm an American." Neither can a company, no matter where it's incorporated. As for stopping the merger...any country where the merging companies do business can stop the merged company from doing business there if the merger violates local law. If this is a major, commercially important region like the EU, then failure to get EU approval will stop the merger. If it's a minor territory, the company will sometimes enter into an agreement to divest itself of local assets or entities. For example, if merging Oracle and Sun would create an antitrust problem in the minicomputer repair market in Laos, the merged entities would sell off either Oracle's or Sun's Laotian minicomputer repair division.

Does the European Commission have jurisdiction in the U.S.?

When U.S. corporations want to merge or are subject to acquisitions (for example Oracle acquiring Sun Microsystems in 2009) it seems they must seek approval from the European Commission --- which is another jurisdiction. Questions: Why must U.S. companies get European Commission approval? What could happen if the U.S. firms chose to ignore the European Commission's decision? Are there other juridical bodies in other jurisdictions that can stop U.S. mergers?

Chapka's answer covers the legal aspects that give the EU authority to impose their laws on US companies. However, there are also practical aspects around enforcing penalties. A court has no formal power outside its jurisdiction; a European court judgment (which is what happens if a company violates EU rules) can't be directly enforced in the US, because US law enforcement doesn't obey the orders of European courts. Enforcing those penalties can be done in two ways. First, the EU can ask US courts to enforce the EU judgment; the odds that this works depends on the specifics of the case. In general, US courts are more likely to enforce a judgment from a proceeding they view as fair, and if it's compatible with public policy. There's a pretty good chance an antitrust case against Google or Microsoft would be enforced in the US; they do a lot of business with Europe, and antitrust is something the two places both feel is good policy. In contrast, Chevron is currently fighting enforcement of an Ecuadorean judgment on the grounds that it was obtained based on fraud and corruption, and is having a fair amount of success so far. The alternative is to enforce a judgment on the assets the court does have jurisdiction over. Google and Oracle have many offices in the EU; they pass most of their revenue through Ireland and the Netherlands for tax reasons, but even without that they have real, legitimate offices in the EU. A judgment can be directly enforced against their assets there. To use the Chevron case as an example, Chevron transferred all its assets out of Ecuador, meaning that Ecuador can't directly seize anything.

Is it legal to sell zero-day exploits?

Can someone who discovered a zero-day exploit in a program sell the information, and does the applicable jurisdiction depend on his location, the buyer location, the location of the developed of the product that the exploit targets, or something else?

It might possibly be illegal. For criminal law, usually you need to obey the laws of three countries: The country you are a national of (by personality principle) The country from where you make the sale (by territoriality principle) The country that hosts the attacked interest (by territoriality principle) Then it depends on the jurisdiction (and other factors) whether the sale is legal or not. I'll use the example of my country, Czech Republic. There is a crime called "Unauthorized access to a computer system or data storage device" . For example, you commit this crime by exploiting a vulnerability in a web application and copying the web owner's data on your computer. It is also codified that whoever wilfully facilitates the committing of a crime by providing the criminal with resources (such as the exploit) is considered to have also committed the crime. For this to apply, you must have known or expected that the exploit will be used to commit a crime. The courts would decide this.

Can a business offer a product pre-sale without specifying when the product will be delivered?

For instance, if there were a product that takes a variable amount of time to mature, could a business take pre-sale orders (clearly marked as such) without giving the customer a deadline? If so, what keeps a business from tying up customer funds indefinitely without ever delivering?

The answer, as with almost every question about U.S. law, depends on the jurisdiction you're dealing with. In practice, though, most state and federal unfair trade practices (UTP) laws are based on one pretty basic question: is what the shipper is doing fair? These laws normally take the form of a long list of specifically prohibited practices, then a "catch-all" that basically says, if a reasonable person would think it's a scam, don't do it. In general, if the risks are disclosed to the customer, and the seller is acting in good faith, the mere fact of a long lead time will probably not be in violation, although of course state laws will vary; some may require refunds under some circumstances. If there is inadequate disclosure, or the seller has no intention of selling anything, then it will almost certainly fall under the state UTP law. In other words: if your unicorns only lay eggs every couple of blue moons, you can sell the rights to the next egg as long as you fully disclose this to the customer and, possibly, offer a refund option if your state requires it. If you're selling the rights to your unicorn eggs but you don't actually have any unicorns, you will almost certainly be in trouble. Mail order sales are a special case, governed by federal law. The FTC has a faq for non-lawyers on compliance with the law. But, again, all they require is that you are honest with your customers. There is a section specifically dealing with "dry-testing," basically, selling a product that is not yet available (and that won't be if not enoiugh people order it). Here's what they say: In an advisory opinion, the FTC told a publishing company that it could "dry-test" its merchandise as long as the following conditions were met: In promoting the merchandise, the merchant can make no suggestion that the merchandise will be shipped or that customers expressing an interest in it will receive it. In all promotional materials, the merchant must disclose all material aspects of the promotion, including the fact that the merchandise is only planned and may not be shipped. If any part of the promotion is later dropped, the merchant must notify subscribers of the fact within a reasonable time after soliciting their subscriptions. If, within a reasonable time after soliciting their subscriptions, the merchant has made no decision to ship the merchandise, it must notify subscribers of this fact and give them the opportunity to cancel and, where payment has been made, make a prompt refund. The merchant can make no substitutions of any merchandise for that ordered.

Window Tinting rules and laws in visiting jurisdictions

If someone has a car registered, licensed and insured in a given U.S. state, and intends to travel across state and province lines, are they supposed to make sure that they're in compliance with the window tinting rules and laws in all such states and provinces, or is it sufficient that the car is in compliance with the laws in the U.S. state where it's coming from?

Whether your car is street legal in State A is determined entirely by the laws of State A. If the law of State A states that only a certain level of tint is acceptable, and doesn't make an exception for out-of-state registrations, you will be in violation. You may or may not get a ticket if you're just passing through, but if you do get one, you won't have a defense to it. The only way the law of State B would matter would be if: The law of State A actually incorporated State B law by saying something like, "...unless the vehicle is registered in another state, the driver is a resident of that state, and the vehicle is in compliance with that state's laws. or The law of State A was independently unenforceable, either as written or as enforced; for example, if it affected some federal Constitutional right (e.g., "Cars driven by suspicious-looking people may not have tinted windows," with only Black drivers being ticketed).

When was judicial attire first specified in England (or the United Kingdom)?

To many (if not most) of those not involved in legal matters, court dress may seem a bit absurd. Wigs, especially seem out of place in modern society. It is obvious that the judicial costume must date back quite some time. I've never quite understood when this happened. When was court dress first standardized in England (or the United Kingdom, depending on the era)?

The origins aren't known exactly, as it turns out. Court dress goes back quite some time. Edward III - living up to the example of Edward I , and his legal improvements - was not the first to mandate that judges wear appropriate attire, but it became established during his reign. Judges of importance wore robes lined with fur and silk. Their attire also included a hood and cowl, as well as a mantle. Colors varied, with violet being the color of choice in the winter green in the summer. In medieval times, the coif, a white cap, was used by monks. Skullcaps (in black) were adopted later on, but wigs became the head covering of choice in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, largely because they became part of the formal clothing worn at the time - not just inside courtrooms. References: Court and Tribunals Judiciary Wigs, Coifs, and Other Idiosyncrasies of English Judicial Attire

Is the prohibition of narcotics mandated by an international treaty?

Possession of narcotics is of course illegal in many jurisdictions. Recently there has been talk of relaxing or eliminating prohibitions on the sale and possession of drugs. Are there any international treaties or supranational legislation that would be breached if, say, the United Kingdom legalised narcotics? If so, which countries are similarly bound?

Yes, there are international treaties that the UK would breach if they legalised narcotics. Those are: The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 The Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 , and The United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988 The majority of UN members are bound by these treaties: 185 of 193 for the 1961 and 1971 treaties, and 189 of 193 for the 1988 treaty. For a full list of signatories and of parties to the treaties, click 'Status of Treaty Adherence' under each treaty. As to what specific breach the UK would commit if narcotics were legalised, the answer can be found in one of the articles of the 1961 convention: Article 4. General obligations The parties shall take such legislative and administrative measures as may be necessary: (a) To give effect to and carry out the provisions of this Convention within their own territories; (b) To co-operate with other States in the execution of the provisions of this Convention; and (c) Subject to the provisions of this Convention, to limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs. In other words, we are bound by this treaty to enact legislation to ensure that the use and possession of drugs is limited only to medical and scientific use.

Is the prohibition of narcotics mandated by an international treaty?

Possession of narcotics is of course illegal in many jurisdictions. Recently there has been talk of relaxing or eliminating prohibitions on the sale and possession of drugs. Are there any international treaties or supranational legislation that would be breached if, say, the United Kingdom legalised narcotics? If so, which countries are similarly bound?

For further information about how countries go about managing their international obligations whilst relaxing domestic legislation, the recent example of coca leaf in Bolivia is interesting. After proposing an amendment to the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 (which was rejected), the country withdrew from and then re-acceded to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 , adding a reservation that exempted coca leaf from the application of the treaty. Some countries objected but not enough to block the country's re-accession . According to the Global Commission on Drug Policy : “The idea that the international drug control system is immutable, and that any amendment — however reasonable or slight — is a threat to the integrity of the entire system, is short-sighted.”

What entitlements for paternity leave in a small company in California?

Many small companies California that have no paternity policy and are less than 50 people? What paid, or unpaid paternity leave entitlements do employees generally have (under federal and California law)? Update: (from @dw1's links) FMLA and CFRA provide job protected leave (but only apply to companies > 50 people, and do no guarantee pay) SDI and PFL provide income if time off is taken (but do not, I think, require companies to allow time off -- i.e. you can be fired for taking time off). Are small companies required to allow male employees ANY time off? (other than sickness)

California has a paid leave program. In order to qualify for disbursements you must make regular contributions to a state insurance fund. In 2002, California became the first state in the United States to create the Paid Family Leave (PFL) program – a family leave insurance program that provides income replacement to eligible workers for family caregiving or bonding with a new child. . . . Workers who contribute to the California State Disability Insurance (SDI) fund are entitled to six weeks of partial pay each year while taking time off from work . . . ( Source ) There may also be other opportunities. Paid Family Leave provides partial income replacement to you while you are on leave if you have paid into State Disability Insurance (SDI) and you are eligible, but it does not guarantee job protection during your leave. However, you may be eligible for job-protected leave through the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) or the California Pregnancy Disability Leave (PDL) law. If you are a union member, you may have the right to job-protected leave through a collective bargaining agreement. ( Source )

Is an English will valid if the testator dies while living in Scotland?

If a testator makes a will while living in England, to what extent will it be valid if the testator— permanently moves to Scotland, and subsequently dies there without making a further will?

( I am not your lawyer. I am not here to help you. If you are reading this because someone has died, please stop and instead read the Scottish Courts and Tribunals guide to dealing with a deceased's estate in Scotland , or contact a solicitor.) Yes, in general. Section 1 of the Wills Act 1963 , which is in force in Scotland, specifies that "[a] will shall be treated as properly executed if its execution conformed to the internal law in force in the territory where it was executed." Furthermore, Section 4 states that "[t]he construction of a will shall not be altered by reason of any change in the testator’s domicile after the execution of the will." "Construction" here refers to interpreting the language and effect of the will. So if the will was validly executed in England, it should also be in force in Scotland, and a Scottish court will give it the same meaning it would have had under English law. Furthermore, the same rule of validity seems to apply in both England and Scotland: Wills Act 1837 section 9 . There may be other Scottish laws affecting the disposition of the estate that differ from English law. Relevant statutes include Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, section 21A , which seems consistent with Wills Act 1963. (I am trained in U.S. rather than English or Scottish law; I'm trusting the accuracy of the UK's excellent online legislation archive for the proposition that the statutes cited are in force in Scotland. I haven't checked the case law for contrary interpretations.)

How does changing a name FAIL to protect against a libel suit?

In the answer to this question, someone convinced me that changing Paul dePodesta's name to "Peter Brand" in "Moneyball, was enough to signal a "disconnect" between Mr. dePodesta and "Billy Beane's assistant." Yet, this tactic didn't work in the Red Hat Club case . The author changed the name of Vicki Stewart to Susu and yet was found guilty of "libel." Apparently, part of the problem was the "backstories" (the story before the story) of Stewart and Susu were very similar, while the forward-going "stories" (fictitious and real) were wildly different. Was that because changing the name signals only a "slight" alteration of the facts, e.g. in "Moneyball" whereas the novel was a "major" alteration? Was it the lack of consistency between the (slight) alteration of backstories and the (major) alternation of the main stories? Or was something else at work?

The relevant question for libel under US law is "would a reasonable person understand this to be a statement of fact about the plaintiff, or to imply a statement of fact about the plaintiff." It doesn't directly matter if the name was changed or not; what matters is if a reasonable person would think the statements in question are talking about an actual person (the plaintiff) and are stating (or implying) actual facts, or if a reasonable person would think the statements in question are pure fiction and don't say anything factual about the plaintiff. Changing the name tends to make it seem more like fiction, but that's not always enough: suppose I write a long fictional story about Theodore Bau, who is active on the Pile Market series of online Q&A sites, particularly a history one and a board games one, who published an economics book in 2004 and was an econ and history double major, and fills in more details from Tom's SE bios , and in the book talk about how Mr. Bau stole money from clients; I then send thto potential clients of Tom Au. The fact that I changed the names and said "this is a work of fiction and any similarities are coincidental" isn't exactly an automatic get-off-scot-free card. On the other hand, if I'm telling a story about Tom Au that uses a fair bit of your backstory, with no disclaimer that any similarities are pure coincidence but Mr. Au lives a secret life as a legitimate supervillain, a reasonable person is unlikely to conclude that I'm saying that you actually have a volcanic lair and that you are actually plotting to capture a US and a Russian missile sub to provoke a nuclear war. In this case, the court determined that a reasonable person familiar with the context could understand the book to be talking about the plaintiff's actual behavior, instead of just talking about a fictional character. The fact that it was fiction and the names were changed suggested that it wasn't talking about the real plaintiff, but the details of the book could make it go the other way.

How does changing a name protect against a libel suit when &quot;everyone&quot; knows who he is?

In the movie, "Moneyball," the name of Billy Beane's assistant was fictionalized to "Peter Brand." Yet anyone who has read Michael Lewis' book knows that his real name was Paul dePodesta. Mr. dePodesta withheld permission to use his real name because of several "shortcuts" the movie played with the facts, like the part about dropping in on a newly eligible player on Christmas Day. By doing so, he apparently "disassociated" himself from the movie. Given that the movie was "based on a true story," what does changing Paul dePodesta's name do? In the Sound of Music, which was "based on a true story," the Captain and Maria retained their real names and identities, but the seven children were fictionalized. Why might that be?

By changing the name, the filmmakers are signaling that the character in the movie is not acting the way the real-life person acted. It is not uncommon for historical fiction--which is basically what the "Moneyball" film is--to combine historical characters for narrative purposes, or to invent new characters to drive the plot. If you see a movie where Henry V stops to talk to Joe Welshman, a common soldier, before a battle, you assume that Henry V was at that battle, but you don't assume that the soldier is a historical person whose words with the king happened to be recorded on a nearby tape recorder. So, if you watch a movie where some characters have real people's names, like Billy Beane, and others have invented names, like Peter Brand, you don't necessarily assume that Brand represents a one-to-one correspondence with one real person. More likely, his part represents things that were done by multiple people, or were done in a different way that is not as narratively convenient. As you say, if you read the book, you will recognize the character--but you will also recognize the changes, and understand why the name was changed.

What jurisdiction does an IP address fall under?

What is an IP Address? An Internet Protocol address (IP address) is a numerical label assigned to each device (e.g., computer, printer) participating in a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication. An IP address serves two principal functions: host or network interface identification and location addressing. Who manages IP Addresses? The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ( IANA ) is a department of ICANN , a nonprofit private American corporation that oversees global IP address allocation, autonomous system number allocation, root zone management in the Domain Name System (DNS), media types, and other Internet Protocol-related symbols and numbers. What is a Regional Internet Registries? Regional Internet Registries are components of the Internet Number Registry System, which is described in IETF RFC 7020. The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) delegates Internet resources to the RIRs who, in turn, follow their regional policies to delegate resources to their customers, which include Internet service providers and end-user organizations. Collectively, the RIRs participate in the Number Resource Organization (NRO), formed as a body to represent their collective interests, undertake joint activities, and coordinate their activities globally. The NRO has entered into an agreement with ICANN for the establishment of the Address Supporting Organisation (ASO), which undertakes coordination of global IP addressing policies within the ICANN framework. So IANA is a department of ICANN. On October 1, 2009 the U.S. Department of Commerce gave up its control of ICANN. In 2013, the NSA spying scandal has led to ICANN endorsing the Montevideo Statement. The Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation was released on 7 October 2013 by the leaders of a number of organizations involved in coordinating the Internet's global technical infrastructure. The statement was signed by the heads of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, the World Wide Web Consortium, the Internet Society, and the five regional Internet address registries (African Network Information Center, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre, Latin America and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry, and Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre). In large part, the statement is seen as a response to the ongoing NSA surveillance scandal. The leaders made four main points: They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet operations, and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national level. They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance. They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing. They also called for the transition to IPv6 to remain a top priority globally. In particular Internet content providers must serve content with both IPv4 and IPv6 services, in order to be fully reachable on the global Internet. What jurisdiction does an IP Address fall under if a crime is committed using it? EXAMPLE: Lets say that someone hosts a website similar to The Silk Road in the Principality of Sealand . They use TOR so they have obfuscated their location online and do not use any common TLD. What country would have jurisdiction to try and shut down the site? What if the location of the server hosting the website is in the cloud, similar to The Pirate Bay ?

I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about having "jurisdiction" over an IP address, for the purposes you're discussing. If you wanted to sue the IP address itself--something that is possible under limited circumstances--then you might need to locate it for jurisdictional purposes. But I don't think that's what you're talking about. You're talking about taking civil or criminal action against the people who are using the IP address to commit crimes. What matters, in that case, is not a theoretical legal question about the location of an IP address. It's questions like: where do these people live? Where do the people downloading the illegal content live? Where are the physical servers located? ("In the cloud" is not an answer--there are physical servers somewhere making up that cloud). For jurisdictional purposes, the chair they're sitting in when they upload the illegal data, and the location of the AC power outlet the physical server is plugged into, are as important as, if not more important than, the metaphysical "location" of the IP address of the server.

How do Creative Commons licences WITHOUT the Share-Alike attribute work? Can derivate works only be more restrictive, or what?

I don't understand how CC licenses without the attribute Share-Alike are supposed to work. Ok, you can "share differently", but differently how? You can be more liberal? Doesn't make sense, as this would be equivalent to putting the work into public domain so there would be no point in having this license in the first place,. So you can only "add restrictions", keeping those already there?

From the legal code of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (emphasis in the original): 1.a Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording, Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is synched in timed relation with a moving image. 1.b Adapter's License means the license You apply to Your Copyright and Similar Rights in Your contributions to Adapted Material in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Public License. 1.f Licensed Material means the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public License. 2.a Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: 2.a.1.A reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and 2.a.1.B produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material. 2.a.5.B You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material. 3.a.4 If You Share Adapted Material You produce, the Adapter's License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted Material from complying with this Public License. In short, if the original is CC-BY, you can license derivative works under whatever terms you want, so long as the license of the original work is not infringed by the new terms for the derived work. In particular, ordinary copyright (aka. "all rights reserved") is a perfectly acceptable copyright for a derivative of a CC-BY work (but the original credits should be included -and augmented- in order to also comply with the original CC-BY). Also note this doesn't restrict anybody's rights to use the original material under the original license. The other non-ShareAlike license that permits derivative works ( Attribution-Noncommmercial ) has a different version of clause 2.a.1.B: produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material for NonCommercial purposes only. so any license of a derivative work cannot permit commercial use of the original work. It may be possible to permit commercial use of those portions of the derivative that can be separated from the original; this gets into an extreme edge case of copyright law and you'll probably want to consult a lawyer if you find yourself in such a situation. Another way to consider this issue is by noting that you are only licensing your modifications . For example, if you add a mustache to a CC-BY portrait and use a CC-0 license, only your mustache is CC-0; you can't eliminate the original author's requirement of attribution this way. The derived work would still have to be used under a CC-BY license (or compatible).

What kind of ownership do I have over articles I wrote?

So, a few months ago I was working for a big blog and then I resigned because I didn't want to write any more articles for them. Some of the articles were original and a few were translations by me from other articles. Do I have any claim to ownership if the articles? I had no contract with them governing what I can do with the material I wrote, so would it be possible for me to ask the owner of the blog to take them down? Is there any law on this issue? In case you need to know I live in Greece, and the blog is based in Greece.

There are three questions relevant to this issue: Who owned the copyright in the first place? Was the copyright transferred? If not, was a license given to the site to use the content? In general, under most countries' laws, the person who creates an original work owns the copyright. The person with the copyright has the right to copy and distribute the work, and the right to prevent others from doing so. In some cases, such as where a work is created as a "work for hire" by certain employees under certain circumstances, the initial copyright is held by a third party. You will need a lawyer familiar with your jurisdiction and your circumstances to determine if this is the case. Finally, even if you own the copyright, you can license others to use your content. This may be in an express written document, or it may be an implied license--implied, for instance, by the act of posting it on their blog. The existence and scope of such a license is, again, something that will have to be determined based on your country's specific laws and your specific situation. The bottom line is: if you submitted articles to that blog, you can't complain that they posted them. Depending on the license in effect, you might be able to get them taken down, or you might not. You need a lawyer, not the internet, to tell you what your rights are in this very specific case.

What kind of ownership do I have over articles I wrote?

So, a few months ago I was working for a big blog and then I resigned because I didn't want to write any more articles for them. Some of the articles were original and a few were translations by me from other articles. Do I have any claim to ownership if the articles? I had no contract with them governing what I can do with the material I wrote, so would it be possible for me to ask the owner of the blog to take them down? Is there any law on this issue? In case you need to know I live in Greece, and the blog is based in Greece.

The World Intellectual Property Organization maintains a comprehensive database of IP laws for pretty much every country. Here is the landing page for Greece . More particularly suited to your needs is the Greece page for copyright laws, which you can find here . If there really was no agreement about who would own your work you may have a shot at retaining the copyright over your work in terms of how they can distribute it beyond their site, but you may not be able to prevent them from publishing your work on their site. You really should consult with a Greek copyright lawyer. Also, since Greece is a civil law country you may be able to find a law on this topic.

Is there a legal reason why fictional shows use imitation brand names?

Often, when I watch TV shows, I'll see or hear about an imitation of a real brand name. As an example, here is a parody of Walmart from The Simpsons The store in the picture is unambiguously supposed to represent Walmart. They're even using Walmart's Styling Is there any legal reason why they do this? and if there is, does it provide any actual legal protection?

In general , TV shows or other fictional works will use fictional brands to avoid infringing the brand's trademark. According to Wikipedia , this occurs more often when the brand is used in a potentially negative way. In your specific example, however, it's clear that (as commenters pointed out) the brand "Sprawlmart" was a parody intended to be humorous and was not for legal reasons.

Is there a legal reason why fictional shows use imitation brand names?

Often, when I watch TV shows, I'll see or hear about an imitation of a real brand name. As an example, here is a parody of Walmart from The Simpsons The store in the picture is unambiguously supposed to represent Walmart. They're even using Walmart's Styling Is there any legal reason why they do this? and if there is, does it provide any actual legal protection?

Don't know if this adds much to discussion, please comment if not and I will remove this post. In some (European) countries (like Belgium), national television and especially children television networks are not allowed to broadcast (a significant amount of) advertisement. Product placement and mentioning brands is seen as a sort of advertisement, even if the company promoted did not asked for this. The idea is that children cannot properly "defend" themselves against advertisement and furthermore it is debatable whether a publicly funded television network should broadcast advertisements. If television networks would do so, they have to pay a fine (there are even some hilarious cases where for instance the TV station had to pay a fine because a person they interviewed for the News was wearing a T-shirt of a specific brand). I can imagine that some fictional shows that target an international audience - like The Simpsons - are aware of such laws and thus make a parody on these brands in order to increase the number of potential television networks broadcasting the show.

How is the theft of stolen property handled legally?

Many definitions of "theft" include specific text regarding "the rightful owner" or a variant necessitating that the victim of theft owned the property. (emphasis mine) For example, The Free Dictionary defines theft as: A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent. Merriam Webster defines it similarly: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it How do these definitions apply if the person being stolen from is not actually the rightful owner, and has in fact stolen the property himself? What criminal repercussions do thieves of stolen property face?

In England and Wales, theft is defined by s1 Theft Act 1968 : A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it It does not matter if the victim is not the rightful owner of the property, as the law only requires that the property belongs to another : the victim and owner can be two different people. As long as the other elements are present, the offence is committed. It's important when considering theft to look for dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive: borrowing something without permission with the intention to return it isn't theft, and nor is taking something by mistake. Theft is an 'either-way' offence (i.e. it can be tried summarily or by a jury), and in the latter case carries a maximum penalty of seven years in prison ( s7 TA 1968 ).

Which aspects of human-subjects research rules are actually laws rather than conventions?

I'm aware that various laws exist regulating research on human subjects (Wikipedia summary here and in linked pages). However, I've had a tough time finding sources that clarify the boundary between legal restrictions and "guidelines". It's also not clear to me to what extent these laws apply to institutions (by governing what kinds of research they can fund/sanction) versus individuals (by governing what kinds of research activities can actually be performed). So what I'm interested in is: Are there laws that make it illegal for an individual to violate or blur the boundaries of human subjects ethics guidelines, even though what is actually done would not be illegal if it did not constitute research? For instance, stopping someone on the street to ask them a question is not in itself illegal; does it become illegal if an individual does it to a lot of people and writes about it as research, without having the sorts of safeguards that an institution's IRB would require? I'm talking here about cases where the acts themselves would not otherwise be in question (e.g., the research doesn't cause physical harm), but only become potentially problematic because they are part of research. If research conducted at an institution violates ethical guidelines, is that considered an illegal act by the IRB or the individual, or both (or conceivably neither, if the violation wasn't covered by an actual law)? For instance, if a researcher submits a research proposal and has it approved, and then someone claims the proposal violates human subjects research guidelines, is it the wholly the researcher's fault for doing it, or does the IRB bear culpability for not properly vetting the proposal and alerting the researcher to the problems? Is there a specific mechanism for determining what counts as "research" subject to these rules in the first place? That is, is there an accepted legal framework for distinguishing informal information-gathering, not subject to the rules, (e.g., "Hey all my Facebook friends, everybody take this latest web quiz and post your results in comments!"), from bona fide research that is subject to the rules? Are there legal distinctions between different subject areas of research? A lot of the stuff I read on the issue mentions motivating cases that involved medical research, like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. However, it's not clear to me if medical research actually has different legal restrictions than other kinds of research (e.g., sociological interviews or psychological questionnaires). I'm mainly interested in the legal situation in the US, but would be interested to know about the law on this matter in other countries as well. Also, I'm aware that in practice it often doesn't matter where the line is between what's actually illegal and what's just disallowed by university guidelines or scholarly consensus, because a researcher's reputation, career, and funding are vulnerable regardless of whether actual laws were broken. (In other words, even if you didn't break any laws, a journal may refuse to publish your paper if it smells a rat.) I'm asking this question on this site because I'm specficially interested in which restrictions on research activity are actually a matter of law, not just convention or institutional self-regulation.

According to the NIH , there are in fact a number of laws in the US regulating human research, as opposed to codes and conventions (although the majority does consist of the latter). 1962 - Milestone: Kefauver-Harris amendments to the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act, [Public Law 87-781; 76 Stat. 788-89] This amendment was important in establishing that human testing was necessary in drugs and therefore provided for the regulation of human testing, after the thalidomide scandal caused a number of preventable birth defects due to insufficient human testing. The FDA describes the law as (emphasis mine): ... The Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendments also asked the Secretary to establish rules of investigation of new drugs, including a requirement for the informed consent of study subjects . The amendments also formalized good manufacturing practices, required that adverse events be reported, and transferred the regulation of prescription drug advertising from the Federal Trade Commission to the FDA. 1974 - Milestone: National Research Act The National Research Act legally justifies and grants the NIH the power to set up boards to regulate human medical research: SEC. 102. (a) Congress finds and declares that (1) the success and continued viability of the Federal biomedical and behavioral research effort depends on the availability of excellent scientists and a network of institutions of excellence capable of producing superior research personnel ; (2) direct support of the training of scientists for careers in biomedical and behavioral research is an appropriate and necessary role for the Federal Government ; and (3) graduate research assistance programs should be the key elements in the training programs of the institutes of the National Institutes of Health and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration. (b) It is the purpose of this title to increase the capability of the institutes of the National Institutes of Health and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration to carry out their responsibility of maintaining a superior national program of research into the physical and mental diseases and impairments of man.

