34

There doesn't need to be any copyright claim for there to be copyright protection. The protection is given automatically whenever someone authors a work. If you make money off of your improved version, the owner of the page may sue you for royalties. The only way to avoid this is to ask him for permission, or to create your page without using any of the ...


6

If you copy and republish the page, it's the same as copying and republishing any copyrighted work. There's no difference for "online copyright". Automatic copyright isn't a thing everywhere. (although it is in most places.) If you happen to be in such a place, check your local laws, the page may not have copyright protection. (just where you are) It's ...


3

It's hard to say, under the Twitter TOS. They do not claim that copyright is transfered to them: "You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours — you own your Content (and your photos and videos are part of the Content)". But you do license the content: By submitting, posting or ...


3

The prices are facts, there is no copyright violation.


2

In the United States, you can't copyright something like a phone book that is just a collection of records sorted in an obvious manner. According to the US copyright office, you can't copyright a recipe either: Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients. Nor does it protect other mere listings of ingredients such ...


2

The original work done for your client has ownership and control unless otherwise explicitly stated in a contract. e.g. You retain all distribution rights and so forth. Because of this you have used their IP without their permission technically speaking. Basically, they are not allowed to use your new altered images, but you were not allowed to alter and ...


2

You do not have permission of the owner to do more than you are allowed to do by copyright law. Assuming that fair use/dealing doesn’t apply, the law doesn’t allow you to copy the image. However, transient copies that are a necessary requirement of the technology (like an image in a web browser) are not considered copies under the law.


2

It depends which copy of the video you use. Does the copy that you want to re-use allow you to do what you want to do? Also, just because loads of people upload the same video under different licences to different channel doesn't necessarily mean they're entitled to do that in the first place. In which case you aren't entitled to use it at all (ie ...


2

Legal You say “MIT-licence” like that is actually a singular, unique document; it isn’t, there are different versions and what matters is the one you used. Notwithstanding, it typically only has one condition similar to: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. ...


1

For US copyright law, see 17 USC 117(a), which says: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in ...


1

Copyrighted material can operate under several licences Assuming that the person who uploaded the video has the right to grant licences (i.e. they are the copyright holder or have a licence that is permissive about re-licencing) then they are free to offer as many different licences as they want. For example, many pieces of software offer different ...


1

They do (probably) Under English/Welsh copyright law (and, indeed, all other jurisdictions) the creator of a work owns the copyright unless it was created in the course of their employment. You were an employee and the work was created specifically to meet a client contract: there is no doubt that this was “in the course of your employment”. Therefore ...


1

The tags indicate, and I will assume, that the 3D modeler has a copyright but not a design patent, on a computerized bunch of information on a computer that makes it possible for the computer to display on a screen or through output to a 3D printer, a 3D model of something. In general, copyright protects expressions of ideas (like a particular 3D model) and ...


1

The data is probably subject to copyright – it is a literary work stored in tangible form – it is not just a collection of facts. On the other hand, your proposed use is probably fair use: If you are using it only in house to test your app then it cannot affect their market and this is one of the criteria that you need to show for a fair use defence. Also, ...


1

"Data" is a slippery concept, especially if you're trying to distinguish it from a "program". A simple fact such as the length of a stick or a phone number is not protected by copyright. What you've provided is a structured record, which is closer to being a program, and these days, having the right data structure is most of the work behind making a program. ...


1

I don't think there is any quick and easy answer to your question (law is often like that, which is why professional lawyers can make a living), but there are a few useful points to be made. Although it is difficult to prove a negative, I don't think there is any specific crime or cause of action here. The copyright legislation summary makes no mention of ...


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