New answers tagged

1

Brief Answer: The type of ownership relevant to your question is that over intellectual property; specifically: the copyright. The application of copyright law to tweets is currently a cutting edge area of law with no clear answers. Longer Answer: Is a tweet copyrightable? Short phrases are not copyrightable. Prunte v. Universal Music Group, Inc., 699 F.Supp....


5

As the copyright holder you are free to license your work however you want. The fact that you have licensed your work under a CC license to one group does not prevent you from licensing it to someone else under a different license with different terms. This is true even if the CC license could apply to this other person. The CC license doesn't restrict what ...


0

There is a fine line between infringement and not. It gets blurrier by fair use, fair dealing and other exceptions. For example, me quoting David's answer verbatim, in part or in total, would be per se copyright infringement. If I use that to criticize one point of the answer and I take no more than necessary, my infringement is fair use - and not to be ...


9

Ideas are not protected by copyright, only arrangements of words are protected. If you "rephrase" by only a minor change of wording, leaving much of the wording intact, that is still a copyright infringement unless an exception such as fair use or fair dealing applies (and that seems a bit doubtful in this case). If you "rephrase" so that ...


1

DMCA protects user-driven upload repositories like Youtube, where a user uploads "their" content which then becomes generally available. Youtube makes users swear that they have the right to upload the content, but some users lie. Ordinarily, Youtube would therefore be liable for contributory copyright infringement, and a better target than the ...


1

The original work is certainly in the public domain in the US. It is also in the public domain in any country with a copyright term of Life+100 or shorter. According to this Wikipedia article that includes all known countries. From the description in the question, the 1974 edition added nothing new to the work. In the US and the UK, it would not have any ...


0

Going by what you say, copyright on all pages that appear in the 1974 reprint other than the title pages and the design on the endsheets has expired. Having learnt that you want to reproduce those pages, their telling you that they own copyright on them and trying to get you to pay them for the "right" to do what you want to do sounds very much ...


3

Does returning an illegal product back to the seller for the refund make one liable to said product distribution? The offence, in the USA, relating to posting counterfeit goods (such as bootleg copies of copyrighted items) is at 18 U.S. Code § 2320 (a)(1) Whoever intentionally - traffics in goods or services and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in ...


-3

No it doesn't If you return a copyrighted product (Say you got it from eBay), And return it. Whoever sold that would have legal liability. The act of returning the product is not distributing it IF you thought the product was Illegal and you returned it.


1

Musical compositions can be, and if recent almost always are, protected by copyright. This is separate from the copyright on a recording of a performance of the work. If you reuse a musical passage, the new work may be a derivative work, that is a work based on an earlier work. Or an extended musical quotation could be considered to be copyright infringement....


0

I have a very different take on the question of ownership of notes. What you have there is an unorganized group, and by "unorganized" I mean not having drawn up papers for a partnership, LLC, corporation or the like. But it is definitely a group, and it is definitely having a meeting. And written logs, notes and other work product derived from ...


9

Just to be clear - Disney makes lots and lots of money off its characters, movies yes but its characters are the cash cow. It is very very likely that one of Disney's strategies to not give up these rights to characters is to revisit them continuously. By not supplying a date in their movies they are not giving reasonable expectations of usage at some ...


56

For works released after 1989, Copyright notices don't have any legal consequences in the United States. They are just a friendly reminder of who created the work and that they take their copyrights seriously. But those notices are not required anymore to enforce your copyrights on the works you created. If you have proof that you own the copyright on ...


2

Only literary or artistic works have copyright A number, on its own, is neither. Of course, a number that is a digital representation of say, The Lord if the Rings, is a copy of a copyrighted work but it is not, of itself, copyrighted.


3

Honestly, accepting what you say as 100% true, and assuming these channels don't have a valid license of some sort, I think it might be copyright infringement. I think the law is that a sports contest itself isn't copyrightable, but the broadcast of it probably is. Copyrights are all around us, and copyright infringement happens all the time (though this is ...


6

It probably is infringement, assuming that this is being done by copying parts of a broadcast of the game. It is up to the holder of the copyright on the original broadcast that is being condensed to decide whether to sue or take other action, such as a takedown notice. Perhaps the holder thinks this is good advertising for its business. They have the right ...


-8

Half a second of the Terminator followed by half a second of Terminator exploding = Copyright infringement and it will cost you lots of money. One second from a movie that nobody recognises = copyright infringement, good chance that you get away with it. Just mentioning that “fair use” means: Yes, it is copyright infringement, but for some reason I shouldn’t ...


17

Maybe. It might fall under "fair use", which overrides the general requirement to get permission. The way to find out is to do it, get sued, then try to defend your action by using the fair use defense. If they win in the lawsuit, you can't, if you win, you can. There are four "factors" that have to be "balanced", plus a fifth. ...


6

Nothing in 17 USC 512, which includes the DMCA Safe Harbor and Takedown procedures requires an online service provider to notify others who may have made copies of content (including archive sites) claimed to be infringing that a takedown notice has been received or that access to the content has been blocked or removed. A separate DMCA takedown could be ...


8

That is going to depend on the details of exactly who does what, and how much is written down. It will also depend on the agreements between the people involved, which may well be verbal or implied. I don't know of any actual cases where such a dispute came to a copyright lawsuit. As copyright suits largely deal with financial harms and damages, and in most ...