Restrictions on Liability Waiver Use

The US National Park Service (NPS) has the following language. This is in the context of a commercial operator (like a white water rafting company) getting a commercial permit to take clients down a river in National Park lands. The commercial operator is required to carry insurance, and nearly all insurance companies require clients to sign documents that waive their rights to hold the commercial operator responsible for actions (as much as can be enforced). The National Parks say this: NPS policy states that operators cannot require visitors (clients) to waive their right to hold Commercial Use Authorization (CUA) or Special Use Permit (SUP) holders responsible for actions. The Holder is not permitted to require clients to sign a waiver of liability statement or form, insurance disclaimer and/or indemnification agreement. ... Let's imagine that in the past a commercial operator has had clients sign those releases, while holding a National Park commercial permit. 1) Is the release signed by the client independent of whatever the National Park's policy (above) states? 2) Are those releases subject to challenge because they violated an aspect of the permit? 3) Is the only real material affect going to be potential discipline from the NPS for violating the terms of the commercial permit, by clients signing liability waivers. Additionally: Apparently the history for this is because of a law that doesn't allow the federal government, in this case the NPS, to be released of liability.

Generally, yes, but these policies are not written in a vacuum. The provider knows the operator in working in NP and knows that the NP prohibits waivers so the policy may state that the insured cannot require waivers but it will certainly build into the premiums the fact that the insured can't require waivers (ie more claims than if waivers were allowed). I think your question is - could an injured person, who signed a waiver, use the NPS policy alone to invalidate the waiver. It seems no bc there is no privity of contract but there also seems to be a lot of overlap so it's hard to say. They are subject to challenge no matter what; it's the success of the challenge that matters. And a judge (or jury!) would look very unkindly upon a waiver which was provided by an operator in clear conflict with the operator's commitment to the NPS. There is a bit of your first question in here because if the judge allows the suit against the operator the operator is going to bring the insurance company in if they haven't already been named. If the insurance company tries to get out by pointing to a clause requiring waivers, again, the judge will know that the insurer knew that the insured was operating in a NP and... You get it. Discipline = getting kicked out = out of business. But the other effect is if a suit is brought and the operator broke the NPS rules and broke the insurers rules the operator could be personally liable for all damages. I'd like to take a look at some of these policies. I'll look for cases on point but I'm not optimistic.

Do you need to obey an obstructed traffic sign?

If a traffic sign is obstructed (for example, due to being overgrown by kudzu or because a telephone pole was placed in front of it) to the point of unreadability, do you still need to obey it? What if the sign is so obstructed that there is no longer any indication that the sign even exists?

No. The law would be void for vagueness. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926): [T]he terms of a penal statute [...] must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties… and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law. The example of the "well known but hidden stop sign" appears to allow for arbitrary prosecution and should also be void.

Do you need to obey an obstructed traffic sign?

If a traffic sign is obstructed (for example, due to being overgrown by kudzu or because a telephone pole was placed in front of it) to the point of unreadability, do you still need to obey it? What if the sign is so obstructed that there is no longer any indication that the sign even exists?

It depends, but you should do it, just to be safe. Let's say you live in a town with one main road. The town council has decided that every road that has an intersection with this main road must have a stop sign placed on it. The idea catches on among the townspeople, and after the signs are placed accordingly, the accident rate goes down, and everyone is satisfied. Even out-of-towners catch to the pattern pretty quickly. One day, you - a law-abiding citizen of the town - drive down a side street towards the main road. The stop sign is no longer visible because of all of the kudzu on it. It's nearly impossible to tell that there's anything there besides a lot of kudzu. You ignore the stop sign and go out into the main road, in full sight of everyone, including a police officer. The officer charges you with a moving violation for not stopping at the stop sign. You argue against this, saying that the sign could not be seen. The case - assuming you challenge the officer's decision - could rest on mistake of fact . Basically, if you had reasonable cause to not think that there was a stop sign there, the charges could be dropped, because there was nothing there alluding to the sign's existence. However , in this situation, such a defense would not be legitimate, because given how obvious and widely-known the policy is, there's no reason why you would think that a stop sign would not be there. Each situation differs. A solid defense uses the concept of mistake of fact. If a sign was placed somewhere designating that cars have to slow down within that area (for some unclear reason), and the sign was not easily visible - or recognizable at all - then perhaps the defense could be used, because there would be no reason to think that there would be a sign there. In short, it varies. The scenarios differ in each case, so there's no overarching policy.

Are there any restrictions on &quot;Open Access&quot; material?

A video on Wikipedia claims that Open Access articles come with "full reuse rights" (sections 0:04 and 5:38 ). Are Open Access articles as open as public domain works? Is the definition of the rights of Open Access articles equivalent to that of the Public Domain ? Would the implementation (e.g. manner of distribution) be a factor?

Is an article licensed under an Open Access license equivalent to a public domain work? No. Intellectual property practitioners and professors often describe copyright as "a bundle of sticks." This means that intellectual property laws grant the creator of a copyrightable work a large number of rights, and the creator can grant or deny others each of those rights individually. So, for instance, an author can grant a publisher the right to publish his or her book in one country, but not in another, or to copy it verbatim but not to alter it. The purpose of a license, any license, is to specify which of those rights pass to the licensee (the end user) and which stay with the licensor (the creator). This is true of creative commons just as it is for any other license. For example, many open access publishers publish under the Creative Commons CC-BY journal. This is an attribution license; it requires as a term of the license that you give credit to the original creator. This is something you would not have to do with a public domain work. In addition, under CC-BY, you have to include a copy of the license with each copy you distribute, and you cannot add your own copy protection to any copies you distribute. Again, these sort of restrictions do not apply to a public domain work. In short: the purpose of a license--any license--is to define the ways in which you can, or can not, use the licensed materials. Any license that contains any provisions restricting the licensee's use is going to be more restrictive, by definition, than the use of something in the public domain.

Flashbangs versus destruction of evidence

If setting fire to a crime scene would be considered destruction of evidence and spray painting a crime scene would be considered destruction of evidence why is the use of flashbangs not considered destruction of evidence? As a pyrotechnic they have the capacity to start a fire. Short of starting a fire they will expel their products of combustion leaving a residue in their target area that could obscure or contaminate trace evidence.

Destruction of evidence always has to be weighed against dealing with an active situation. Taking a surviving victim to a hospital and treating them also destroys evidence; so does putting out an arson fire by knocking out walls. In all cases, there's an emergency situation and dealing with it is more important than preserving evidence. Flashbangs aren't used once the scene is secure, but rather when the need to end an active situation justifies their use.

How to parse &#39;notwithstanding ... forfeiture is avoided otherwise than by relief&#39;?

[Source:] The landlord argued that the tenant must pay the administration costs based on the covenant[,] given by the tenant in the lease which read as follows: “To pay all expenses (including Landlord’s solicitors’ costs and surveyors fees) incurred by the Landlord [,and] incidental to the preparation and service of notice under Section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 notwithstanding that forfeiture is avoided otherwise than by relief granted by the court.” What does the bolded mean? I wish to understand it in terms of the bolded sentence as written; so please don't just paraphrase it. For example, I'm confused by the combined use of notwithstanding (preposition), otherwise (adverb), and than (conjunction). Footnote: The quote concerns UK law, but similar diction is found in other juridsdictions .

One possible reading of this clause is: The tenant is required to pay for the preparation of a forfeiture notice, even if ("notwithstanding that") the forfeiture doesn't actually happen ("forfeiture is avoided")--but the tenant doesn't have to pay for the notice if the forfeiture doesn't happen for the following reason ("avoided otherwise than by"): because the court said so ("by relief granted by the court"). In other words: if the Court says the forfeiture notice is bogus, the tenant doesn't have to pay for it. Otherwise, he or she does.

What precautions are lawyers obligated to take with digital communication security?

Given that various email providers have different levels of access to email, and that it shouldn't be considered private communication unless further encrypted, what steps do lawyers need to take to protect client's confidentiality? This question is also merited for things such as text and phone conversations as those conversations could fall under the same sort of arena. Are lawyers only required to inform clients that email, text, phone is unsafe communication with risks? Or are they in some cases risking a breach of client confidentiality even if they do?

What steps do lawyers need to take to protect client's confidentiality? Reasonable steps Are lawyers only required to inform clients that email, text, phone is unsafe communication with risks? Yes. Sort of. It's not a problem that these channels are unsafe, it's just the risk part. As was stated, US mail carries risk. Or are they in some cases risking a breach of client confidentiality even if they do? If they do... what? inform clients of risks? It is up to the lawyer to inform the client of the danger of using email. Certain cases warrant more precaution than others. The lawyer will need to weigh all of this. It is also possible that a heightened level of security makes communication too cumbersome or expensive. What if the client does not want to pay for the extra time it takes you to encrypt/decrypt? What if the client cannot figure out the software? No matter how sloppy the client is, it is incumbent upon the lawyer to protect communication. It's ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(a) that explains this for us. A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent ... continuing to paragraph (c): (c) A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client. Comment 18 in part (relating to safeguarding information): unauthorized access...does not constitute a violation of paragraph (c) if the lawyer has made reasonable efforts to prevent the access or disclosure. continuing: Factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of the lawyer’s efforts include, but are not limited to, the sensitivity of the information, the likelihood of disclosure if additional safeguards are not employed, the cost of employing additional safeguards, the difficulty of implementing the safeguards, and the extent to which the safeguards adversely affect the lawyer’s ability to represent clients (e.g., by making a device or important piece of software excessively difficult to use ). Comment 19 in part: *When transmitting a communication that includes information relating to the representation of a client, the lawyer must take reasonable precautions to prevent the information from coming into the hands of unintended recipients. This duty, however, does not require that the lawyer use special security measures if the method of communication affords a reasonable expectation of privacy. Special circumstances, however, may warrant special precautions . Factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of the lawyer's expectation of confidentiality include the sensitivity of the information and the extent to which the privacy of the communication is protected by law or by a confidentiality agreement. Both instances require reasonable efforts - those an ordinary person would use. ABA Formal Opinion 1-459 tells us that A lawyer sending or receiving substantive communications with a client via e-mail or other electronic means ordinarily must warn the client about the risk of sending or receiving electronic communications using a computer or other device, or e-mail account, where there is a significant risk that a third party may gain access. This comment pertains to specific situations, like a client emailing a lawyer from the client's work-computer. It does not specifically apply to hacker-threat. And to muddy all of this up, it's not only communication and information that is at risk. Property is also at risk and the duty to protect property is higher than the duty over communication. Secret recipes, customer lists, strategic plans - these are all forms of property and lawyers have special duties to safeguard client property. Comment (1) to Rule 1.15 says that a lawyer should hold property of others with the care required of a professional fiduciary. This is higher than the reasonableness requirement for protecting information . The fiduciary duty is the highest standard of care recognized by our legal system (the California rule calls on the lawyer to protect client secrets “at every peril to himself or herself” Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct R. 3-100(A) (2013); see also Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §6068(e)(1) (2013)).

What patents do I need to buy or lease to make and sell an electric guitar to the public?

I want to make and sell my own electric guitars. However, I have not invented the instrument, nor was I the inventor of any of the major advances in the field. However, I have some changes (mostly aesthetic and stylistic) in mind before selling the guitars to the public in Washington state of the USA. Do I have to pay the inventors of the components on an electric guitar (such as pickups or dials) or take a lease from them or their equivalent corporate identities in order to make and sell a guitar that draws heavily from existing models by other brands?

From the USPTO , by law, a patent is: the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention in the United States or importing the invention into the United States. If you want to make, use, or sell something covered by an active patent then you have to secure the patent owner's approval or else they can use the courts to stop and/or fine you for violating their right. A patent owner can grant a license to use an active patent on any terms he desires, or not at all. However it is unlikely that anyone will volunteer to conduct a search to look for active patents your specific application may infringe. There are paid specialists who do that for those who don't feel confident doing it themselves.

What does &quot;actual knowledge&quot; mean in the context of DMCA safe harbors?

According to 17 U.S. Code § 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online (emphasis mine): A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider— (A) (i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing; (ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge , is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or (iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material; Is "actual knowledge" the same thing that's detailed in paragraph (3) "Elements of notification"? Or does it refer to something else? In either case, has the interpretation been tested in court?

The particulars of "actual knowledge" are addressed in Viacom v. YouTube . The ruling from the appeals court states (emphasis mine): Under § 512(c)(1)(A), knowledge or awareness alone does not disqualify the service provider; rather, the provider that gains knowledge or awareness of infringing activity retains safe-harbor protection if it “acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material.” 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A)(iii). Thus, the nature of the removal obligation itself contemplates knowledge or awareness of specific infringing material , because expeditious removal is possible only if the service provider knows with particularity which items to remove ... Thus, actual knowledge must be knowledge that is specific enough to allow a service provider to take action against specific infringing content. "General" knowledge of infringement is not specific enough to be actionable, so it cannot qualify as "actual knowledge". (e.g., The general knowledge, "In the past, about 5% of the videos uploaded to our site were infringing, and we expect that trend continues into the present, so some of our videos right now are probably infringing," is not actionable to specific videos, so it does not quality as "actual knowledge".) That ruling also clarifies the distinction between (i) and (ii) , which are respectively termed the "actual knowledge" provision and "red flag" provision: In other words, the actual knowledge provision turns on whether the provider actually or “subjectively” knew of specific infringement, while the red flag provision turns on whether the provider was subjectively aware of facts that would have made the specific infringement “objectively” obvious to a reasonable person. Actual knowledge is different from a notification, which the service operator must respond to according to section (c)(1)(C) (whereas your quote is from (c)(1)(A)): (C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity. Expeditious removal is required in either event: the operator has actual knowledge of infringement, per (c)(1)(A)(i), or the operator gets a notification, per (c)(1)(C). Actual knowledge and notifications are different, but they impose similar responsibilities for the operator.

How do I read a U.S. case citation and find the text of the opinion?

In something like this: "We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place." Brown v. Bd. of Educ. , 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954)". What is that cryptic thing after the quotation marks? How do I understand what it says? Is there somewhere I can go to read these cases, or read about them?

The author of the passage is telling you where the quotation comes from, using a formal case citation. Lawyers usually don't use footnotes, endnotes, or parentheses to set off these citations. Case citations are a sort of shorthand developed by lawyers and judges over the past few centuries. The goal is generally to identify the name of the case, where to locate it, when it was decided, and what court decided it. Although there are a few different styles for formal citations to cases, you don't need to learn much to cover the basics for common types of cases. How to Read It Case name Brown v. Bd. of Educ. Case names usually have a "v." in the middle. Most of the time, the plaintiff goes on the left and the defendant goes on the right. But United States Supreme Court cases are different. Almost always, the Supreme Court reviews decisions of lower courts. They do so in an unusual way: the loser in the lower court asks the Supreme Court to change the outcome. Because the loser, more formally called the "appellant," is the one initiating proceedings in the Supreme Court, they go on the left. (To learn more, look into "writ of certiorari.") Since Brown is a Supreme Court case, we can guess that Brown lost in the lower court; and indeed that's what happened in this case. There are some arcane rules about abbreviating case names. The full name of this case is "Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka." If you're a law student, especially if you're on the law review, you get to learn all about these rules. If you're not, thank your lucky stars and try not to worry about it. Volume, reporter, and page number 347 U.S. 483 This is the bit you want to copy and paste to find the case. It's a lot like a URL: the idea is to clearly identify and locate a case. If you just want to find the case on the Internet, you don't need to understand how it works, and you can skip to the next section. These three parts tell you where to find the beginning of the case in a good old-fashioned printed book. You know those yellow books in the background of lawyer advertisements? That's what we're talking about. They're called "reporters," because they originally contained somebody else's reports of what judges said in court. Now, of course, the judges write down their own decisions; but the name stuck. The middle part, here "U.S.", identifies what set of books the case is in. You can learn something about the court from this: U.S. -- United States Reports -- United States Supreme Court F., F.2d, F.3d -- Federal Reporter -- Federal Courts of Appeal F. Supp -- Federal Supplement -- Federal District Courts (trial courts) The first number is what volume the case is in. This is the number printed on the spine of the book. The second number is what page the case begins on. Pinpoint citation , 495 When somebody wants to refer to a specific place in a case, they just put the page number or range right after the case page number. Remember, "483" was the page the case starts on; "495" is the page where the court actually say what we're talking about. If you flip to page 495 of volume 347 of the U.S. Reports, you'll find the quoted sentence. Remember: usually when you see two numbers separated by a comma, like "483, 495", the first one is part of the citation to the case as a whole, and the second one says what page to look at. Date and court name (1954) This part varies a lot between the different formal styles. In "Bluebook" style, which most law journals use, the year the case was decided is enclosed in parentheses, along with anything necessary to identify the court. Here, there's no court name, because we already know from the "U.S." that it's a Supreme Court case. For lower appellate cases, this might be "(9th Cir. 2005)", meaning that it's a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from 2005. Dealing with short citations You may also see something like " Id. at 495". This is a short citation; " Id. " means "the last thing I cited." Go back to the nearest previous citation and look that up, going to the page cited. How to Use It (aka "tl;dr") The key to actually finding a case on the Internet is to copy the three numbers in the middle--the volume, reporter name, and page number. Here, "347 U.S. 483". Don't include any pincite after a comma; Google and many search engines may be clever enough to figure out what you mean, but they may not. There are a bunch of free online services providing case texts. I prefer Google Scholar ; just paste the citation in, being sure to select "case law". Other people like CourtListener, FindLaw, and Justia.com. Commercial databases like Westlaw or LexisNexis have a lot more than just the case; most importantly, they list citations to the case. Your local public law library might have a terminal for one of the services that you can walk in and use. Be sure you're reading the actual case, not a summary or "annotation." This is especially true if you're writing an answer here on Law.SE. Many case summaries, especially for famous cases, are written for first-year law students; some of them are probably written by first-year law students! They're often helpful , but they focus on what the student needs to know for class, which often isn't what the case actually said. If I find you quoting a case summary as if it's "the law," I will not be very nice to you.

How do I read a U.S. case citation and find the text of the opinion?

In something like this: "We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place." Brown v. Bd. of Educ. , 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954)". What is that cryptic thing after the quotation marks? How do I understand what it says? Is there somewhere I can go to read these cases, or read about them?

