New answers tagged

2

I'm not aware of any legal cases about this in particular, so I'll try to answer from the basic principles of copyright law. The copyright in the contribution automatically belongs to the person who wrote it, and stays with them unless they make a written transfer. Whether a patch is a derivative work is an interesting question. At one extreme, a patch ...


3

united-states In US law the elements of a copyright notice are 1) the copyright symbol or the word "copyright or the abbreviation "copyr"; 2) the year of publication or creation; and 3) the name of the copyright owner. More specifically, under 17 USC 401 (b)(3) the third element should be: (3) the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an ...


2

That Depends If the output is a straightforward transformation of the input, then the copyright belongs to whoever holds the copyright on the input, as Dale M says. In that case, if the user has licensed the input file under some permissive license, then the output will be under the same license. But if the program applies random factors, or if there is ...


2

There is no licence and the copyright belongs to whoever owns the copyright in the input The outpost file is simply the original file transformed by the program - just like a Zip file is.


3

Do you have permission of the person? In general, product names fall under trademark law, not copyright. And while it's possible to use the name of a non-employee as a trademark, doing so without the permission of that person is rather dangerous. That person may sue you for a number of different reasons, with different demands - chiefly financial ...


2

Many products and organizations are named using initials, often the initials of an owner or founder, or of a former business name. I recently hired an exterminator which game its name simply as "RPC" but their literature indicated this stood for 'Ron's Pest Control". The company IBM was once International Business machines, and 3M was once Minnesota Mining ...


1

Say I wrote a spy novel, in which some character refers to my protagonist as "Mr Bond" suggesting that he thinks of himself as a "master spy" like the movie character. Would that infringe a trademark on "James Bond" (assuming, for the moment that that name is trademarked)? No it would not. Or suppose my main character mentions having met Bond years ago ...


1

Patents: yes. Registered designs: yes. Copyright: no. Registered Trademarks: yes. Common law Trademarks: no.


6

As the question says the "Fugue in A Major" by Shostakovich is not in the public domain. The work was published in 1950, and so would not be PD under US law, and Shostakovich died in 1975, and so his works would not be PD in countries using a life+50, life+70, or longer term. Therefore, simply "making some changes" would be the creation of a derivative ...


0

If the work were protected by copyright, your would have only two options. The first is to obtain a license to modify the work; it is your duty to find the licensing agents. The other is to hope to just do it and hope to get away with it under a fair use analysis. The latter option is extremely risky, because the courts are extremely protective of musical ...


3

If Client was foolish enough to pay Bad Contractor (BC) without obtaining a proper assignment of copyright in the source, or at least a sufficient license to allow Client to use the code and create modified versions, then BC owns the copyright to the source, and anyone who creates a modified version without permission from BC is a copyright infringer. The ...


3

In the US, at least, facts - like the speed of light, the name of a dinosaur or the moons of Jupiter - are not copyrightable. But the words or pictures, designs and original work used to express and present those facts in books, websites and other publications by individuals and publishers are copyrightable. (Original work doesn't need to be published to be ...


5

A few years back, a developer made a free android app called Tricorder. The Tricorder is the name of a device in Star Trek. This app had a user interface that had a similar style to the computer displays in Star Trek: The Next Generation. CBS's lawyers were displeased and issued a DMCA takedown request to Google. Google chose to respond by taking the app ...


1

Terms and conditions aren't necessarily binding It's worth noting that while activities such as the Wayback Machine have had many legal issues, they're mostly centered on copyright, not regarding terms and conditions. A key part of this is that terms and conditions are not law, and they're not binding contract to which you've somehow agreed. Quoting ...


8

The general idea of such an app is not subject to copyright protection. Ideas never are protected by copyright. So creating an app based on the functionality of a fictional app would not be a copyright violation. The logo might, if it is original enough, be protected by copyright. Any or all of the "name, the logo and the color scheme" might well be subject ...


4

Is it legal for me to use the name, the logo and the color scheme that appear in the TV show? How would that not be violating copyright? Read Is there a copyright on that content? and Is it legal to use scenes from famous TV show FRIENDS to create pop up museum in New York city? I'm an independent developer, I don't plan on monetizing it in any way, ...


0

Based on this Wikipedia article this is a commercial collection of previously issued commercial games. If you were hired by the publisher, I would expect there to be a contract spelling out exactly what rights each party has, and quite likely assigning all rights to the publisher in return for your fee. If you have created this image to illustrate someone ...


2

This will depend on the details of the situation. If the book is a programming text, or something of the sort, which explains how to write particular kinds of code, and you wish to implement its examples, there will be several considerations. First of all, facts cannot be copyrighted, it is a fact that a particular code construct works in a particular way....


5

"that copyright is not automatically conferred and that there is a process that must be followed" No, this is completely backwards. Copyright is automatic (in most places), but there is a formal process if you want. Copyright happens the moment that the work is created. In the US, if you want to sue somebody for copyright infringement, you have to register ...


0

No and there are numerous instances where historical characters meet are used in fiction in events that never happened (I recall a cartoon movie which posited that all of Benjamin Franklin's accomplishments were really discovered by a mouse companion whom Franklin befriended and many popular tall tales are thought to have greatly exaggerated real people (...


5

Unfortunately, the "but everyone does that" (BEDT) argument doesn't hold water as evidenced by prosecutions of looters. Would uploading this video be a copyright infringement? It would be hard to answer this part of the question without knowing where and from whom the clips had come from. If the clips came from a company like ESPN or a YouTuber that ...


-1

In the circumstances described it seems likely the deletion of the files will be (1) a breach of contract with possibly serious damages (depending on consequences of deletion) and (2) a criminal offence under s3 Unauthorised acts with intent to impair Computer Misuse Act 1990. One example case is R v Steffan Needham, reported by The Register): The "...


2

It is still "breaking the law". Any unauthorized copying is a violation of copyright law. It is presumably also a breach of contract. The copyright restriction is not limited to "and then using or sharing". Nor are sanctions resulting from breach of contract limited by the fact that you did not "use or share". The "did not use or share" consideration would ...


1

It’s not copyrighted but it is trademarked Names of businesses generally do not have copyright protection because they usually lack the necessary element of creativity required for a literary work. Either they are a name (e.g. Ford), a common word (e.g. Apple) or are purely descriptive (e.g. International Business Machines - IBM). However, they do have ...


0

As previously discussed on this site, there is no such a thing as a "random infringement"; it is the act of copying that is an infringement. However, should the question end up before judge or jury, they will decide on the basis of evidence presented to them whether the author copied the press publication, or independently came up with the same wording. ...


1

The US does not provide copyright protection for font design. As long as you dont distribute font generating programs, that would themselves be copyrighted, you are not infringing. Your derived information is okay because it is derived from a non-copyrightable work and is therefore not a derivative work. https://law.stackexchange.com/a/25673/1340


1

The process you have described is the generation of an approximate version of the original font data. Since your font is derived from the copyright font you have created a derived work, which is covered by the same copyright as the original.


1

Your overall question "Would this constitute fair use?" can only be guessed at; fair use cases can only be definitively decided in court. Probably the best thing to do is contact the copyright holder of the fonts and ask if your use would be infringement and if they would give an exception for open source, non-commercial use; that may hinge on the final ...


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 ...


1

The reason those shops are based in China is because it's much more difficult to bring a trademark infringement lawsuit in China. Sell that same merch from your own site based in the US, and the rock band's lawyers will come after you. They don't care where it's made; they care that you are selling it. If you used Zazzle or Cafe Press to produce the same ...


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 ...


1

This answer is limited to United States law. The situation in other countries is definitely different. Under United States law, the owner of a lawfully made copy of a copyrighted work has, as a right of the physical possession of that work, the right to the work's ordinary use. Licenses grant you additional rights such as the right to make derivative works, ...


1

Many copyright licenses are also contracts. Most copyright contracts will be, or will include, licenses. Free or permissive licenses, such as the CC-BY license, might not be considered contracts though lack of consideration, although in the case of the CC-BY license, the promise to provide attribution might be sufficient consideration. Something like the CC-...


0

The total composite image you are copying may very well be subject to copyright. The fact that you are publishing that image on YouTube vs as a website probably has nothing to do with whether or not your publishing is a copyright violation. If I take an image out of a book and put it on a billboard, but not in a book, copying still took place. There may be ...


Top 50 recent answers are included