2

Yes, once law is passed and Facebook is designated under it as a "designated digital platform corporation" then it will be obligated either pay remuneration to all "registered news business corporations" in Australia for content they voluntarily post on Facebook, or not allow any Australian news on their site at all. The same applies to ...


3

Copying math tests would likely violate copyright. I am not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice. If you want actual legal advice, hire an actual lawyer with actual money. In the examples you're showing, your Chapter 15 consists entirely of practice tests, each of which is labelled with the name of an event. If those tests are composed of tests from those ...


9

Names of people, institutions, and events are not protected by copyright. Things that have occurred at events like math tournaments are facts, and may be recounted, in your own words, with no fear of infringing any copyright. Facts are never protected by copyright, although a particular description of facts could be, and so could a particular selection and ...


3

No. Let's suppose you made a piece of music lasting 5 seconds. Then someone else added another 7 seconds to it, creating a larger work lasting 12 seconds. You fully own your 5-seconds piece, and can use it as you please. The second author only owns 7 seconds of his 12 second piece, and relies on your license to use the initial 5 seconds. They will have to ...


5

Under U.S. law, Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) limits liability for comments solely to the comment maker and not to the video uploader or YouTube. It basically says that there is no duty to moderate except for copyright upon a takedown notice. Normally takedown notices would be directed to YouTube which has a process that handles that, and not to the uploader,...


10

No, you do not The answer by user amon is correct that there are always two copyrights involved with any derivative work. The copyright of the author (creator) of that work, and the copyright of the source work. The holder of the source work has the right to approve the making of the derivative work, and can refuse permission or charge a fee for granting ...


23

No you don't. There are two copyright holders regarding the derivative work: yourself, for creating the original. the other artist, for creating the modified version. The other artist has received the right to use your original through the CC-BY license, under the condition that they attribute you appropriately. However, you have not received any rights to ...


3

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. This advice may be materially inaccurate. What does redistribution mean? Redistribution means you have somehow caused the software to make its way to another person. Things that probably count as distribution: Placing the file on a public website. Printing the binary in hex onto paper and giving that paper to someone else. ...


1

So A released the work under license O, B took a copy and purported to re-release it under license L, which is not compatible with O, and C used it commercially under the terms of L, apparently unaware that B did not have authority to release it under L. B has infringed A's copyright by releasing under L without permission or authority. C has also infringed ...


3

The origin of a lawsuit will not be a license, but copyright law. Licenses are exemptions from copyright law enforcement. The original author holds the copyright. That person did offer a license O to the third party, but that third party did not take up that offer. Hence, there is a copyright violation, and a cause for a lawsuit. It is up to the original ...


8

The title and author(s) of a copyrighted work are not themselves protected by copyright. Many libraries and booksellers and online reference cervices provide such information. Two examples are the IMDB and the ISFDB. That the proposed service is commercial and profit-making is not relevant. Newspapers and other publications include movie and book reviews ...


3

Literary references are generally considered to be a form of Fair Use in the US, and a form of Fair Dealing in those countries that have that legal concept. Mentioning that a character has read a fictional work, or likes a character in na fictional work, or even models his actions on such a character, or thinks he is that character is not treated as an ...


1

You can't copy the book in any way shape or form without permission, that is what copyright protection means. You can't convert if from one format to another, you can't OCR it to a PDF or image-scan a print book into a big picture file. There is a gray tolerance or license area where you may have permission to install multiple copies on a personal device, ...


9

Facts cannot be copyrighted. Such a project does not violate copyright law, and if you're in the United States, it is protected by the First Amendment.


-2

So the problem here is that the character who believes he is the Joker, will likely act in a manner consistent with the character from the DC Comics and parent Waner Bro. This brings the character dangerously close to DC's character to not be protected with a fair use defense. Fair use would protect you if your character was described as being "crazy ...


1

"Fair use" is a specifically united-states concept in copyright law. I will therefore assume US law in this answer. If the US is not the relevant country, this answer may not apply. Fair use was first created to allow comment about a protected work, such as by a reviewer, or a teacher or scholar, without the need to get permission for every short ...


0

If country A thinks they could and should prosecute you, and they can lay their hands on you, then they will. And the same is true for country B, C and D. It seems you are describing a situation where A is fine with what you did, so they won’t prosecute. B seems to think what you did is wrong, but many countries don’t care about people breaking the law ...


2

Yes Playing recorded music in public is unlawful without permission (licence) from the copyright holder. Many jurisdictions allow automatic licensing by signing up with and paying for it through the authorised music organisation.


0

In the U.S. it was considered a copyright violation to import a book printed and "first" sold out of the U.S. That changed with a SCOTUS case, Kirtsaeng_v.John_Wiley & Sons in 2008. Now "first sale" is not interpreted as having any implied geographic limitations.


2

It will be infringement by issue of a copy to the public, contrary to s.18 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. It seems clear that the book has not previously been put into circulation in the EEA by or with the consent of the copyright owner. Hence by issuing the copy to the public you are infringing the copyright in it. Copyright law IS set up to ...


2

There are at least three different grounds on which someone running a private game server without permission might be successfully sued by the original developers or operators of the game. These are Copyright infringement, Trademark infringement, and Interference with contracts. Copyright Infringement It is unlawful to make a copy of a protected work without ...


Top 50 recent answers are included