Datasets:

vblagoje

/

Law-StackExchange-Flat

like 0

Review of contract with startup

I'm considering a contract with a very small startup (in the US). The compensation is largely equity-based, as opposed to salary. I understand the offer and have strong trust in the other owners (I've worked with them previously). I don't, however, have a huge amount of trust that the small lawyer hired by the company did a great job with the contract. The primary risk I'm concerned about it that an acquiring company might take advantage of a poorly written contract to not pay me. What services are available to an individual to have this contract reviewed and ensure it protects my interests? How important is it to get the contract reviewed at this point? Is there any recourse in a future dispute for the legalese not matching the lay-person's understanding of the contract?

What services are available to an individual to have this contract reviewed and ensure it protects my interests? A lawyer How important is it to get the contract reviewed at this point? Is there any recourse in a future dispute for the legalese not matching the lay-person's understanding of the contract? The question of how important is it is up to you. It sounds to me that you are totally right to be concerned. The situation you are imagining is exactly the sort of thing that happens. I say this without assuming any ill-will on the part of the acquiring company.

Use of TV show names on drop shipping website

I'm setting up my own drop shipping business. What are the legalities behind the use of trademarked TV show names? Some of the catogories of products I have for sale would be specific TV show merchandise. Would I be allowed to use the names of the shows on my website as long as I informed visitors that I was not associated with the companies? EDIT: The servers are based in the US, and the items will not be produced by myself

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. The purpose of a trademark is to prohibit random manufacturers and sellers from marketing products under an established brand name, without the trademark holder's permission. Selling licensed merchandise is not trademark infringement, because the trademark is only being used to identify the product. Claiming that one is an authorized reseller of the products when one is not may be a violation, though.

Is it legal to sell Wikipedia data?

I can see it is legal to sell their "free" content, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Buying_Wikipedia_articles_in_print_or_another_form Can the same be argued for their non-content data? Such as any derivatives of their content (for example n-grams) or other data sources, such as their official traffic statistics?

Wikipedia and you likely have no contract. If you don't have to click "I agree" to access the data, its likely there is no contract. Therefore this is a pure IP law question. The ONLY IP law issue that I see is copyright. The DATA is not subject to copyright. Only the expression of that data. So copying the html and selling that IS potential copyright infringement. Copying the data in some other format and using that is not. Finally, even if you do copy the full html (i.e. full expression), this MAY be licensed by their terms of use (as you suggested they have licensed some content). That is a more particularized legal question that I can't answer here.

Is there an official UK law that gives the spelling of each word?

Is there an official UK law that gives the spelling of each word? For example, in the Netherlands, there is a spelling law (Spellingswet), and they also publish the Green Booklet to make it accessible to the people. I wonder if there is a similar thing for British English.

No. English is not government-regulated. That's why the Oxford English Dictionary (arguably the most authoritative dictionary out there) uses different spellings than most of the UK does.

Selling stuff online + fundraiser campaign questions (EU)

Let's say I have a friend who owns a factory and makes rings and necklaces according to my unique design (1000 pieces order minimum). I want to sell them strictly online, and I'm sure that I won't be making more than $100,000/year, possibly not even $50,000/year (I don't want to open a massive store chain or something like that). I would be using Kickstarter or something similar for fundraiser to start it up. Do I need to start some sort of a company for this, or can I just sell them and pay the taxes myself by the end of the year? It would be a lot less messy if I could just accept payments using Paypal or something like that, and pay the taxes myself instead of registering a company for such a low income (for a business). The transaction would go something like this: I send that friend of mine money through Paypal or Western Union or something like that, he makes for the ordered amount of rings or necklaces, he ships a box of them to me. I buy boxes to pack them in in the meantime, and when they arrive - I pack them up myself, then print out the addresses and take them to the postal office for them to be shipped to the customers when an order is placed. I know it's a lot of messing around, but I don't have much money and I doubt my campaign will be successful as I have zero social influence or presence. I would prefer it to not be EU-only, I want to sell worldwide. Let's also say that I live in Sweden or Norway, but I'm not a citizen here, instead I'm a citizen of Latvia.

In general the primary purpose of creating a single-owner business entity is to shield the owner from liability. For example, if it turns out that (unbeknownst to you) your necklaces were manufactured with toxic metals then "you" as a seller could face ruinous liability. If "you" is a company, then you as a person might lose whatever value is left in the company, but at least you wouldn't lose your personal assets. There are many other potential reasons to conduct business through a business entity, and many types of business entities constructed and recognized for those purposes; but they are highly dependent on the jurisdiction, entity type, and particulars of the business.

Why is it possible to sue non-original distributers of Pirated items?

I apologise in advance if this is a silly question. Let's say you have a person A who bought a song from an online service, and is distributing it without permission. Person F obtains a copy of this song and distributes it himself. I can understand why person A might be at risk of a lawsuit, as he's broken the contract agreed upon when purchasing the song. But Person F hasn't agreed to anything, hasn't signed any contracts and hasn't gone through a shrinkwrap agreement. So why would Person F be at a risk of being sued?

Copyright law is not based on contracts, and does not require agreement. No one may distribute copies of a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder. For instance, in the US, both Persons A and F can be sued because Title 17, Section 501 of the US Code says: (a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner ... is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. (b) The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled ... to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it. Copyright infringement isn't an issue of violating terms you agreed to with a private entity. Your duty to not infringe copyright was imposed by your country's legislature, who does not require your personal agreement to do that.

May I register a company with already existing name, but different business direction? (Worldwide)

I want to register a company (small game studio), but in my country (and in the others too, I suppose) does exist a company with the same name, but their scope of work is completely different from game development (e.g. web design). So the question is - should a company name be unique worldwide, if it has clients all around the world (which happens if you distribute your product digitally) or there is a distinction between same named companies with different business direction? The country is Ukraine, but since the studio will distribute a digital product (well, games) all over the world then I assume, that its name should be unique worldwide?

Registration Generally, within a given jurisdiction, company names must be unique; the registrar will not register a company with an identical name. There can be multiple companies with the same name across jurisdictions (i.e. worldwide). So, if there is a company ABC Pty Ltd in Australia then that is the only company of that name in Australia. You could register ABC 2 Pty Ltd or ABC (Web Design) Pty Ltd or any variation you like - subject to ... Trade Marks If the company name is a trademark in your jurisdiction then its use without authorisation in the field in which it is registered is off-limits. For example, anyone who registers a company containing "Cadbury" if they are going to operate in the confectionary business had better be prepared for a long and expensive lawsuit. Passing Off There is a tort of passing off which involves essentially acting in a way which will make people believe you are or are associated with someone else when you are not. The other person can take action to make you stop or for damages.

Creative Commons NonCommercial content - limits on income possibilities?

We're building a website that allows users to find fun things to do and, among other things, to read articles about some of these things, but also to write their own. In order to have some of these articles available when we launch, we managed to find and import a large database of similar-themed articles, many of which are well-suited for our website and are licensed under a Creative Commons license (to be specific, under BY-NC-SA ). These articles wouldn't be the primary feature of our website, just an added value for our users. Our website could therefore work even if we abandon the whole articles idea. While our website initially won't be generating any revenue, we're hoping to at some point adopt a business model and make it sustainable, at the very least. What limits would the NonCommercial part impose on us in this case? Which of the following would this CC content affect? Generating revenue through Google AdSense Generating revenue through some other paid ads Generating revenue through paid ads, but keeping the article pages that are under the BY-NC-SA ad-free Having a category of paid users who would be able to have some additional features (but with the articles part available to both free and paid users)

(Since this is looking rather close to looking for legal advice: "I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, don't sue my pants off".) The relevant section of the license is this (bolding mine): You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation . The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in con-nection with the exchange of copyrighted works. Therefore, if you are using the content licensed under the BY-NC-SA primarily to make money, that is a breach of the license. Any more advice past that is wading seriously into legal advice.

Creative Commons NonCommercial content - limits on income possibilities?

We're building a website that allows users to find fun things to do and, among other things, to read articles about some of these things, but also to write their own. In order to have some of these articles available when we launch, we managed to find and import a large database of similar-themed articles, many of which are well-suited for our website and are licensed under a Creative Commons license (to be specific, under BY-NC-SA ). These articles wouldn't be the primary feature of our website, just an added value for our users. Our website could therefore work even if we abandon the whole articles idea. While our website initially won't be generating any revenue, we're hoping to at some point adopt a business model and make it sustainable, at the very least. What limits would the NonCommercial part impose on us in this case? Which of the following would this CC content affect? Generating revenue through Google AdSense Generating revenue through some other paid ads Generating revenue through paid ads, but keeping the article pages that are under the BY-NC-SA ad-free Having a category of paid users who would be able to have some additional features (but with the articles part available to both free and paid users)

Without creating an Atty/Client relationship or addressing your specific issue except in a hypothetical way, it is my opinion that you would need to seek specific permission (a license agreement to protect your interests) to use these articles you refer to, pursuant to the language of the NC agreement(s),as it currently disallows your use in your clearly somewhat commercial model. The language that you are "unclear" about, is pertaining to reuse in a non-commercial (non-revenue based) manner...like if you print a informative (free) pamphlet w/the information you accessed through the similarly themed NC database. You may ( I personally doubt it but anything is possible )be able to obtain the permissions, but regardless, it could not be considered non-commercial since you intend to make a profit (or at lease a self-sustaining amount of operating cost), and the entire point of the NC license is to prevent payment for access to information. The reason I say you may be able to get a license is that if you are not charging a membership fee, but are using the information (articles) in a commercial endeavor, it is possible that the similar site does this as well, and you could come up with a reimbursement model based on percentile averages and clicks per article that originated from the other site. The reason I doubt it is that if they also get revenue from sources other than consumers of the information, it would seem you'd be in direct competition.

Driving through a red after traffic lights have been broken

A situation happened to me today that got me thinking. I live in Victoria, Australia. I was driving and entered an intersection on a green light to make a turn. I waited until there was no oncoming traffic, by which time the light turned amber, to complete my turn. As I was completing my turn the lights started to flash amber, which indicates an error with the signals and that drivers need to follow the rules for unregulated intersections. (There are also some pedestrian crossings with red-amber-green lights that flash amber as part of their cycle before turning back to green, but not in the area I was driving.) After I completed the turn I could see that at least the next two sets of lights had been affected too and were flashing amber as well. As I approached the first set it changed back to red and I was able to stop in time. I was wondering what would have happened if I drove through the intersection just as the light changed to red (with not enough time to stop) and got a fine for driving through a red light? Would the authorities realise that there had just been an outage of the traffic lights and not issue it or would I have to prove that the lights had just been down to avoid having to pay the fine?

If you were to be issued a ticket in such circumstances, you would likely be able to bring up an affirmative defense that it was not possible for you to stop safely in the circumstances, an action most likely required by the statutes. P.S. I've actually sat through a traffic trial where some guy in KW, Ontario, was defending against a red-light ticket he has gotten when passing a red light in the winter. I recall that his defense basically amounted to the fact that he would not have been able to stop safely in the circumstances (a requirement / exception of the statute), that the pavement was too slippery, other cars were nearby (maybe a car that followed, which would not have been able to stop had he stopped?), and that the light was likely still yellow when he crossed into the intersection (he took quite some time to cross-examine the cop). I recall that he was acquitted, but the guy did look quite exhausted from the trial!

Am I allowed to use lethal force against some one who is lawfully threatening my life?

Following on this question: Am I allowed to kill a person threatening me? CA, USA What if you are the target of lethal force? In this case your own life is threatened, even though you created the situation that warranted the use of lethal force against you. So what if now the hostage-taker kills the guy who tried to stop him with lethal force. And after that the hostage-taker gives up. Would he be guilty "only" of the crime of hostage taking or would he be guilty of murder as well?

The " felony murder " doctrine, which applies in most of the U.S. (including California), holds criminals engaged in "dangerous felonies" responsible for any deaths that occur during the commission of such crimes. In the given example, the hostage taker and anyone who is an accessory to that aggravated assault would, if convicted, also be guilty of murder for deaths that occurred in connection with the incident, regardless of their intent .

Am I allowed to use lethal force against some one who is lawfully threatening my life?

Following on this question: Am I allowed to kill a person threatening me? CA, USA What if you are the target of lethal force? In this case your own life is threatened, even though you created the situation that warranted the use of lethal force against you. So what if now the hostage-taker kills the guy who tried to stop him with lethal force. And after that the hostage-taker gives up. Would he be guilty "only" of the crime of hostage taking or would he be guilty of murder as well?

He would be guilty of murder; self-defense only applies when threatened with unlawful force - the hostage's force is lawful.

Customer feedback gathering in Australia

Is it legal to provide an independent platform/system to the public, so that they can write feedback directly on different companies/products in the market? Example: Is it legal for company ABC to make a public bulletin board about BMW and invite all people to write their feedback/comments?

On the face of it there is nothing illegal about your proposal, however, " Australia maintains some of the most restrictive Internet policies of any Western country ". In addition, a suit can be brought under Australian law for any material accessible in Australia irrespective of the original source or where it is hosted. Offensive Content The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is empowered to look into complaints from Australians about prohibited content on the Internet and issue takedown notices. The ACMA is not mandated to scour the Internet for potentially prohibited content, but it is allowed to begin investigations without an outside complaint. Prohibited content is content that which would attract an R18, X18 or RC by the Australian Classification Board . Note that this is more restrictive than what is allowed for offline publication; offline publications can be R18 and X18. Once the determination has been made that content hosted within Australia is prohibited, the ACMA issues a takedown notice to the Internet content provider (ICP). It is not illegal for the ICP to host prohibited content, but legal action could be taken against it by the government if it does not comply with the takedown notice. For offensive content hosted outside of Australia, the ACMA itself determines whether content is prohibited and notifies a list of certified Web-filter manufacturers to include the prohibited Web sites in their filters. Australian Internet Service Providers (ISP) are required to make these filters available to their customers but their use is not mandatory. Your type of site is unlikely to fall foul of this but it could happen, particularly if you allow images or video uploads. You would need to be able to respond quickly to any take down notice. Hate Speech Australia addresses hate speech through the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which makes it "unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if: the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group." The Federal Court has ruled that publication on the Internet without password protection is a "public act" and hate speech on your website could fall foul of this provision. ACMA does not have the statutory authority to deal with hate speech complaints so the only avenue is through the courts, however, ACMA will pass on complaints to the ICP. This area is much more likely to be an issue for your site - it is easy to see a complaint about a product with a distinctive national origin descending into hate speech as defined. Copyright As a publisher, you could be held liable for the uploading of copyright infringing materials by others. Defamation This is probably where your greatest risk lies. For a defamation action to be successful, it must be established that the communication: was published to a third person, i.e. to at least one person other than the plaintiff (person/entity defamed). Putting it on the internet does this. identifies the plaintiff, for example, by name or by a reference to a small group of people, etc. Identifying the person as, say BMW, does this. contains a defamatory statement or imputation (whether intentionally published or not). Very generally speaking, material that could be found to be defamatory includes that which has the tendency to lower the person in the estimation of others, or that would tend to result in the person being shunned or avoided or that is likely to expose the person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; say a criticism about a car the person makes. In theory, any individual or entity who considers damage to their reputation has or is likely to occur, as a result of material published, may sue the publisher/s of the material. In practice, the laws are inaccessible to ordinary individuals who are defamed due to the exorbitant legal costs involved in bringing a defamation action. Australia's defamation laws are often used by politicians and corporations who consider the media, individuals or community groups have defamed them in publishing information critical of their activities. Defamation action may be brought, not only against the original publisher (writer/speaker), but also against anyone who takes part in the publication or re-publication of the material. However, the fact that a person can be sued does not necessarily mean they would be found liable by a court. There are numerous aspects relevant to liability. Defences that may be successfully pleaded in relation to a defamation action vary throughout Australian jurisdictions. Depending on the jurisdiction, these may include: truth/justification fair comment (e.g. an expression of an honestly held opinion or a criticism on a subject matter of public interest) absolute privilege (this attaches to the occasion, not the statement or speaker, such as during parliamentary proceedings, judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, executive communications and communications between spouses) qualified privilege (e.g. fair and accurate reports of parliamentary proceedings, judicial proceedings, public meetings concerning matters of public interest/concern) consent (e.g. where the plaintiff expressly or impliedly consented to the publication of the particular imputation) triviality (e.g. where the circumstances/occasion of the publication were trivial to the extent that the person defamed was not likely to suffer harm) innocent dissemination (e.g. applicable to re-publishers/re-distributors such as newsagents/book sellers, including potentially to ISPs/ICHs . The defence in Clause 91 of the BSA is also relevant to ISPs/ICHs.) etc The Broadcasting Services Act (C'wlth) ("the BSA") provides a statutory defence to an ISP/ICH who carries/hosts Internet content in Australia and who was not aware that they were carrying/hosting a defamatory publication. You need to have good procedures in place to remove defamatory content ASAP after you become aware of it. Defamation action under Australian law may be commenced in any State or Territory in which the allegedly defamatory material was published. The Australian High Court has ruled that a party within Australia can sue a foreign party in an Australian court for defamation resulting from an online article hosted on a foreign server.

Host a public wiki website: how to make every contributors' content to be licensed under CC-SA automatically?

I'm trying to host a wiki website which is similar to Wikipedia: all contents licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Besides putting a footnote at each page to explicitly declare the license, what and where should I put the legal language to inform that every contributor must contribute under this same license (and if they do contribute, they automatically agree with it)?

At the bottom of every edit screen on Wikipedia, above the "save page" button, it says: By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution. If you are asking for technical details on how to show that on a MediaWiki installation, that question could probably be better asked at another site. Regardless, on a standard MediaWiki installation, that text may be found and modified at the [[MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning2]] (sometimes [[MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning]]) page of the wiki.

Is there a legal risk in giving emergency first aid?

There is a commonly held belief that an unqualified member of the public takes a legal risk in giving emergency first aid in case the patient dies or is injured as a result. This theory invariably refers to some unnamed US case where a passer-by attempted CPR on the victim of a heart attack, was unsuccessful, and was sued as a result. This came up on a first aid course I attended, and the tutor was fairly certain that the risk is very small if the passer-by takes such care as is reasonable given the lack of expertise. Was the tutor correct? I'd be interested in views from other jurisdictions, but my main interest is the position in the UK.

This effectively comes under duty of care. Firstly, in England and Wales there is no obligation to be a Good Samaritan - in other words, there is no obligation to be a rescuer. Until you intervene to try and rescue someone, you do not owe that person a duty. As soon as you do intervene, however, you do owe them a duty. Specifically, you owe them a duty not to make the situation worse (Horsey and Rackley, Tort Law , 3rd ed., OUP 2013, p. 75). The specific situation Horsey and Rackley give is that of resuscitating a drowning child and breaking a rib as you do so: this may be 'making the situation worse' (Horsey and Rackley, pp. 75-76). Does this mean that you'll be liable if you give someone first aid and in doing so, you make the situation worse? Not necessarily, because, as Horsey and Rackley point out, duty is different to liability. Using the drowning child example again, they state: So, for example, while someone who intervenes may owe a duty not to make the situation worse, their actions would still be judged against those of a 'reasonable person' in the circumstances (and so if a reasonable person would have tried to resuscitate the child in the same way, there will be no breach of their duty and therefore no liability to pay compensation.) (p.76) The 'reasonable person' standard corresponds to what you mentioned in the question about lack of expertise. If a doctor intervenes in such a situation, the standard of care they'd be expected to give would be higher than, say, for someone who's simply done a basic first aid course. The question is whether or not you've acted as the reasonable person in your situation would have done. On that basis, then, your tutor is pretty much correct: so long as you take such care as is reasonable based on your expertise, or lack thereof, then under English and Welsh law, you're unlikely to be liable.

Is there a legal risk in giving emergency first aid?

There is a commonly held belief that an unqualified member of the public takes a legal risk in giving emergency first aid in case the patient dies or is injured as a result. This theory invariably refers to some unnamed US case where a passer-by attempted CPR on the victim of a heart attack, was unsuccessful, and was sued as a result. This came up on a first aid course I attended, and the tutor was fairly certain that the risk is very small if the passer-by takes such care as is reasonable given the lack of expertise. Was the tutor correct? I'd be interested in views from other jurisdictions, but my main interest is the position in the UK.

This question is covered by the so-called Good Samaritan Laws. These vary from country to country, and within the United States, from state to state. Generally, a "qualified" (that is formally trained or professionalized) person in a given area is protected by such laws. In some juridisctions, mere "good intentions" does not protect a caregiver from being sued, especially if such care was rendered negligently, or by a patently unqualified person.

Is there a legal risk in giving emergency first aid?

There is a commonly held belief that an unqualified member of the public takes a legal risk in giving emergency first aid in case the patient dies or is injured as a result. This theory invariably refers to some unnamed US case where a passer-by attempted CPR on the victim of a heart attack, was unsuccessful, and was sued as a result. This came up on a first aid course I attended, and the tutor was fairly certain that the risk is very small if the passer-by takes such care as is reasonable given the lack of expertise. Was the tutor correct? I'd be interested in views from other jurisdictions, but my main interest is the position in the UK.

In Germany, there is legal obligation to give first aid as well as helping in other emergencies ( §323c STGB ), failure to render assistance is fined by imprisonment for 1 year maximum. However, this obligation becomes invalid if it would endanger the helper (you don't have to try to rescue someone from drowning if you can't swim), or if this would break other commitments (an ambulance that carries a dying patient to hospital does not have to stop for an accident, or if you're looking after infants, and leaving them alone to give first aid would endanger the infants, you're not obliged to give first aid). But you do have to call the emergency number, or make others aware of the situation and ask them to help. This site also states: You are protected from damage claims by the victim unless you act in gross negligence or wilfully; missing knowledge doesn't count as gross negligence If you break other laws in order to protect higher legal objectives, you're excempt from punishment; for example, you may break a window of a car in summer if a child in that car is in danger of dehydration, or you may break a window/door to enter a house if needed to get to a telephone If the injured person rejects your help, you have to honor their decision. However, if someone is unconscious, you may assume they agree to you helping, even if they rejected before, because their condition has declined, and the rejection related to their former, better condition.

Is there a legal risk in giving emergency first aid?

There is a commonly held belief that an unqualified member of the public takes a legal risk in giving emergency first aid in case the patient dies or is injured as a result. This theory invariably refers to some unnamed US case where a passer-by attempted CPR on the victim of a heart attack, was unsuccessful, and was sued as a result. This came up on a first aid course I attended, and the tutor was fairly certain that the risk is very small if the passer-by takes such care as is reasonable given the lack of expertise. Was the tutor correct? I'd be interested in views from other jurisdictions, but my main interest is the position in the UK.

In the Czech Republic, the crime of causing death by negligence (or causing severe wounds by negligence) applies to giving first aid as well and can cause you to be sentenced to jail (however, the crime has a relatively light penalty and the punishent is pretty much always a suspended sentence ). There are no Good Samaritan Laws here. However, I don't think anyone was ever even brought to court for badly administering first aid. A leader of an emergency dispatch department wrote up an article about this topic (Czech only). The relevant parts are: One should not be afraid of "legal problems" when giving first aid - if one acts proportionately. [...] If we evidently try to save a life, there is nothing to lose and nobody can reproach this of us - legally or morally. Problems could maybe occur in the case of giving "first aid" by force or against the will of the patient. [...] Thus, the rescuer cannot be guaranteed full immunity in case he commits a mistake, but such a mistake would have to be clearly damaging and, additionally, obvious to a layman. This author does not know of any case, in which a person would be sentenced for this and [...] it's very difficult to imagine any kind of legal responsibility in connection with giving first aid. On the other hand, if you are an on-duty medical professional, you may very well be responsible (even criminally) when you make a mistake.

Is there a legal risk in giving emergency first aid?

There is a commonly held belief that an unqualified member of the public takes a legal risk in giving emergency first aid in case the patient dies or is injured as a result. This theory invariably refers to some unnamed US case where a passer-by attempted CPR on the victim of a heart attack, was unsuccessful, and was sued as a result. This came up on a first aid course I attended, and the tutor was fairly certain that the risk is very small if the passer-by takes such care as is reasonable given the lack of expertise. Was the tutor correct? I'd be interested in views from other jurisdictions, but my main interest is the position in the UK.

No health care professional has ever been successfully sued in the UK when intervening in an unexpected emergency, lacking a prior relationship with the patient, even when it is alleged he has made the situation worse. ...very few cases have arisen in which a [Health Care Professional] of any discipline has been sued for attending and rendering medical Samaritan assistance to a victim---and even more strikingly, the author's searches have revealed no cases in which liability has been successfully made out against a [Health Care Professional] in these circumstances in England, Canada, or Australia to date. Good Samaritan Liability It is difficult to imagine that a non-professional could be held to a higher standard, but I confess I have been unable to find much in the way of definitive, modern case law on the topic.

Can a doctor make you pay for something you didn't explicitly agree to pay for?

Note: this is a real example, but I don't care nearly enough to fight it; I ask purely out of curiosity. I was at the dentist and I had a few cavities filled in. My understanding from what was explained to me is that 2 of them were filled with white, and 2 with silver; insurance covers 80% of silver, but 0% of white. The dentist never mentioned that there were options, and never mentioned that the options cost different amounts of money. For that matter, I never explicitly agreed to pay for anything. What makes a medical fee enforceable? Edit: I could understand situations where the patient is incapable of communicating/deciding, but nevertheless needs urgent treatment, and how in a situation like that the patient would get the treatment and subsequently be responsible for paying.

You sat in the chair, you agreed to the treatment. By doing so you implicitly agreed to pay the dentist his fee. Now, the price was not agreed beforehand so the exact amount is subject to negotiation. This negotiation is usually best pursued when you have the fillings in your teeth and the money still in your wallet - this is called "leverage". The amount that your insurer reimburses you is a matter entirely independent of how much you pay your dentist. However, the difference in your ability to recover the costs are a valid point to raise in your negotiation.

Under what circumstances do you need a business license?

Specifically, what does it mean to be "operating a business"? I started an LLC in Delaware, but write software to power my company from my home and while I travel across the country. Do I need to get a business license in my home state and locality? Do I also need it in any state I travel to where I work on my company? We have no storefront, but are about to begin a nation wide mail order operation. Do I need a license in each state a customer could order from?

There's a strong argument the LLC won't need to obtain a business license in each state you are making sales into. And these days, you don't need a physical location and may still be required to obtain a business license. However, there are several variables at play which are state-dependent; such as what your home state is, what state you're incorporated in (which we already know), and what states you are selling into . For example: If you were incorporated in Delaware, your home state is New York, and selling $250k of software into Illinois; the LLC may need to obtain a business license in each of these states. A general rule of thumb would be to obtain a license in: State of Incorporation State of Domicile State where the LLC has any employees State where the LLC makes substantial sales into (e.g., over $250 or $500k per year) The question really is one of "nexus," and most states define it differently. If you reach nexus in a state that requires you to pay income tax in such a state, then you may be required to obtain a license. Some examples of states with a rather low nexus threshold that requires licensure is Nevada and New Mexico. Note : You'll likely be responsible for collecting/remitting sales tax as well as paying income tax on income you've earned in several states.

Under what circumstances do you need a business license?

Specifically, what does it mean to be "operating a business"? I started an LLC in Delaware, but write software to power my company from my home and while I travel across the country. Do I need to get a business license in my home state and locality? Do I also need it in any state I travel to where I work on my company? We have no storefront, but are about to begin a nation wide mail order operation. Do I need a license in each state a customer could order from?

If you're personally a resident of Dalaware, then you're all good. Otherwise, if you're personally a resident of another state, and some other resident in such state decides to sue your company after dealing with you as its agent, then you might not enjoy the LLC protections of your company and face personal responsibility in any such lawsuit, unless you register your company with your home state of residence as a foreign corporation. (Which is one of the reasons why incorporating in Delaware should not be advised for everyone.) If you do a nationwide mail order operation, then, depending on your state, you might be required to collect the sales tax for orders shipped within the states where you have a nexus in (as Delaware has no sales tax, this would mean that you'd only have to collect the sales tax in your home state).

Leased apartment changed management. Is requiring in-person payment unreasonable?

I live in a college town in California with a leased apartment. On June 26th, a noticed (in paper) was posted on our doors that the apartment complexes have been sold, effective immediately. Part of the notice says, "Rent payments are to be made to the onsite management office." My single housemate currently in the apartment has confirmed that this means we must pay in-person at the office. Given that we only got 5 days notice (rent is due at the end of the month), is it unreasonable to require us to pay in-person? Our other housemates are all 100+ miles away and expected to be able to pay online. Our request for an extension until the online payment system comes up (estimated sometime next month) was denied. Basically, has the new management broken any laws (or reasonable expectations or such) by requiring in-person payment with 5 days notice? Hypothetically, none of the people on the lease could have been onsite and we would have not known about the ownership change. Moreover, we would have expected to be able to pay online.

You can read about your rights as a California tenant at http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/catenant.pdf This is rather ridiculous: 1) No judge will evict someone for paying rent by mail. (I assume you have the new landlord's address.) 2) If the landlord cashes the check you mail then he's not going to be able to claim you didn't pay the rent. If he actually refuses to cash your mailed check then that's all to the good for you. 3) You can ignore any requirements imposed by the new landlord that aren't in the lease, just as the landlord could ignore any new requirement imposed on him by you. Even some terms in a lease can be ignored, because not all terms in a contract are legal. (This is especially the case in tenant-landlord law.) If you think there will be trouble then use certified mail.

Leased apartment changed management. Is requiring in-person payment unreasonable?

I live in a college town in California with a leased apartment. On June 26th, a noticed (in paper) was posted on our doors that the apartment complexes have been sold, effective immediately. Part of the notice says, "Rent payments are to be made to the onsite management office." My single housemate currently in the apartment has confirmed that this means we must pay in-person at the office. Given that we only got 5 days notice (rent is due at the end of the month), is it unreasonable to require us to pay in-person? Our other housemates are all 100+ miles away and expected to be able to pay online. Our request for an extension until the online payment system comes up (estimated sometime next month) was denied. Basically, has the new management broken any laws (or reasonable expectations or such) by requiring in-person payment with 5 days notice? Hypothetically, none of the people on the lease could have been onsite and we would have not known about the ownership change. Moreover, we would have expected to be able to pay online.

First and foremost, what does the lease agreement say. This is a binding contract and generally cannot be changed unilaterally. There are two issues here that need to be determined: Can, and if so how, the lease be transferred to a new landlord. Almost certainly the lease will address this issue and the new landlord must comply with these provisions There will almost certainly be provisions in the lease that detail when and how the rent is to be paid. The new landlord must comply with these. So, either what they are doing is within the scope of the lease and you would be very wise to comply if you want to keep living there. Or it isn't and you would still be wise to comply because who, frankly, wants to start their relationship with a new landlord with an argument. Since the other tenants have the ability to make online payments they can just transfer the money to the person who is on site and that person can pay the rent in person. I assume there is a sufficient level of trust between the housemates for this. If you cannot comply and the landlord has not complied then draft a letter pointing out their non-compliance and explaining your circumstances and when and how you will pay. - they are unlikely to evict you in these circumstances. If you cannot comply and the landlord has then you need to consider if the terms of the contract are within the laws of your jurisdiction - they probably are and its probably not worth going to court to find out. In theses circumstances again write a similar letter without pointing the finger. Any action the landlord then takes could be defended as being unconscionable - maybe. I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer.

Is an employer required to tell you why they withdrew an offer based on a background check?

A friend recently received two job offers. He accepted one and rejected the other. The employer he accepted subsequently withdrew the offer because of what came up during a background check. He has asked the employer for the substance of the background check that was grounds for withdrawing the offer, but has not received any response. Is there any requirement that this information be shared, since it was the basis for terminating a contract? Furthermore, if one rejects an offer to accept another, does the withdrawal of the other offer constitute a tort, e.g., violation of promissory estoppal?