The cryptic bit is a citation to a court judgement. A good online resource on the form of citation for U.S. legal materials is Basic Legal Citation , written and maintained by Professor Peter Martin and hosted by the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University. Under the link, you'll find a set of helpful screencasts, as well as a complete citation guide. Good freely available sources for court judgements include the excellent CourtListener service (for both judgements and the audio of oral arguments), Justia , and the "Case law" area of Google Scholar . For U.S. statutory law, the first port of call would be the Cornell Legal Information Institute (LII), which has been publishing the U.S. Code since before the Internet.

Are the opinions of a United States superior court public knowledge?

If I bring a case to a superior court and I lose, is that information public knowledge? What are the ramifications to me? For example, could it hurt my credit score?

If you are worried that some secret will become public, you should find and meet with an attorney , not a financial adviser or other nonlawyer. Your attorney is able to shield your secret information from disclosure in ways other professionals cannot. Raise any credit score issues you're concerned about. In general, the public has a right to access judicial records. See Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. , 435 US 589, 597 (1978) (noting that the right is rarely litigated and not clearly defined). That right is not absolute; some records can be sealed, which means that the public can't read them. Local rules govern when that happens. I don't think the existence of a civil lawsuit could be made secretly except in special circumstances. Likewise, the plaintiff usually must identify herself, except in special circumstances. A plaintiff should assume that everything about the lawsuit--who filed it, against whom, what evidence arises, the trial, and who wins and loses--will be public.

Are websites legally obligated to provide a non-javascript login page?

I have read a couple times now that Websites are obligated to provide an alternative login page when their login form uses Javascript. I have not been able to find much resources on the matter though. (Google likes to present me with websites that discuss legal information that happen to have a login feature.) Are there any legal requirements for a website to have an alternative to a Javascript login form? I'm interested in answers from all over the world.

In the UK, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 includes provisions which are thought to apply to websites , although as far as I know there is no case law on the matter. If a website's use of JavaScript makes it inaccessible to users with some disability, it may fall foul of the DDA. However, there is no law specifically requiring JavaScript-free versions of web pages.

Are websites legally obligated to provide a non-javascript login page?

I have read a couple times now that Websites are obligated to provide an alternative login page when their login form uses Javascript. I have not been able to find much resources on the matter though. (Google likes to present me with websites that discuss legal information that happen to have a login feature.) Are there any legal requirements for a website to have an alternative to a Javascript login form? I'm interested in answers from all over the world.

In the United States, AFAIK there is no legal requirement to provide an alternative to a JavaScript form. Although, from a UX perspective. If you use security extensions like NoScript . You would need to allow the site to run JavaScript on the client before you would be able to login. So it is best to use other methods to authenticate your user.

Website Copyright Laws under Intellectual Property Laws?

What are the laws regarding Copyrights pertaining to copying of website templates ( which is an intellectual property )?

As far as I'm aware, there are no specific laws relating to the copyright of web site templates, at least in the United States. That being the case, to the extent they constitute copyrightable material, exactly the same copyright laws apply to them as would apply to a song, a painting, or a novel.

Use of the RECAP browser extension when accessing PACER

There are benefits to using the RECAP browser plugin when accessing information in PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records): not paying to access PACER documents that have been cached by RECAP you contribute to the Internet Archive in the process it improves the quality of the filenames files are stored under Are there downsides to the use of RECAP, and what are they and which audiences would be most impacted by them?

I haven't used the extension, but here are the concerns I would have: Does RECAP detect and handle documents filed under seal? Under some circumstances, IIRC, Pacer gives certain attorneys access to documents sealed from the general public. If you access these sealed documents through PACER and thereby submit them to the RECAP public repository, you have violated the Court order sealing the documents and might well be found in contempt. It is not unheard of for a Court to order a document replaced by a corrected version; this is most common when a document was inadvertently filed with information not redacted that should have been. As long as nobody but the parties and their lawyers have accessed it, this can prevent that information from being public. If you log on to PACER and see your client's personal information...you can no longer keep it private by asking the Court for that remedy, because you just submitted it to a public repository. Enjoy your malpractice suit. Does the use of RECAP constitute a waiver of work product protection? Under some (admittedly limited) circumstances, your use of PACER might constitute attorney work product, which would ordinarily be protected from disclosure in a manner similar to a privilege. Revealing your research pattern to a third party could waive that protection.

Is the judge allowed to nullify laws?

If a jury disagrees with a law, it's allowed to exercise a right known as jury nullification. However, what about civil cases (e.g., in a Superior Court in California) that are presided by a judge alone, with neither plaintiff nor defendant selecting a jury trial? Is the judge allowed to nullify laws? For example, I recall that in unlawful detainer cases in California that arise out of defects in the premises, if a jury gives a verdict that defects are substantiated, the landlord basically loses the whole case entirely (I think it has to do with defendants being judgement-proof and simply not paying the rent), even though the defects might be rather minor compared to the overall issues at stake. However, the jury is specifically prohibited from being instructed about such stakes! However, knowing what he knows, can the judge still be objective, or would he have to recuse himself out of fear of showing prejudice? Can he require the litigants to have a proper jury, including the associated fees, even though the case is supposedly eligible for a judge-only trial, too? How would it affect a potential appeal? Likewise, California statutes require that a 3-day notice preceding the UD has to specify the exact amount of rent (e.g., cannot include random fees). Is the judge allowed to show prejudice against mistakes in said amount?

The concept of "jury nullification" is not really applicable to civil litigation, whether it's a bench or a jury trial. The short answer is: generally in the United States, civil judges, and civil juries, have to follow the law. If the jury doesn't follow the law, the judge can entertain and grant a JNOV motion on the basis that no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict in question. If the judge doesn't follow the law, the aggrieved party can appeal the judgment as an abuse of discretion or on similar grounds. Jury nullification occurs when a criminal jury returns a verdict of "not guilty" although they feel the defendant was in fact guilty under the law. That is the only circumstance where no legal review can reverse the verdict. Civil "jury nullification" is not a particularly meaningful concept.

Is the judge allowed to nullify laws?

If a jury disagrees with a law, it's allowed to exercise a right known as jury nullification. However, what about civil cases (e.g., in a Superior Court in California) that are presided by a judge alone, with neither plaintiff nor defendant selecting a jury trial? Is the judge allowed to nullify laws? For example, I recall that in unlawful detainer cases in California that arise out of defects in the premises, if a jury gives a verdict that defects are substantiated, the landlord basically loses the whole case entirely (I think it has to do with defendants being judgement-proof and simply not paying the rent), even though the defects might be rather minor compared to the overall issues at stake. However, the jury is specifically prohibited from being instructed about such stakes! However, knowing what he knows, can the judge still be objective, or would he have to recuse himself out of fear of showing prejudice? Can he require the litigants to have a proper jury, including the associated fees, even though the case is supposedly eligible for a judge-only trial, too? How would it affect a potential appeal? Likewise, California statutes require that a 3-day notice preceding the UD has to specify the exact amount of rent (e.g., cannot include random fees). Is the judge allowed to show prejudice against mistakes in said amount?

Here's one answer : The federal system values judicial independence very highly and takes few steps to deter a judge from challenging existing law. Obviously, a judge who paid no mind to prior case law would see her decisions regularly reversed on appeal. But she can be removed from the bench only through the impeachment process, and lesser judicial-misconduct proceedings are largely toothless. No federal judge has ever been disciplined in either manner for failure to apply [binding law]. So yes, United States judges can ignore the law in their courts and the worst that happens in practice is that their rulings are overturned on appeal.

How does one determine the reasons for a judge&#39;s recusal?

I was reading about Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) ( full opinion ), which states that Justices Reed, Jackson, Rutledge took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. As another example, in Homer A. Plessy v. John H. Ferguson (1896), Justice Brewer recused himself. The official judicial decision and opinion do not always explain recusals. So where must one probe?

This is not really a legal question. There isn't a "recusal register" on file anywhere where a judge needs to set down an explanation of his or her recusal. The best way to find out is usually press reports from the time of the decision. Reasons for recusal are not usually secret, and press reports usually explain recusals in cases that matter. If they don't, though, the justices aren't required to explain themselves. For the record: Justice Brewer recused himself from Plessy because of the death of his daughter. And it's generally accepted, although I don't believe any of them ever stated it publicly, that the three justices who recused themselves from Shelley v. Kramer did so because they owned property governed by restricted covenants prohibiting them from selling it to African-Americans (the subject of that case).

If the police search my vehicle or house without my consent, and they don&#39;t find anything, what recourse is there?

I understand that if the police perform an illegal search, then any evidence found during that search will be excluded from a trial, but what if they didn't find any evidence? If the police do an illegal search, and they don't find anything, is there anything I can do about it?

You can file a federal criminal complaint under 18 USC 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law , or (most commonly) a civil claim under 42 USC 1983 for the violation of your civil rights. There are usually state laws, from some form of harassment (usually a summary offense) to misdemeanors like the Official Oppression we have in Pennsylvania. Note that you can file these complaints even if they do find something incriminating. An illegal search is illegal regardless of its fruits.

If the police search my vehicle or house without my consent, and they don&#39;t find anything, what recourse is there?

I understand that if the police perform an illegal search, then any evidence found during that search will be excluded from a trial, but what if they didn't find any evidence? If the police do an illegal search, and they don't find anything, is there anything I can do about it?

In the United States, the general way to challenge violations of your constitutional rights is a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . This broad statute allows anyone injured by such a violation to obtain damages and an injunction against future conduct. Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit; a plaintiff must show that the officers' conduct violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Messerschmidt v. Millender , 132 S. Ct. 1235, 1244 (2012). In other words, the search must not only have been unconstitutional; it must have been clearly so, under established law. This is a heavy burden. Suing the police department involves some other hurdles; generally, one would claim that police policy was unconstitutional or that the department negligently hired or supervised the officers. It's possible to prevail on facts similar to your hypothetical, however, so long as the search was clearly unconstitutional. I wasn't able to find any cases involving just an unlawful search; the closest I found was Frunz v. City of Tacoma , 468 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2006) , which also involved a seizure: The facts are remarkable. Plaintiff, Susan Frunz, and her two guests were in Frunz’s home in Tacoma, Washington, when police surrounded the house, broke down the back door and entered. The police had no warrant and had not announced their presence. Frunz first became aware of them when an officer accosted her in the kitchen and pointed his gun, bringing the barrel within two inches of her forehead. The police ordered or slammed the occupants to the floor and cuffed their hands behind their backs—Frunz for about an hour, until she proved to their satisfaction that she owned the house, at which time they said “never mind” and left. As the officers doubtless knew, physical entry into the home is the “chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.” United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 313 (1972); see also Murdock v. Stout, 54 F.3d 1437, 1440 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[P]rotection of individuals from unreasonable government intrusion into their houses remains at the very core of the Fourth Amendment.”). To safeguard the home, we normally require a warrant before the police may enter. “The right of privacy was deemed too precious to entrust to the discretion of those whose job is the detection of crime and the arrest of criminals . . . . And so the Constitution requires a magistrate to pass on the desires of the police before they violate the privacy of the home.” McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 455-56 (1948); see also Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 560 (2004). What extraordinary circumstances justified sundering the privacy and protection of Frunz’s home without a warrant? Id. at 1142–43. Read the rest of the opinion; it's short, understandable, and relevant to this question. Spoiler alert: the circumstances were not sufficiently extraordinary. (By the way, the Ninth Circuit later imposed sanctions on the defendants for raising a frivolous appeal .)

Does a Creative Commons license allow me to record a cover of a song recording?

If I find a musical sound recording that is licensed under a Creative Commons (CC) license, can I record and distribute my own cover of the song? (Assuming the particular CC license does not carry the No-Derivatives provision.) A derivatives-allowed CC license would allow me to redistribute and modify the recording itself, but making a new recording seems like a different category of action. My concern is that the sound recording is CC-licensed, but the musical work may not be. Does my license-granted right to prepare derivative works of the sound recording include the ability to record my own cover, even if the musical work has not been licensed to me? If U.S. law alone does not allow this, does the text of any Creative Commons license itself allow it?

There are two separately copyrightable elements to a sound recording, as you point out: the musical work, and the performance. If you want to record a cover version of a song, what matters is the license you hold, if any, to the underlying musical work. The license to the recording is not relevant unless you are sampling or duplicating the recording. The key, however, is that whoever you got the song from has the same issue. With this in mind, there are three basic scenarios: 1) The recording is released under a cc license, but the song is in the public domain. If the song is in the public domain, the recording license is irrelevant; you have the right to cover it. 2) The recording is released under a cc license, but someone other than the recording artist holds the rights to the musical work. In this case, the recording artist almost certainly does not have the right to distribute the recording under a cc license. Musical works are subject to a "mechanical license;" this means that you can record a cover version without permission, but only if you pay royalties to the composer. If you record a cover under these circumstances, both you and the person who attempted to release the item under a cc license will be liable. 3) The recording is released under a cc license by a recording artist who also holds the rights to the musical work--in other words, an original composition. In this case, the answer to your question will depend on the specific license language, and a court's interpretation of it. The CC license defines "Licensed Material" as "the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public License." Some CC licenses permit the Licensed Material to be "translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor." Some don't. The CC web site lists litigation involving their licenses , and no litigation listed there seems to address the question of whether, when a CC license is applied to a sound recording, the "Licensed Material" includes the underlying musical work. It is therefore hard to predict what a court would do; you would need an opinion from an experienced intellectual property attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Or, on a more practical note: if you aren't sure, ask the license holder. If they give you permission, that resolves the issue.

Are residential lease durations in Bay Area meaningless?

The vacancy rates in Bay Area are the lowest in the nation, and the rent much so often gets increased much faster than the inflation. However, a lot of corporate complexes employ monthly pricing that's effectively set not on the number of total months you sign the contract for, but on the data mining and the moveout dates, e.g. both an 8-month and a 15-month contract might have the monthly rent be lower than an 11 or a 12-month one, and the total rate for X+1 months might as well be less than for X months, too! However, California state law mandates that landlord must mitigate damages if tenant wants to get out of the lease, but at the same time, tenant is still liable for the whole duration of the lease as per the contract. Yet if the tenant wants to move out early, what would be the chance that the landlord would advertise the newly empty unit below the present market rate? Unless the rent prices don't increase or the market isn't hot, doesn't it imply that a Bay Area tenant is pretty much guaranteed that their total expenses for premature contract termination with a corporate apartment complex (on-premises leasing office etc) will not be more than something like about 2 weeks worth of rent? I.e., that a corporate landlord with a 9-to-5 on-premises staff will pretty much never be able to prove in any Bay Area court that they've mitigated damages appropriately, past about 2 weeks of the unit being on the market? Doesn't it then imply that if you only need a place for 5 or 6 months, it'll likely always be cheaper to sign a contract for 8 or 15 months (whichever random number of months is the cheapest per month) instead? Doesn't this, in turn, make the whole contract term somewhat pointless?

No, for two reasons. First, your question seems to assume that the current level of (1) vacancy, and (2) rent, will continue unchanged for the indefinite future. A lot of people thought that in 1989, and 2000, and 2007, just before the last three Bay Area housing crashes. The purpose of a long-term lease is to create certainty for the lessor. As the lessee, you are on the hook for whatever damages you cause by breaking the lease. As you say, right now, the complex will probably be able to mitigate fairly easily. That will change next time the market crashes. If you break the lease, you're gambling that it's still 1987...but there's a chance it's 1989 instead. If it is, you are on the hook, because the landlord exchanged a lower rent for certainty. Second, you're thinking about what the landlord will be able to prove in court. This is almost never the most helpful thing to be thinking in a situation like this. If you get to the point where your lawyer is having to stand up in court and argue about the reasonableness of the landlord's efforts, you've already spent more than two weeks' rent (even at Bay Area prices) paying the lawyer. Realistically, if the landlord says it took six weeks to rent, and sends you a bill for six weeks, the cheapest thing for you to do will, probably, be to pay it.

What&#39;s the penalty for breaking a residential lease in NorCal?

What's the penalty for breaking a residential lease? For example, in the Bay Area in Northern California.

By default, the tenant is liable for all rent until the end of the lease. E.g. if neither the tenant nor the landlord can find a suitable and credit-worthy replacement tenant (e.g. if the market has crashed), then the whole lease must still be accounted for by the original tenant, and the lost "rent" becomes "damages". However, there is also a concept of damage mitigation , and California Civil Code 1951.2 explicitly defines that it's the landlord's duty to mitigate damages. This means that the landlord cannot simply sit still and collect the rent on an empty apartment. Because of this, some smaller landlords in California outright have a policy that you can cleanly break the lease by paying for 2 months of rent as a penalty. (It appears that a good summary of various examples about landlord/tenant damage mitigation is available at UniformLaws.org .) However, when it comes down specifically to the SF Bay Area with the ever increasing rents and the lowest residential vacancy rates in the nation, and also especially with the corporate landlords that already have sufficient resources in place to readily advertise and promote an abandoned unit, it can probably be argued that, in practicality, requesting more than one month of rent (in damages) as a penalty for breaking the lease is simply unreasonable.

If A makes a potentially &quot;defamatory&quot; statement to C about B, does it matter if C knows B well?

Suppose A tells C that "B is a total liar, nothing s/he says can be believed." And suppose C has known B since childhood. Would the statement be less defamatory since C is in a good position to judge whether or not B is a "total liar?" Suppose, instead, that the statement had been made to D, who "knows of," but doesn't "know," A. Would the statement to D be more defamatory, since D is starting tabula rasa?

(Standard disclaimer: I am not your lawyer; I am not here to help you. ) Under American common law, the distinction here would relate to the harm to B: either a damages issue or a "special harm" issue. The Restatement elements of defamation are falsity, publication, fault, and inherent actionability or special harm. See Rest. 2d Torts § 558. The last element captures the traditional doctrine that slander (not libel) is only actionable if it falls into one of four or five specific categories ("slander per se"), or if it actually causes economic injury. Your example doesn't seem to fit into any of the special categories. But see Rest. 2d Torts § 573 (imputations affecting business or office). If the statement to C is oral rather than written, and C doesn't believe it or otherwise nothing comes of the statement, B may not be able to prove special harm and therefore fail to recover anything. If D, on the contrary, avoided doing business with B, B may be able to show special harm supporting a claim. Similarly, C's disbelief or D's belief may be relevant to determining the actual damages B suffered and is therefore entitled to recover from A.

Why case law quoted in support of X often rules against X?

It appears quite common that when trying to find support for decision X, cases which in actuality finally rule against X are quoted, and very few cases which actually grant X can be found. Why does this happen? Does it at all affect the outcome of existing cases, when someone quotes an older case trying to prove a point to obtain a decision X, where in actuality the final decision of such old cases were to finally rule against X?

The process you describe is an exceedingly common method of proving a point when there is not factually analogous precedent for that particular point. By way of over-simplified example, there may be precedent for the proposition 1 + 2 = 3, but there may not be equivalent precedent for the proposition that 6 - 4 = 2. An advocate might cite the former to support the latter, even though they are not entirely analogous. In the world of legal citation, this type of citation is usually indicated with cf . Similarly, there may be a principle of law that is announced in a case that "goes the wrong way" that is nonetheless helpful to support the case of the person who, in this case is on the opposite side. So, again, in an over-simplified example, a court might announce that "the sky is green," and conclude that under the facts of the particular case, a particular result is warranted. Someone on the other side of the same issue might nonetheless argue that this case supports their position, based upon the facts of their case, citing to the conclusion that the sky is green. This type of argument is much more effective when the opinion announcing the proposition is of significant precedential value -- e.g., an announcement of legal principles by a higher (or highest) court.

Why case law quoted in support of X often rules against X?

It appears quite common that when trying to find support for decision X, cases which in actuality finally rule against X are quoted, and very few cases which actually grant X can be found. Why does this happen? Does it at all affect the outcome of existing cases, when someone quotes an older case trying to prove a point to obtain a decision X, where in actuality the final decision of such old cases were to finally rule against X?

In reaching any opinion, courts generally examine an area of law, looking at all elements of a cause of action which will naturally contain some points that can be argued in favor of either side. After a general discussion of what the law is, courts then apply the law to the facts of that case in reaching a final "who wins" decision in the case. A specific case may turn on a strict meeting of each of the elements in the case, or the court's reasoning may apply a broader brush basing their decision on the "totality of the circumstances" surrounding a case. (that is the way courts "fudge" a little bit in reaching a decision) Even though a given decision may have gone in favor of the other side, adverse authority with a good statement of the law is every bit as good as favorable authority that contains only a cursory treatment of the law. When handling adverse authority, it is then up to you to show why the unfavorable decision is distinguishable from the facts of the current case and why the outcome should be different this time.

Requirements for Creative Commons Images Attribution - Website

When I use a photo licensed under Creative Commons (from Flickr) on a website I make, what is the required way to give attribution? Assuming the license allows commercial use and changes with attribution could I include the title, creator, and a tinyurl to the flickr image in a corner of my modified image? Or would that leave something out that I need to include? If I need to include more information, are there more aesthetically pleasing ways to do this?

You aren't required to include the attribution on the image, you can include it somewhere else on the page, placing it directly below the image is preferred, but providing it at the end of a post is acceptable. Image Capture: Attributing Creative Commons Materials . CC BY 2.5 Australia . (↑ See what I did there? ) For best practices for providing attribution, see the Wiki: Best practices for attribution .

Which jurisdiction applies in a vessel?

Consider an aircraft registered in country A. On a flight operated by an airliner based in country B, it carries passengers on a flight from country X to country Y. The flight path overflies airspace of country C and international airspace. Assume that countries A, B, C, X and Y all have different legal drinking ages. What is the legal drinking age on this flight? Does the same apply on ships?

The short answer is, in absence of a treaty or convention governing travel, then the law of the country over which the plane is located governs for the time the plane is in overflight. Laws of a jurisdiction (a country, or a state) are generally taken to extend upward from their boundaries (and downward for the control of mineral rights, etc.). There are a number of jurisdictional cases where service of process (presenting a defendant with a copy of citation starting a civil suit) or an arrest has taken place on-board aircraft where the action had to take place over a given country or state to invoke jurisdiction. As mentioned in the first sentence, there is nothing to prevent countries for entering into a Treaty or agreement that would alter the basic scheme, but absent a treaty or convention, the basic scheme of boundary extension would apply.

What happens if the Indonesian Constitutional Court rules in favor of an executed person?

Prior to the executions of drug smugglers in Indonesia earlier this year, Australian officials had pressed for a delay in the executions, due to a last-ditch appeal in the Constitutional Court of Indonesia . President Joko Widodo did not grant the detainees clemency, and so the executions proceeded. I do not know how the proceedings in that court went after the executions, but I would assume that the outcome was not in the favor of the (deceased) prisoners. What would have happened if the court had found in favor of the prisoners after the executions?

Virtually nothing. Just before posting the question, I found this article and became intrigued. Jakarta: Indonesia's Constitutional Court has no power to alter the death sentences of Bali nine organisers Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan or make any ruling on their case, says Indonesian law expert Tim Lindsey. Instead, lawyers for the two men hope Indonesian President Joko Widodo will come under political pressure to reassess their pleas for mercy if the court rules that the constitution requires the president to properly consider clemency submissions. In other words, the only person who could make a difference was Widodo 1 . The only thing the lawyers could have gained would have been a delay in the executions, prompting time for further pleas to the president. This article makes things clearer: The case could have had an impact because it challenged the clemency procedures of the president, specifically in regard to foreigners, but the court could not have overturned the death sentences. Normally, its rulings are binding, but this was not so in this case. 1 I don't mean to imply that this was all his fault; I apologize if it seems that I do.

Are US jurors always free to speak about the trial?

In England and Wales, jurors are forbidden to speak to anyone about the trial or their deliberations , even after the trial is finished. In contrast, I've noticed that jurors in the US often give statements to the press or write books about their experience. Are there any circumstances where jurors in the US are placed under similar restrictions to those in the UK, or is their freedom to speak a general principle?

We have all see on TV the judge instruct jurors that during trial they are not to speak about the case with anyone, even other jurors, unless all jurors are present and they are deliberating. However, contrary to the example given about England, in the U.S., those restrictions evaporate at the end of the trial. After a trial concludes, the court has no continuing control over the jurors and could not impose lasting restrictions without it. The Constitution provides the guarantee of trial by a jury of ones peers. In the U.S. for all general civil cases and all criminal cases, we have public trials. (special courts and tribunals are created to deal with cases involving classified information and issues of national security, and the courts have mechanisms for handling trade secrets, etc. to insure that information is not presented to jurors) So in that sense, there is nothing a juror could be exposed to in during their service as jurors that would require any type of continuing restriction.

Legal definitions in the United States

When trying to learn about and understand law, one of the most important aspects of it is the legal definition of a word. Is there a source in which the courts refer to when looking to define a word? If there is, what is it?

Courts look to primary authority first, and then to secondary authority if ambiguity remains. Primary Authority providing definition for the legal use of a word would be previous case opinions that give meaning to a word in a given context, how the word is actually defined in the statutes for the state, or, in the case of federal law, the federal statutes or Code of Federal Regulations. Within primary sources, you also consider whether a prior definition is binding on the court (i.e., the court has to follow it) or whether it is merely persuasive authority (that the court can choose to follow, but is not required to follow based on precedent – sometimes call Stare Decisis ). Primary authority is binding on a court if the definition comes from a higher court in the direct appellate chain of the deciding court, it is persuasive otherwise. Secondary Authority is everything else. For example, Black's Law Dictionary, Whigmore on Evidence, or any other legal treatise would also be a secondary source. (All secondary authority is persuasive authority.) Courts, in absence of either, will look to how a word is commonly used in the context in which it is applied. All seek to give the proper meaning to a word or phrase in light of how it is being used.

Legal definitions in the United States

When trying to learn about and understand law, one of the most important aspects of it is the legal definition of a word. Is there a source in which the courts refer to when looking to define a word? If there is, what is it?

In my experience, I have seen such definitions in the preambles to legal agreements and contracts. For example, in a rental agreement, it defines words like dwelling, tenants, landlord, handyman, etc. If the word was defined in the legal document you signed on, then it suppresses the dictionary definition. I highly doubt that dictionaries offer significantly different definitions of the same words. That is where you can find loopholes. If the word was not defined in the contract, and there is an established difference between the local lingo definition and the dictionary definition. So it is up to the lawyers to convince the court/judge/jury to take the “right” definition into account. Wiki : “In the United States, the law is derived from five sources: constitutional law, statutory law, treaties, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law)”. Therefore, if you read those legal documents, you will notice at the start of each law a definition of each “legal word”. For example, The Massachusetts General Law is divided into Parts, Titles, Chapters, and Sections. Once you start diving into each layer, you will notice that some of the Sections have a “ Definitions ” section for words and phrases. UPDATE As the Wiki entry says, the Black's Law Dictionary is only one of the so called secondary authorities . A Secondary Authority comes to "explain the meaning or applicability of the actual verbatim texts of primary authorities ". A Primary Authority is usually in the form of a document that establishes the law, and if no document exists, is a legal opinion of a court. From Wiki : The traditional law dictionary with definitions of legal terms serves to help users understand the legal texts they read (a communicative function) or to acquire knowledge about legal matters independent of any text (a cognitive function). So, the legal definition of words and phrases should be defined as clear as possible in the law itself (e.g., the definition sections of the MGL noted above). If not defined, the Secondary Authority can be used to explain what they supposedly meant. But, I am sure that different resources can have different opinions on what is what. That's where the lawyers come in handy if they can convince the court to accept one meaning over another.

Are forum users who establish their identity more entitled to protection from libel?

In an online forum or social network does a user who ties the identity of their presence there to their real world identity have more recourse open to them with regard to being libeled than a user who uses a pseudonym? Asked another way, is it possible to commit libel against an anonymous pseudonym?

There's really no difference. Quoting from here , What if I change the person's name? To state a defamation claim, the person claiming defamation need not be mentioned by name—the plaintiff only needs to be reasonably identifiable. So if you defame the "government executive who makes his home at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," it is still reasonably identifiable as the president. What does the whole thing depend on? It depends on how easy it is to identify the pseudonym-using plaintiff. They don't have more recourse, per se - nor do they have more protection under the law - but it may be harder for them to win the case. On the upside, the statement might not cause them as much harm when compared to a person using their actual name.