11

The underlying text(s) may be subject to copyright protection, but the individual words are not -- they are usually independently existing words of the language (there are invented words like "chrowl" which I have never seen appearing in a word frequency list). A frequency count is the simply a factual report about language use in a corpus. Even in ...


7

Data is not copyrightable, but databases (structured, organized data) might be. This depends on the jurisdiction, e.g. database rights are recognized in the EU. Whereas copyright protects creative expression, database rights protect the effort that went into collecting and organizing the data. Note that even when database rights apply, this doesn't prevent ...


5

It’s tricky. I’ll talk about the general then the specific. In general, your notion of "didn't get permission" doesn't really reflect how the music industry works. Generally, a venue pays for a universal license to use recorded music. There are three major licensors: ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. If you get an ASCAP license, you can play any ASCAP ...


5

US law simply prohibits copying, not possession of a pixel. If you copy 90% of a work, you are still copying, infringing on the creators exclusive right. Same is true if you copy 20%, and so on. The pertinent first question is, how do the courts decide if there has been copying? This is a factual matter decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence. ...


4

The photographer infringed copyright by taking the picture. He did it again when he uploaded it to Flickr. Every subsequent use of that picture is an infringement. People getting their copy from Flickr might be able to avoid statutory damages because they didn't know that the CC license is legally meaningless. The museum can, if they care, submit a DMCA take-...


4

No one can give you a meaningful answer unless you specify what jurisdiction you're in. Assuming you're in the United States: There's no liability for defamation. The company using your picture isn't saying anything about you. Whatever you might feel the implications are, the reasonable reader would not view the ads and conclude that you are actually sick or ...


3

Do we have any grounds to sue for defamation? At the outset it seems unlikely, although this is hard to determine without seeing or knowing more details about those ads. Depending on details that are missing in your description, you might have other claims that have nothing to do with defamation such as unjust enrichment. It is common knowledge that people ...


3

It is hard to say: this article sketches the legal landscape. So-called deep linking that bypasses the main page for a site is not believed to be infringement, following the reasoning of Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146. The URL itself does not have the bare minimum of creativity required for copyright protection, and storing a URL on a ...


3

Can you locate your license (generally not a trivial task)? It may appear under Help-About and a click to view EULA. The EULA specifically addresses redistribution of parts of the software and number of installations you can make with a single license. They do not say what uses you make make of the software, except that "You may not rent, lease, lend or ...


3

It's possible that CAD has a separate licence from the authors of ABC that allows them to produce a closed source copy. If not, they have no right to distribute CAD. However two wrongs don't make a right, and so you don't get to violate the copyright of CAD.* Unfortunately, unless you are one of the authors of ABC, you have no standing to sue the authors of ...


3

The Merida Font As noted by Tardigrade, the Merida chess font is available from https://github.com/vasiliyaltunin/chess-merida-font. However this is a derived work which incorporates a much older file containing the actual glyphs in TTF format. Edit: If you google for "Armando Hernandez Marroquin" you will find a lot of font download sites offering ...


3

You can't Under clause 7(b) of the CC-SA-BY 3.0 the licence is irrevocable providing that the licensee complies with its terms. However, ... It appears that your work is part of a Collection (as defined and under clause 4(a), the licensee has this obligation: If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, ...


3

Warning: This answer is ludicrously long. @user6726's answer is sufficient for most purposes. However, I wondered "What if personal use copying didn't cover the download, could it be saved by education or research exceptions?" and stumbled into an unexpectedly deep research rabbit hole, which I figured I might as well share. Introduction There's ...


2

Read the Goodreads Terms of Use: No part of the Service may be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, visited, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without our express written consent.... ... nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to create a license in or under any such intellectual property Rights, and you agree not to ...


2

That is an interesting question that I don't think has been tested in an highly analogous case. There are a number of sci-fi works that posit elaborate systems of made-up facts about Dragon's Egg and Rocheworld. "20 km in diameter" by itself is not a expression protected by copyright, but as part of a highly creative system, it is protected. If these "data" ...


2

Unfortunately I consider this an incomplete answer for now; hoping I can find more later (and apologies for formatting; will fix later). This page: https://github.com/vasiliyaltunin/chess-merida-font/blob/master/README.md states that the "Chess Merida Font" available there is made available under MPL 2.0. It then however explicitly states that it's ...


2

Generally, scientific data cannot have a copyright in the USA. US Copyright law sets out what can and cannot be copyrighted in 17 USC S102: Section (a) lists out what can be copyrighted. Section (b) lists what cannot be and is as follows: (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, ...


2

Unless you are a copyright holder of ABC you have no rights to CAD whatsoever. You have no permission to copy their code, you have no standing to sue, and what you are planning can get you into deep legal trouble. If you are a copyright holder of ABC you can sue them. You still have no rights to the portions of CAD that are not copies of your code. That’s in ...


2

Terms of service are contracts, where you grant a person a right in exchange for them doing something. If they have agreed but violate the terms, you may have legal recourse to sue them; or you can "undo" their action, e.g. you can delete porn that they uploaded. There are certain limitations on your recourse, for example you cannot fine a user $...


2

Generally speaking: The 'mechanics' of a game (its concepts, systems or processes) are not capable of being copyrighted. The expression of the mechanics i.e. the written rules, can be copyright. Other expressions e.g. the game board design, piece design, packaging and such can be copyright. Unique and nonobvious mechanics could be patented. But patents don't ...


2

All artistic and literary work has copyright at the moment of creation This includes things “built” in Minecraft. However, under the terms of the Minecraft licence you give a wide ranging copyright licence to Mojang: If you make any content available on or through our Game, you agree to give us permission to use, copy, modify, adapt, distribute, and ...


2

Your re-explanation of the subject matter is your own literary product, which you have the exclusive right to profit from and distribute. You may copy portions of other works as part of such a work, under the fair use provisions in the US, which would allow you to copy a limited amount of the text for illustrative purposes. There is a ballpark figure of &...


1

Yes. There definitely lies copyright on any database established in the EU. A word frequency list is a database, and has a 15 year sui generis copyright. This also includes derivative works. lightly remixing the wordlist counts as a derivative work, and falls under copyright protection. The answer provided by "user6726" is incomplete. While ...


1

Note that even when database rights apply, this doesn't prevent someone else from performing the same analysis and coming up with an equivalent database. I think Anon gives good advice on this question, the only change I would make is in reference to the above. It is in the nature of copyright (unlike patent) that independent creation cannot be an ...


1

This is how I understand the situation: Alice creates a work protected by copyright (artistic or literary doesn't matter). Bob makes an infringing derivative work. Craig uses that work under a licence (paid or free) issued by Bob. Alice becomes aware of Craig's use - what happens? First, we will deal with plagerism -it is not a legal concept. Plagiarism is ...


1

Copyright infringement has legal consequences: plagiarism isn't the same thing. Whoever created the work, that person has the sole right to permit copying. Plagiarism in the sense of copying someone else's composition is infringement, and the author can sue the copier for damages. However, the author can transfer the rights to someone else (for example a ...


1

According to this article the image of Mario is trademarked. Since you are running a gaming website it sounds like this could lead to confusion about whether your website is endorsed by or part of Nintendo, and hence be a trademark infringement. However that would depend on the details of what your website does. If you provide games then its more likely to ...


1

The underlying data is a set of established scientific facts, roughly {1, H, 1, 1.007 825 032 23(9), 0.999 885(70), 1.007 84, 1.008 11, D, 2, 2.014, 101, 778, 12(12), 0.000 115(70), T, 3, 3.016, 049, 2779(24)}, {…}… That data is presented in a form which might be protected by US copyright (if it's not a "government work"), but the data itself is ...


1

The law is not mathematics. There is no exact number of pixels which is a minimum. You cannot say that 1 pixel is exempt from copyright, that N+1 pixels are free from copyright when N pixels are free from copyright, and that therefore all images are free from copyright. Lawsuits deal with actual cases, so this is not a practical problem for the use of ...


1

Documents of a commercial nature have been in Word from the beginning. No one would buy it if Microsoft had any claim on one's output.


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