61

Imagine if the answer was a simple yes: adding a disclaimer was enough to exempt you from any and all copyright and trademark law suits. If that was the case, there would be no point in copyright or trademark law at all, because everyone could just include this disclaimer and never be sued. That doesn't mean every disclaimer is useless, but it does mean that ...


21

"No infringement intended" is meaningless. One of these things is true: The copy isn't an infringement. The copy is an infringement, and the responsible person knows it. The copy is an infringement, and the responsible person doesn't know it because of ignorance about the law. The copy is an infringement, and the responsible person doesn't know ...


11

Neither the disclaimer nor the ads make any real difference. Using Nintendo-copyright images is potentially copyright infringement. Regardless of whether you earn money for it or put a disclaimer claiming that it's unintentional. It's very unlikely that you'll see any repercussions from this, but it's not completely impossible. Nintendo certainly do go after ...


8

In the US, due to free speech protections (i.e. the first amendment), it seems that the majority of lawsuits for negligent publication fail. It's worth noting that the author might be more liable than the publisher, since the publisher typically isn't expected to have the expertise to catch such errors. More cases and details can be found here. The only case ...


7

Your app is a simple case of copyright infringement. All the Pokémon are copyrighted, the lettering and names are also protect by trademarks. Trying to claim fair use will be outright impossible: you'll use huge portions of the individually protected Pokemon (the iconic ones like Pikachu) and you are usurping a market they are already in. They have given ...


6

That disclaimer really doesn't do much other than make it clear that what you're doing is not official. It isn't going to protect you. Using a company's intellectual property without their permission is a risk. Period. Is it infringement? Probably. Will you get sued? Probably not. Will you get a cease and deist letter? Maybe. I'm willing to bet you wouldn't ...


5

You will want to speak with a patent attorney, not a labor attorney. Some of the facts you are presenting are entirely wrong. Patents have inventors, copyrights have authors. Inventorship has strict rules. Inventorship cannot be denied without consequence in almost any jurisdiction, but you'll need to get local legal advice. In the US, "A patent is ...


4

Copyright in the US has changed Prior to 1978 copyright lasted 28 years and could be renewed for another 28 (hence 1936 and 1964). Anything that was still under copyright then now has copyright for 70 years after the authors death so this will enter the public domain on 1/1/2026. The 1981 work is a derivative work with its own copyright by the new author(...


4

Everything you see there is copyright and trademark the Tolkien estate or a derivative work thereof. It's all illegal.


2

I am assuming that they are asking about whether or not they can be sued for saying that the books "contain 100% questions" even though maybe only 90% of the questions of the real exams were included. The answer is that you can, in theory, be sued for anything, but not necessarily successfully. The people most likely to sue you would be people that ...


2

If the book you read is in the public domain* you should be fine. Otherwise what you are doing is copyright infringement and probably not protected by fair use**. One of the rights granted to copyright holders is to control derivative works, and transference to different mediums, which is what your recordings would be. Under US law, whether an instance of ...


2

Trademark can protect a designed logo as well as a "short phrase" or title, it must be used in commerce and be renewed every 10 years, but if so renewed can continue forever. Copyright cannot protect most "short phrases" or titles, but it can protect an original design, such as a logo. It expires 70 years after the death of the original creator (different ...


2

They have copyright in their additional text, and possibly in things like their visual design choices (fonts, layout etc). They may also have introduced a few deliberate typos to detect any literal copies from their version (rather as mapmakers add a few imaginary features to their maps). None of this creates any rights to the original text. You are still ...


1

This will depend on the license under which you use the ebook. Some ebooks have a license which explicitly permits such sharing. In the absence of such permission, it will depend on how you plan to provide access to the ebook to those you plan to "share" with. Most ways of sharing would involve making a copy at some point in the process, which you may not do ...


1

If you use some GPL licensed software in violation of the license, the copyright holder can sue you for copyright infringement. The copyright holder. Nobody else. Nobody else can sue you for copyright violation or anything else. As it seems that your company is the sole copyright holder, nobody can sue you but yourself. And as long as you don't sue ...


1

Under 17 USC 507, the limit depends on whether this is criminal prosecution versus a civil action. Criminal prosecution must be "commenced within 5 years after the cause of action arose". A civil action must be "commenced within three years after the claim accrued". The courts do not entirely agree on what that means, in particular whether that means 3 years ...


1

Notice is optional Copyright notice is not required, rather it is a warning to the public that a work is indeed protected and (more importantly) by whom, so you can determine if the author is dead. The US law spelling out duration of copyright, 17 USC 302 says that Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, ...


1

People often confuse "proof" and "evidence" and in the legal system we often use them interchangeably when we probably shouldn't. Proof, in a scientific or mathematical sense, is something that is irrefutable and conclusively proves the point unless the assumptions it is based on are proven false. Evidence, on the other hand, is merely something that tends ...


1

From a technical POV, having e.g. a wav file would do not anything for you, because anyone can create a wav file from an mp3. You'd need some way to prove that your "evidence" file contains unreconstructable information only available to the creator. I can always insert a self-video into someone else's work: the question again is, how would this prove that I ...


1

The creator of the work (you) holds the copyright, unless you're hired to create the work in which case the employer holds copyright. You can transfer that right to e.g. a publisher, or you can give them permission to copy the work in a certain way (a license). The way it is supposed to work is that the creator signs either a transfer of rights of executes a ...


1

You are confusing some things. Patents don't come into play here at all, your problem is all about copyright. If I write something, anything, then I have the copyright on that work, and you may not copy it without my permission. This applies to my post here, for example, and to math exercises that you find in a book. "Reproduction is illegal" isn't any ...


1

Yes: You can share ownership, and you can list multiple owners in a copyright notice (here is an example), but you don't have to.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible