16

Yes The directors of a company have a fiduciary duty to act within the law for the benefit of their shareholders - not to their customers, not to the government, not to the environment and not to the public. A lawsuit against the company will incur financial loss irrespective of if it is won or lost. It is difficult to see how it is in the shareholder's ...


12

Publishing government records is pretty classic First Amendment-protected activity. Keeping in mind that one can find a lawyer to sue for anything, I think that person would likely be operating well within the law. One thing in particular that I'd recommend staying aware of is how one might attempt to monetize this endeavor. There have been a lot of sites ...


9

As specified in the Public Records Act, under RCW 42.56.050 "invasion of privacy" (which is restricted by law) only arises when the content (1) Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public. In publishing such information would be an invasion of privacy, it is not subject to public inspection under ...


7

I would be careful that no records belong to EU citizens, as it would likely be illegal under GDPR to have their information without their specific permission, and giving them the right to have it removed.


4

Copyright includes authorization of derivative works such as translations, so you must have permission of the copyright holder to create a translation. You could be sued for creating the unauthorized translation for your friend. If you attempt to further distribute the book, the chances of getting sued increase substantially. That path probably includes your ...


4

Whether published or unpublished, they are still protected by copyright. (They are probably unpublished for copyright purposes, but in the US this makes little difference for any recently created work (that is anything after 2002). For older work see the Cornell chart.) They cannot be copied or distributed without permission, unless an exception to ...


4

According to the current version of the TOS: You own the rights to the content you create and post on Medium. By posting content to Medium, you give us a nonexclusive license to publish it on Medium Services, including anything reasonably related to publishing it (like storing, displaying, reformatting, and distributing it). In consideration for ...


3

You can take pictures of public buildings and use them in your game, if you want. You cannot copy pictures (of anything) taken by someone else without the copyright owner's permission, so you need Google's permission to copy their photographs. The public building exception is specifically about architectural works and does not include e.g. murals drawn on ...


2

The term of art used in MS Code Section 97-29-101 which is probably what is being referred to in the OP, is "obscene" (not offensive or erotic, which are frequently not legally "obscene"). This term is defined in such a restrictive manner by First Amendment case law that it is almost impossible to prevail on a charge like this in the fact of any remotely ...


2

Assuming for the sake of argument that the book is infringing, either the author or the publisher (or both) may be sued. Copyright includes several rights - the right to make copies, the right to create derivative works, the right to distribute and sell copies, etc. Both the author and the publisher are going to do one or more of these things in the act of ...


2

I haven't seen a White Pages phonebook come out in a while, with name-address-telephone number, but that stuff doesn't fall into the Personally Identifiable Information we are trained to protect at work. Other stuff is, stuff that could lead to identify theft or fraud.


2

I'm not a lawyer, but I think this might depend on the context in which the information is published. If it's something "innocent", like making an online "address-book" for the town/community the publisher of the information lives in, then it might be okay. However, if it's in some way, shape or form meant to cause negative effects on the people whose ...


2

The closest thing to what you're describing is the new rights granted to cultural heritage institutions described in Articles 8-11 of the new Copyright Directive (draft Articles 7-9). Note this doesn't apply to individuals, just cultural heritage institutions, which is defined by Article 2(3): ‘cultural heritage institution’ means a publicly accessible ...


2

What is the current license and copyright status of the works? Unknown Will the company need to acquire a license? Yes From whom would the company be able to obtain a global use license for online digital publishing in this scenario? From the current copyright holder or a person with a permissive licence (or chain of permissive ...


1

The only elements of such a work that would be protected by copyright are the contemporary creative aspects. That would include (recently) added commentary, concordance or artwork. Presenting a work in a new file format does not constitute a creative addition, so there is no protection for the PDFness of a public domain work.


1

This will depend on the license under which you use the ebook. Some ebooks have a license which explicitly permits such sharing. In the absence of such permission, it will depend on how you plan to provide access to the ebook to those you plan to "share" with. Most ways of sharing would involve making a copy at some point in the process, which you may not do ...


1

Where and how you reproduce the lyrics in the book or how to point out the title of the song that contains the lyrics doesn't matter; simply printing two lines of the lyrics can be copyright infringement, Fair Use (U.S. Copyright Office) not withstanding. It's not a good idea to risk legal action against yourself or the need to defend yourself with a Fair ...


1

It's not a retroactive law. It doesn't change the legality of any action in the past. It is a law that affects items that were in previously signed contracts, but that's not new. For example, changes in employment law can change or invalidate some provisions in work agreements and contracts. In the US, agreements that an employee's total creative ...


1

Because Belgium is a sovereign nation and (presumably) is not prohibited constitutionally from making retroactive laws in general and this one in particular. The foreign publishers have just fallen victim to sovereign risk - the risk that a change of law or government policy will adversely affect your rights under a contract. Governments are wary of ...


1

There really is no such thing as an AUTHORIZED archive. Any institution that functions as an archive, as defined in the law cited, gets a limigted exemption from copyright. I should think that the Internet Archive would qualify, but don't know of any court case so holding, which would be the only definitive answer. For anyone who is not a "library or ...


1

That would be copyright infringement. The wayback machine is an authorized archive, which means that it can legally copy stuff made available on the web; but you can't. You can, however, publish a set of links to items that you find in the archive.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible