62

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 ...


59

Note: this answer refers to US copyright law. Other jurisdictions may differ, though the Berne Convention means that the general rules are largely the same. See chx's answer for more details. There are two different "things" you can own when it comes to an artistic/creative object: the physical object itself, and the right to reproduce it (i.e., the ...


35

A company does not cease to exist simply because it goes bankrupt. The company may wind down its operations, but it may just go through a process of restructuring its debts. If the company is merely restructuring, the bankruptcy would not probably not have much effect on its ownership of intellectual property such as copyright and trademark rights. So it ...


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 ...


15

The copyrights do not disappear just because the owner ceased to exist. That applies to both companies and people. As an asset, the copyright is part of the estate of the entity and will be either transmitted to the heirs, remain in the estate, or go to the buyer of the assets. As @MSalters pointed out, assets that are not sold will belong to the owners of ...


14

Quick answer: Only the author/creator can get copyright, so: No, this buyer does not get copyright over these works. (The US Copyright Office has several pamphlets explaining copyright clearly and concisely. I've linked to some of them below; if you want more detail, they are the best place to start.) Copyright v Right to Copy: Copyright is not the ...


14

The work and the copyright to the work are different property rights Buying one does not give you rights to the other. Copyright laws differ by country so its impossible to say which need transfers to be in writing and which don't. For example, the United States requires them (and also allows owners to rescind the transfer after a number of years) but in ...


12

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 ...


9

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

In the EU, that's the general rule going forward, but there are two big exceptions I'm aware of. The general rule from Article 1(1) of the Copyright Term Directive: The rights of an author of a literary or artistic work within the meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention shall run for the life of the author and for 70 years after his death, ...


6

Note while jurisdictions do vary, copyright actually vary very little because it's an international convention. So let's review what the Berne Convention has on unpublished works: https://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/3.html (1) The protection of this Convention shall apply to: (a) authors who are nationals of one of the countries of the Union, for ...


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

My understanding is that here "derived from the program" means "created by modifying the source code of the program" and not "created by running the program". Certainly that is the way all users that I have heard of treat the matter. Note that a commercial program, such as a word processor, will be fully protected by copyright, but the maker does not claim ...


4

"The rights to this work reverted to the author in 1951" means that back in 1951 the publisher's contract to print the book ended, and the author resumed full rights. (This might have been done by the author, or the publisher, depending on their contract.) It does not mean that the copyright lapsed or that the work entered the public domain. "Ms. Margaret ...


4

Making a copy for the purpose of protecting the original is likely to fall under fair use (US) fair dealing (UK and perhaps some other jurisdictions) or a similar exception to copyright law (in still other jurisdictions). To know for sure, you would need legal advice. Alternatively, you can always make a copy with the permission of the copyright holder, or ...


3

Owning a manuscript is exactly the same as owning a paper copy of a book If you found a printed copy of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, would that make it OK to publish the book as your intellectual property asset? What if your friend found a Kindle, and figured out how to download an eBook of "The Girl On The Train"? Clearly not. Your friend ...


3

Yes Wanda is guilty, probably when she created the file, certainly when she no longer had a right (through rental) to the original. Unlike Alice, she would have a much harder time arguing fair use in relation to creating a 'backup' when her right to the original was for such a limited period of time. Even if she could show this, her right to have any copy ...


3

The answer will depend on the license you entered into with the publisher. Assuming that he has an exclusive license, there is no way you can publish the same work again against the will of the publisher or his successor. His right under the license will come to an end 70 years after the author or last co-author has passed away. What you can do is to ...


2

It depends where you and your friend are and where the copyright was created. Ripping music for personal use is considered fair use/fair dealing in most jurisdictions. Having multiple copies/devices for personal use is OK too - practically, you can't watch more than one at a time unless you have a very unusual brain. If the intention is that both you and ...


2

A minor can own property including copyright. A minor can also enter into contacts that are genuinely in their interest - note that this is an additional protection not afforded to adults. A minor needs the permission of their legal guardian to enter a contract and while this can be implicit in your circumstances it would be wise to make it explicit. ...


2

Copyright doesn't prevent others from calling your work whatever they want to call your work. Look at 17 U.S. Code § 106, which lists the rights exclusively reserved to the copyright owner.


2

Well, what a coincidence. If it looks like Gmail, and someone at Google sees it, there is the risk that you are getting sued for copyright infringement. I couldn't possibly judge whether you are guilty of copyright infringement, but you can get sued (which costs time and money), and there is the possibility that a court decides against you (costs a lot of ...


2

Typically, a copyright transfer refers to the entire work and does not distinguish between artwork and text. Copyright law does not distinguish the various chronological states of a work as it is developed, whereby you might say that the text is really a series of 100 versions, each one being a derivative of the previous one. Instead, you have one whole work,...


2

The contract is fine (or fine enough) What you are overlooking is agency law. The person who is signing the document is representing to the other party that they are authorized by the other authors to act as their agent. The other party is entitled, through agency law, to rely on that representation unless they have reasonable belief that the agent is not ...


2

As has been explained, ownership of the painting does not give you ownership of the copyright under New Zealand law. To get ownership of the copyright, you have to deal with the owner of the copyright. That can be the painter, his heirs, or someone who got the right from him. Depending on the circumstances, you probably don't need a written contract ...


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 ...


2

This is certainly not a crime in the US. Under US law, copyright infringement is only a cri9em when done for profit, and is not prosecuted unless done for profit on a large scale. More specifically 17 USC 506 says (in relevant part): (1) In general.—Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, ...


1

If the derivative work is made without the permission of the copyright holder or not under fair use/dealing (i.e. it is an infringing work) then the original owner is legally the owner of the derivative work. If the derivative work is made with the permission of the copyright holder (including the terms of any licence) or under fair use/dealing (i.e. it is ...


1

Regardless of the licence, you are the copyright owner. So, unless you consent to Microsoft owning your code (transferring over the copyright), you're safe. That's probably the kind of thing Microsoft would do though.


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