New answers tagged

2

You have misunderstood, or the person from Adobe has misinformed you. Under united-states law work done by a fereelancer is initially under copyright by the freelancer, unless there is a valid contract making it a work-made-for-hire (WFH). But even if such a work is not a WFH the copyright may be transferred to the client if a contract provides for such a ...


0

CompanyX has no duty to disclose the format or meaning of its configuration files, but neither has it any right to legal protection of them. As the configuration files are actually created by the clients using CompanyX's software, it has no copyright interest in them, any copyright belongs to the clients. CompanyX might consider the format a trade secret, ...


5

I'm not familiar with the lawsuit, but generally speaking, a court's finding that a lawyer falsified evidence would not directly result in the lawyer being disbarred, as the trial court does not have authority to regulate the practice of law. Instead, a court that reached that conclusion -- either by a verdict, or because a judge was persuaded by the ...


2

Your status as a foreign national has no bearing on copyright. That is to say, US citizens do not get any sort of special treatment with regards to copy rights of US government works. From the perspective of any given country's laws, almost certainly: US works that are public domain for a US citizen, are public domain for you. Works under copyright control ...


17

As others have noted, works by the US Government are public domain within the USA. However that does not apply abroad: 3.1.7 Does the Government have copyright protection in U.S. Government works in other countries? Yes, the copyright exclusion for works of the U.S. Government is not intended to have any impact on protection of these works abroad (S. REP. ...


20

17 USC 105 provides that: (a) In General.—Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. Under 17 USC 101: A “work of the United States Government” is a work ...


2

There is no copyright in US government works US copyright law explicitly disclaims copyright in works produced by government employees (but not contractors) in the course of their employment. This is not necessarily the case for other governments including US state governments.


3

Not under US law Under the US copyright law, specifically 17 USC 203: a) Conditions for Termination.—In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise than by will, is subject to ...


0

Apple has the copyright on the iOS software, so they have the right to control on which phone you can install it. But you want to replace iOS with an entirely new operating system. That's up to the copyright holder of that operating system to decide. If they give you a license that allows it, then it's allowed. There will be some small amount of software on ...


3

The MIT License (as distributed by OSI) does not include an attribution requirement beyond the requirement to include the copyright notice in any re-distributed copy including derivative works. The same is true of the description of the license as described in the Wikipedia article. If you sent back to the maintainer a modified version including your own ...


0

Presumably you provided your contribution under the MIT license. A court would need to rule on this definitively, and I'm not aware of any cases on point, but implied licenses are a thing and your conduct in providing a contribution to a project under the MIT license would certainly imply that this was your intent. So if we assume that your contribution was ...


0

To do that, Qt must either be the sole copyright holder, or they must have the consent of all other copyright holders. In both cases, as the copyright holder or with agreement of all copyright holders, they can do whatever they like. For example license their software under two different licenses. It has an effect on software development: If I voluntarily ...


3

Their code, their rules A copyright holder is free to offer their work under none, one or many licences. They can, at the same time, use their own work however they see fit without regard to the licences they have given/sold to others (except, they can only give one person an exclusive licence). As an analogy, let’s say I own a fleet of cars. I can drive my ...


1

You can't withdraw the license (clause 3 says "perpetual"), but apart from that there are no restrictions on what you might do with your own work. It depends on whether the proposed changes rise to the level of a separate or derivative work. If someone suggests "I think you should have orcs in this" then you have no problem. But if ...


4

I'm assuming that you are in the UK, as you are talking about the British Standards Institue. In general the truth cannot be copyrighted but an expression of that truth can be, provided that it is creative or original to at least some extent. In this case the equations and constants you want to use are descriptions of scientific truths. If you translate them ...


Top 50 recent answers are included