New answers tagged

0

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 ...


0

Yes. Instruments are not protected under copyright law. They're too simple. He said instruments, not melody or something that is protected.


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 ...


33

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 ...


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.


-2

Shouldn't it read, "Client shall obtain all necessary copyright permissions and privacy releases for materials included in the designs on their own"? Most likely it is a [draftman's] mistake. You might want to ask the client to fix the clause because its current wording makes no sense. Based on the terms regarding indemnification, the burden of ...


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, ...


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 ...


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 ...


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 (...


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 ...


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 ...


61

Imagine if the answer was a simple yes: adding a disclaimer was enough to exempt you from any and all copyright and trademark law suits. If that was the case, there would be no point in copyright or trademark law at all, because everyone could just include this disclaimer and never be sued. That doesn't mean every disclaimer is useless, but it does mean that ...


11

Neither the disclaimer nor the ads make any real difference. Using Nintendo-copyright images is potentially copyright infringement. Regardless of whether you earn money for it or put a disclaimer claiming that it's unintentional. It's very unlikely that you'll see any repercussions from this, but it's not completely impossible. Nintendo certainly do go after ...


1

I don't think we can tell, because we have no way to know if the site has a license to make that film available. The situation with Iranian copyright law is unclear. The law itself makes it a crime to infringe copyright, and the law does not say that it applies only to works created in Iran – basically, the law doesn't saw what works are covered. The ...


3

To examine this further and answer your question, we need to look at Copyright (and fair use) as well as Defamation. Alas, I am unsure as to how taking legitimate headlines from around the world and attributing their source is 'fake news' - but I'll accept that it's 'fake news' for the purposes of exploring this topic. A lot of the potential (or motive) for ...


4

With respect to the Table of Contents - in the US: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf What Is Not Protected by Copyright? Copyright does not protect • Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, or discoveries • Works that are not fixed in a tangible form (such as a choreographic work that has not been notated or recorded ...


1

You paid royalties for all the trademarks and copyrights, yes? If so, and the portfolio use is in terms with all of the licences you negotiated, yes you can. If not, no. These are other people’s IP and they get to decide how it is used. You using it to hone your skills for personal development and consumption is fine. You sharing it with third parties isn’t.


0

Is an index copyrightable? An index is a list of information. As long as you don't copy the contents of the book, I don't see how they could get a copyright claim as long as the titles of the chapters are not a piece of art in themselves, for example "TINSTAAFL" might be just enough creativity to warrant copyright protection while "Chapter 1: ...


3

It would not be a copyright. Names and short phrases are not subject to copyright, but it could be a trademark under common law ( e.g. state law in the U.S.) or could be registered.


4

Programming language names are not copyrighted - they are much too short for that. Some programming language names are protected by a Trademark. For example, Apple Inc. holds the trademark for "Swift". I am quite sure that Java is protected in a way that you cannot call a language Java that doesn't match the definition of the "real" Java. ...


3

No The Berne Convention requires member states to afford copyright protection equal to their own to works from other member states. A work first published only in non-member state(s) and by citizen(s) of non-member state(s) is not required to be given such protection but such protection is not prohibited either. A work can not acquire copyright ...


2

As to the extra question: any cease and desist directed at C should come from A. Because a derivative work contains additional original material, the derivative portion is separately copyrightable. But the right to create derivative works belongs exclusively to the holder of the original copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 106. That original holder can transfer some or ...


0

According to the Civil Code a.1281, exclusive rights on the work belong to its author until 70 years (or 74 years if the author worked during WW2 or participated in WW2) after the year of their death (or after the year of their postmortem rehabilitation if that happened). As for the personal use, article 1273 does allow that for posters. (And forbids ...


7

Your app is a simple case of copyright infringement. All the Pokémon are copyrighted, the lettering and names are also protect by trademarks. Trying to claim fair use will be outright impossible: you'll use huge portions of the individually protected Pokemon (the iconic ones like Pikachu) and you are usurping a market they are already in. They have given ...


1

Iran is not a member of the Berne Convention on copyright As such, it does not respect other countries copyrights and vice-versa. Notwithstanding, domestic Iranian law protects “authors” and appears to make no distinction between international and domestic authors. As such, it would appear to be illegal.


0

There are many online services that analyze social media data and then display aggregate results... Those online services may be doing the analysis and aggregation under the site TOS; or they may be doing that with permission of specific and individual license agreement that they have negotiated; or they may be doing that without explicit permission and ...


0

I don't even think an analysis of the frequency of words raises a copyright issue at all. If I write a review of a particular book and talk about how the author really loves the word "implore", how does that copy his expression? Even if it somehow did, fair use covers commentary and criticism.


3

Do I have to pay taxes if I register the domain but the website income belongs to someone else? No. The person or company who runs, and/or profits from, the business is the entity under obligation to pay all the applicable taxes: Value Added Tax, income tax, corporate tax, and so forth. Unless you charge a significant amount therefor (see the comments), the ...


2

No for other reasons. Whether B infringed on someone else’s copyright or not, B has the copyright on their changes. If C copied B’s modifications, B could sue C (and A could obviously sue B and C). But C removed all of B’s changes, so B’s copyright is not infringed. A can obviously sue.


4

No B holds no right to a copyright, if his work infringes on A's right to X. So he can't win against A and neither C or lawfully demand a C&D from C. Note that any change to a work - even a single stroke or word - makes something a derivative work. However, even if B's work was licensed or fair use and thus doesn't infringe on A's right, C still doesn't ...


0

They are both “documents” under most rules of evidence Basically, there are only two sorts of evidence: Testimony. What a witness says to the court. Although, in practice a lot of testimony is said out of court and given in writing but it’s still testimony. Documentary. Everything else.


4

Patents protect inventions, Copyright protects artistic or literary creation Software does not qualify for patents. In some jurisdictions but by no means most, algorithms and business processes can be patented. Software, both the literary (code) and artistic (UIJ) work, is protected by copyright which prevents copying the expression but not the idea. So ...


4

The author owns copyright except in “work for hire” A truly independent contractor (not an employee that is called a contractor) is not engaged in work for hire and owns copyright in the code they create. In jurisdictions where copyright can be transferred then the contract can do that. Who owns the copyright is therefore a decision of the parties to the ...


4

The customer will own exactly what is stated in the contract. As the contractor, who wants to be able to reuse code (which is in everybody’s best interest) you want to keep the copyright, with the client having the license to use the code any way they want. If the customer wants the copyright with the contractor losing all rights, that will be in the ...


0

Information is not copyrightable since Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991): The white pages of a telephone book did not satisfy the minimum originality required by the Constitution to be eligible for copyright protection, and effort and expenditure of resources are not protected by copyright. A list of bad areas on ...


0

It's up to the seller to specify the license the buyer acquires the model. Very common in those licenses is "no resale of the model" as well as "no sale of derivative works of the model." Derivate means by the was both altered as well as acessory to an item. Some have also express terms for selling manufactures of the model. By ...


6

All your work is yours. They've made it very clear it wasn't a work for hire, so it's yours. They can't copyright any of their ideas. You can't copyright an idea. Only specific creative elements authored by them and present in your work could be covered by copyright. You didn't use their block diagrams. I don't see how references to other sites to look at ...


5

With competent legal advice you might get them to sign a waiver that they relinquish any claim to your work. There may be an argument that you had a verbal/email contract that your relied on (magic words). The list of names might be the only thing that is theirs. On the other hand, I learned many years ago that there is no contract wording between you and ...


3

Experience is cheap at any price The web site is not theirs but it’s not clearly yours either because of the sketch design by your not client. Take it down from public view, don’t try to sell it and get on with something new. While legally, you may be within your rights, it seems, given the litigious nature of your “client”, you may have to fight for them in ...


3

I'm wondering whos responsible for this code if people start using it? The user. Can the people using it that think its under GPL in any way get in trouble for it or be made to remove it from their projects? Yes, they can be sued (successfully) for copyright violation. It’s not enough that you think you have permission from the copyright holder - you ...


3

As Polygnome points out in the comments, the first step is to determine who owns the original copyright on your mother's work now. This will be her heirs. If you are the sole heir then no problem. If the copyright was explicitly left to you in her will, also no problem. If there are multiple heirs and no explicit assignment of the copyright, then problem. ...


6

The Lucifer TV show is an adaptation of the comic series of the same name, but with a lot of creative license applied to make the show more viewer friendly/dramatic. In that case, they need the copyright license from DC because, even though there are a lot of differences, there are also a lot of similarities in the story, making it at least a derivative work....


2

You're largely correct, though there's some vocabulary you're using that could go either way in terms of proper understanding. My comments on your understanding, presuming we're dealing with two Berne countries (UCC is largely irrelevant these days): My understanding of copyright is that it grants the author an exclusive right to distribute their work in ...


1

Yes, this is covered under both trademark and copyright law. Yes, you need permission and you will probably need to pay for that if they allow it.


3

If not, how can I keep the game's name in the app title? Pay them a licence fee. Of course, they may not be willing to licence their trademark to you or you may not be willing to pay what they ask - that’s their prerogative; you can’t force people to sell you their stuff. Hasbro’s, sorry, I mean [CROSSWORD GAME NAME] owner’s lawyers, have explained the ...


1

There is no copyrighting names There are personality rights and trademark issues Personality rights are easy - Nietzsche is dead, he doesn’t have any. Trademarks (which can be registered or common-law) apply to business usage and are limited by geography and product time. If no one is already using the name for your product in your market, you can.


2

(Another united-states answer) There really is no legal difference between the two cases you mention. The general principle in both cases is the same: an employee can spend her work time writing papers, and publishing them in paywalled journals, if and only if this is allowed by her employer and any applicable contracts. Beyond that, it's really a business ...


2

No What you describe is a derivative work and the right to make them rests with the copyright owner.


Top 50 recent answers are included