30

No, bare possession is not illegal under US law Nothing in Tile 17 of the US code (which is the copyright law) makes it illegal or even actionable to simply posses a single physical object (such as a game or a book) which constitutes a copyright infringement. Criminal copyright infringement is defined in 17 USC 506 and is limited to people who: Infringe for ...


18

If you used some creative work of mine without my permission (I'm the copyright holder, and you have no license giving you permission) then I can sue you. To make you stop using my work, to get payment for damages, and to get payment for statutory damages. If you used my work because someone else told you wrongly that you had a license, that's very ...


16

Copyright notice is not relevant to having a Copyright. 1 Copyright starts to exist the moment a work is created. When the pen touches the paper the first time or the hammer strikes the block to become a statue, the work is started to be created. At that moment 2, copyright is gained as it becomes a work, usually defined in the national laws. Publication for ...


16

The GPL does not explicitly specify a time within which the source code must be provided, which probably means a "reasonable time" is allowed. What is "reasonable" would eventually be evaluated by a court, if the matter ever got that far. But please note that only the copyright holder (or the holder's authorized agent) can sue for ...


10

Yes, although it was not always so The answer by Trish is quite correct, in current law copyright is automatic when any protectable work is "fixed in tangible form" (which includes a computer file). This is true for all countries that adhere to the Berne Convention or to the TRIPS agreement (created by the World Trade Organization or WTO). Almost ...


5

The Comment is Incorrect In US copyright law 17USC 106 defines the exclusive rights that\ the copyright holder has the right "to do and to authorize". The second of these is: (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; Note that the right is the right to "prepare" a derivative work, not the right to "distribute&...


4

The facts you describe are very likely an infringing derivative work which would provide a basis for a lawsuit against the person operating the website. But, nothing is certain, and these determinations are highly fact specific. It is highly unlikely that the government would enforce a violation of copyright alleged in these circumstances criminally.


4

copyright.gov is the oficial site of the US Copyriuht office, and is here quoting 17 USC 102(b) which is the actual copyright law. Under it, copyright protection extends to expression, but not to any idea, etc. However, these are not in conflict, because using information or ideas from a work to create a new and original work is not "duplication or use ...


4

I think that both your examples would be considered, if not outright copies, then at the very least derivative works of the originals. Under US law, the copyright holder of a work has the exclusive right to prepare derivative works. So anyone who prepares such a work without the authorization of the copyright holder is infringing their copyright and will ...


4

Often, but not always If the speech is "fixed in a tangible medium" it is protected by copyright. That includes a prepared written version, and an audio recording made as the speech is delivered. Note that fixation only counts if it is done "by or under the authority of the author". Someone else recording or writing down the speech does ...


4

It seems crazy to me that you would have to give credits for some image especially if you're just sharing those images for fun. It seems crazy to me that anyone would think you can just use someone else's image without giving them credit. I mean, it's not really a good idea to assume that if you see something you want, you can just take it. But anyway, back ...


3

First of all, the notice is legally optional, and so a notice not conforming to any standard does no harm. But if one wishes to conform, under US law,17 USC 401 (b) provides that: (b) Form of Notice.—If a notice appears on the copies, it shall consist of the following three elements: (b) (1) the symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright”, ...


3

united-states Trademark law varies somewhat from country to country, and the set of protected trademarks varies a lot from one country to another. In this answer I shall consider primarily US law, although I will try to make the answer as wide ranging as I can. What trademark law protects is the identification of a source of goods or services, and the ...


3

The Organization Does Not Own the Copyright As you were clearly not an employee of the organization, and did not have a specific contract with them, this was not a "work-made-for-hire" (WFH). Therefore, the copyright initially belonged to the author, in this case the programmer, that is you. That being so, it would require a written document to ...


3

A book (or any other creative work) published in the 1800s is now in the public domain everywhere in the world (excepting odd cases like Peter Pan where a special rule applies in some jurisdictions.) Anyone may legally quote from such a work at any length with no legal requirement for permission. In fact there is no legal requirement to attribute the quote ...


3

The takedown process is explained in detail here. If you do not get a response from the ISP or hosting firm within the time allowed, you can bring suit against both the offender (if known) and Telegram in federal court, because failing to honor takedown notices forfeits Telegram's Section 230 immunity from liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act....


3

In essence, this is no different to translating and publishing a book. Imagine if all the not-in-English Harry Potter books were made and published without the original publisher's permission. Nonsense? Well, same applies to this question. What kind of medium you use to deliver your translations is irrelevant.


2

Maybe Permission may or may not be needed under two different kinds of laws, depending on the specific jurisdiction (not stated in the question), and the specific facts. Right of Publicity In some, but not all, US states, and in some, but not all non-US jurisdictions, there is such a thing as a "Right of Publicity" also known as a "right of ...


2

There are a numbed of possibilities. Depending on just how close the Simple Math site is to mathsite2.com, it may or may not be infringing. If the similarity is just coincidence and no use was made of mathsite2.com, there is legally no infringement. But others including a court might believe that there had been copying. If mathsite2.com was one of the ...


2

It is not a copyright violation unless it is actually derived from another work. It is just happens to be the same, it isn't a violation. For most copyrightable works worth suing over, this is almost impossible. But it does happen. Suits involving competing claims of independent creation v. copying usual involve pop song lyrics that are short and have ...


2

No Translations are covered by copyright. The original high-level code is translated to binary by an automated process and then translated back into another (or the same) high-level language also by an automated process. This is equivalent to running an English novel through Google Translate to French and then running the French through again into Spanish (...


2

A court must have both personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction Personal jurisdiction is jurisdiction over the parties to the case, for example, a New York court does not have personal jurisdiction over a murder committed in California. Subject-matter jurisdiction is jurisdiction over the law, for example, a Small Claims court can only hear ...


2

It Depends If the person reusing the image (lets call that person R for reuser) is not complying with the terms of the Creative commons license, which include a requirement to provide attribution of the source work, then R cannot rely on the license, and the granting of the license ad the presence of a license declaration is legally irrelevant. R must have ...


2

united-states Under 17 USC 504 a successful plaintiff is entitled to either: (1) the copyright owner’s actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or (2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c). but not both. Actual damages and profits are further specified: The copyright owner is entitled to recover ...


1

Does uploading the software to the site with such Terms of Service overwrite the license of that version of the software? No. The license is a contract between the software copyright owner and the user, it cannot be overridden by another contact (which the TOS are) between the user and a third party. Concretely, can users other than the host with those ...


1

This will very much depend on the jurisdiction (country). It will also depend on how much you quote or reproduce from a gioven site, compartesd to the size of the original site. You are correct that a single number, such as a target price, cannot be protected by copyright, and you may copy it. Attribution is, in my view, ethically required whether it is ...


1

That API proclaims that it is released under the Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal license. That effectively gives up or waives all rigts that would otherwise be protected by copyright, and specifically gives permission for commercial use. It says so right on the license page you linked to.


1

That depends very much on what you mean by "use youtube transcript data". It may also depend on what jurisdiction you are in, in this case what country you are in. In general, one cannot simply copy the words of a youtube video and use them in one's own blog or other publication without permission. Those words are protected by copyright. Limited ...


1

But can one copy it to some degree, while making sure that a reasonable user wouldn't confuse it with the original? No. I'm referring to the "confusing reasonable user" concept, because this seems to be a main consideration for this kind of question, mentioned in an answer of another question, and also in a related answer by Joel Spolsky (of ...


1

Overview I don't think this is a bug in the license, it simply means that the license may not convey all the rights a user might wish that it would. But in the nature of things, it cannot convey such rights without drastically restricting the license, and the cases where this in fact constrains a user are few. Terms of the License and Their Effects In the CC-...


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