Episode #125 of the Stack Overflow podcast is here. We talk Tilde Club and mechanical keyboards. Listen now

New answers tagged

0

As is rightly pointed out in the question, under those circumstances the work would not constitute a work for hire under the definition in 17 U.S.C. § 101 because neither was the individual an employee nor have the parties agreed in writing that the work should be a work for hire. In the absence of "an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the ...


1

You may have been an employee. If the volunteer's activities look, walk and quack like an employee's activities, and would be a type of work that the nonprofit would hire to an employee but for the volunteer stepping up, then there's a fairly compelling argument that the volunteer is acting in the capacity of an employee, and is well aware of that at the ...


0

Yes (to both questions) The schema is analogous to a cooking recipe. The list of ingredients (the data) is not copyright because it’s a list of facts but the method (schema) is subject to copyright. Of course, executing a cooking recipe doesn’t breach copyright because you don’t actually copy the recipe - you follow it. However, implementing a database ...


-1

I do not entirely understand the motivation for the question because the availability of the fair use defense should in principle not depend on whether you are, say, an educational, a religious, or a political organisation; educational non-profits do not play in a "league of their own" when it comes to a fair use analysis, even though they may fare better ...


1

If a country were to hypothetically set the length of time for a copyright to expire (and thus enter the public domain) to one second, does that make it legal to freely distribute any work of art produced in any other country at any time, within the borders of that country? If in your example you assume the country is not subject to any treaty obligations ...


0

The likely issue here is that the link might be interpreted as an endorsement of your product by a user of your product. That is an easy assumption to make; after all they do use your product. The problem is that they might have made that decision in the past, and no longer endorse your current product.


3

I know of an app that did similar. They sold membership access and linked Youtube videos. One of the Youtuber's started to take legal action against them. I don't know what happened but the app blocked their content from being shown. Updated this comment to remove incorrect information. After looking at Youtube's recent terms and conditions; you aren't ...


11

If I draw something, having been inspired by looking at some other thing, you are not copying that thing. If you carefully copy something even if you are also deliberately changing features of the original, then you are copying. Copyright law gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to make copies. There is a difference between copying music and visual ...


2

What should I answer to person that ask about using PD (CC0) clipart as logo or if he can trademark it? “Consult your trademark lawyer.” You can also direct them to the trademark registrar in your country. Unless you are their trademark lawyer, but, if so, why would you be asking us? From your organization’s position, you release it under CC0 meaning ...


0

The license definition of adapation under the CC-BY-SA license 3.0 includes the process of transforming a Work, which is essentially what happens when you render Markdown to HTML. The definitions from the license text say: 1. Definitions a. "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a ...


0

In terms of owning copyright of AI output, there's no definitive answer. But, let's discuss anyways, since I'm assuming you wanted more than "I don't know." First let's set the baseline. Thanks to the Infopaq decision, we know that the standard for copyrightability is an "author's own intellectual creation" and that this is uniform throughout the EU. ...


41

Depending on your jurisdiction, such lists may be protected, but not by copyright. For example, in Germany there was a court decision that scanning all the country’s phone books and selling them on CD constituted “unfair competition” and was illegal, while hiring 1000 typists who would manually type in all this information would not be. Databases are ...


17

The words themselves are not protected by copyright, because they are "facts" (of the English Language -- also, the list-maker didn't create the words). Lists of words created by an algorithm are "facts", and lack the speck of creativity that makes web pages protected. The corpora that underlie the lists are protected, as is the program that filters them to ...


26

Stack Exchange have already covered this in a couple of places, from MSE's A site (or scraper) is copying content from Stack Exchange. What should I do?: When should I not report these sites? They follow all the attribution requirements. As mentioned before, there is nothing wrong with copying our content elsewhere on the web, so long as they are ...


2

The hood emblem of a 60-61 Chevy truck will certainly have been copyrighted, and was probably trademarked too. The copyright duration will be as specified in the 1909 act (see here) as amended by the 1976 act.That means it will last at least 28 years from first publication, but will have been capable of renewal in 1988 for another 47 years until 2035. (...


4

Yes. You can sell it for whatever you can get for it. The license allows you to watch the DVD. If you sell the DVD, you won't be able to watch it - but the buyer will. This is same principle that books are subject to copyright, but there is nothing stopping you selling your books second-hand to a dealer.


3

You may find the ShareAlike interpretation on the creativecommons.org wiki helpful here. The Examples section says: ShareAlike photo being used unmodified in a larger work. Unless the larger work would be considered an adaptation of it, using a ShareAlike photo as a separate element within it does not require original materials in the larger work to ...


4

If this is a class assignment to create a game that you have no intention of distributing or selling, then I think you qualify for fair use. Within the context of a college class, it should qualify as educational. If you are creating a game aimed at the college marketplace that you intend to distribute and/or sell, then it is more complicated. Obviously you ...


17

As noted in other answers, no, you are not allowed to use these creatures under Fair Use. You could go back to their original mythological underpinnings (for those that have them), but you would have to take great care to make sure everything about them you describe comes from myth and not from D&D. There is another option, however. Many Dungeons & ...


24

Many D&D monsters and creatures are based on creatures occurring in folklore and myth, such a vampires and trolls. Those are in the public domain, and anyone may use them freely. But images published as part of D&D, or by independent artists, are subject to copyright, and may not be used without permission. As the answer by bdb484 says, there seems ...


41

No. The images are copyrighted, and you are using them in a way that would leave you with virtually no argument for fair use. The factors for fair use are set out in 17 USC 107, and they indicate that the courts would reject your use: The purpose and character of the use, including whether it is of a commercial nature or for nonprofit educational purposes: ...


8

Does the original copyright (or the fact that it allowed me to watch it), allow me to source the content elsewhere? No. Because copyright does not allow you to watch anything. Copyright is a prohibition on making unauthorized copies, not a right to do anything.


2

Using things you have heard or read on a web site to make a decision and list items in a contract, without making a copy of content from the site, is not an infringement if copyright. Copyright never protects ideas, only ways of expressing ideas, such as specific words, images, and musical sounds. "commercial use" as a restriction in a copyright license, is ...


25

No This is not a copyright issue as you are not making a copy (save for a transient one in your cache which is allowed). You are allowed to record it for personal time-shifting as that is fair use/dealing. The broadcaster either owns the copyright (unlikely) or has a contract with the copyright holder that allows them to broadcast it. Assuming the ...


14

No, you may not legally get the content elsewhere: that is a violation of copyright law. When I create content that I want money for, I negotiate with a distributor such as TW, and I grant TW a license to make my stuff available. The license can have all sorts of terms in it, for example conditions on where and when it can be distributed, and how much TW ...


0

From a technical point of view, you can add additional data to any .png file. So you could add a TEXT chunk containing the GPL license, and an SVG chunk containing the original SVG image. You should look for example at the Wikipedia page how to do this (both would be marked as non-standard items because they are not part of the PNG standard, ancillary items ...


2

There are three basic possibilities under which the movie may be used: The movie to be excerpted is out of copyright, either because it was published before 1924, or published without a copyright notice before 1978, or published before 1964 and the copyright was not properly renewed (or some other even less common situation, see this very well known chart ...


0

A recorded piece of music has two copyrights: -The copyright in the composition (notes, lyrics, chords, sheet music; when set on paper this is considered a tangible form) -The copyright in the recording (the actual track, also known as a master, usually a sound recording) A MIDI file per se may or may not be considered a recorded performance, and may or ...


Top 50 recent answers are included