34

No, the clause is correct. The reason it is put in is to protect the designer from the client's mistakes (or lies) about whether the material the client wants to use is copyrighted. To see how this works, suppose the client gives the designer a photo, and says she has the rights to it. It turns out the client doesn't have rights, and the true owner sues. The ...


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 ...


10

"at their own request" is referring to design elements that the Client (customer) wants in the product. That could include particular fonts, a photograph, etc. If the designer wants to use a particular font in the product but was not asked for that particular font by the Client, the designer will make sure to obtain any copyright permissions.


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

Yes, but maybe no. In many state universities that I am familiar with, there are contractual guarantees that exempt regular academic staff from the "we pwn all your stuff" rule, which does not extend to other staff. (I had to toss back a contract for subcontracted work once because they asserted automatic ownership of copyright). It depends on your ...


4

Client shall obtain all necessary copyright permissions and privacy releases, for materials included in the designs at Client’s request. Client shall indemnify Contractor against all claims and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, due to Client’s failure to obtain such permissions or releases." Does that make more sense? As you can see the ...


3

The most you can hope for is that is it very probably legal. Without author's permission, you will have literally violated copyright law. If you are sued, you have a defense available to you, namely "fair use". The problem with fair use is that it's a balancing act, but is it very probable that you would prevail primarily on the grounds that your ...


2

This topic came up as a sub-point to another question a few weeks ago, I ended up doing a fair bit of research with not much in terms of concrete results. I'll start with the USA since they're basically the only major copyright jurisdiction for which I could find a straightforward answer, then discuss internationally. USA In the USA, Bob would generally not ...


2

An "idea" is not copyrightable, though the video itself is. There's nothing legally stopping you seeing a video about a villager apartment, for example, and making your own "How to make a villager apartment block" video. That said, some people will consider it unethical- provoke Youtube drama at your own risk. However, there are some ...


1

You should read the specific licenses to know what the conditions are. The license for this image is CC BY SA 3.0, where the full license is here. What you must do is keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, ...


1

It is quite possible that whoever plays the video needs a license to do so. If you buy a Windows PC, a Mac, an Android phone or an iPhone, the manufacturer or the provider of the OS has paid for that license. But you need to check that. For example, MacOS doesn't come with a license that allows end users and applications to convert music to .mp3 format (...


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