Anyone who uses a credit report or another type of consumer report to deny your application for credit, insurance, or employment – or to take another adverse action against you – must tell you, and must give you the name, address, and phone number of the agency that provided the information. Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act Read some more of that document. It tells you that you have a right to see your file. It also tells you who to contact. Promissory estoppel is not something that is violated. It's a legal doctrine which can help enforce a promise made in the absence of a contract. Without more facts it's impossible to predict if promissory estoppel can help your friend. And if there aren't more facts it's unlikely that PE will help as this appears to be a routine job offer contingent on a background check. Now, the action based on a background check might be interesting especially if your friend is a member of a protected class. You can read more about this in the document I linked to.

Is an employer required to tell you why they withdrew an offer based on a background check?

A friend recently received two job offers. He accepted one and rejected the other. The employer he accepted subsequently withdrew the offer because of what came up during a background check. He has asked the employer for the substance of the background check that was grounds for withdrawing the offer, but has not received any response. Is there any requirement that this information be shared, since it was the basis for terminating a contract? Furthermore, if one rejects an offer to accept another, does the withdrawal of the other offer constitute a tort, e.g., violation of promissory estoppal?

There are potentially two different circumstances here: Contract If the employer made an unconditional offer which the employee accepted then there is a contract of employment and the employer must then terminate it in accordance with the relevant employment law. This may or may not include things like notice periods, severance pay and having just reasons (which may require divulging those reasons) - all of these are highly jurisdiction specific. No contract Alternatively, if the offer was conditional on the background check then no contract was created and there is no requirement to show you the report but must give you the contact details of the agency who are required to show it to you and amend it if it is wrong.

Working after-hours and in weekends in Germany

I recently heard that in 2013, Germany banned out-of-hours working. This article says: Germany's employment ministry has banned its managers from calling or emailing staff out of hours except in emergencies, under new guidelines intended to prevent employees from burning out. As a PhD-student, I've got several deadlines throughout the year and sometimes I need to work after the regular working hours and in the weekends. I could work at home, but I am always more productive at my workplace. The thing is, no one is asking me to stay, I am staying out of my pure will. I can simply tell my supervisors that I am not willing to consider the following conference deadline and they would not mind it, it's my decision. Would it still be illegal if I spend extra time at work or go on weekends? Although I have the status of a student, "PhD student" in Germany (and many places in Europe) is a paid job. Your employer could be the institute/university, or you could be funded through a scholarship.

I think you are misinterpreting what the article is saying. It's not Germany as a whole that is banning managers contacting employees (and since you are not a manager, this wouldn't affect you anyway), it is the German ministry of Employment banning it for its employees . When it comes to your own workplace, you will need to look at your own contract and see whether you are allowed to work on the weekend without, for example, getting extra money for that work. This is probably not the case for you as a PhD student, but if it is, you would usually need to talk to your employer before doing work on the weekends.

Are there any limits on the crimes a corporation can be convicted of?

In the United States, a corporation can be convicted of criminal offenses ( example ). Can corporations be charged with any criminal offense, or are there some that cannot apply to anything except a human being? I'm interested in formal limits established by statute, caselaw saying a corporation can't satisfy the elements of certain crimes, and/or practical considerations making it essentially impossible to convict them of some kind of crime. While I'm especially interested in the US, I'd also be interested in other countries.

This answer assumes Europe as jurisdiction, not the United States. This will vary wildly across jurisdictions, but given that this question is unanswered for two weeks now, I will provide an answer for Europe, specifically the Czech Republic. It will be somewhat different in other states. First, the list of criminal offenses a corporation can commit is specified in the law. It is exactly that, a list. Of the 300 crimes an individual can commit here, about 100 of them can also be done by a corporation. It is hard to discover why these hundred crimes were chosen specifically. Logic used to make this list eludes me. For example, a corporation can commit Rape , but not Murder . It can commit a Terrorist attack but not Terror . It can commit Threatening a public official but not Oppression . I looked through the explanatory notes for the law and I discoved the reason: Strictly only those crimes were created for corporations that were required by higher european law, which only moves the question higher up. I did not look up what the European Parliament had to say about this. There is one crime that was added specifically, later on, to the list, and that is Usury . In principle, all crimes committed by an individual can be done by a corporation, because a crime is considered to be committed by a corporation if the action is done by an employee in the name of the corporation.

Are there any limits on the crimes a corporation can be convicted of?

In the United States, a corporation can be convicted of criminal offenses ( example ). Can corporations be charged with any criminal offense, or are there some that cannot apply to anything except a human being? I'm interested in formal limits established by statute, caselaw saying a corporation can't satisfy the elements of certain crimes, and/or practical considerations making it essentially impossible to convict them of some kind of crime. While I'm especially interested in the US, I'd also be interested in other countries.

Since we have an answer for the Czech Republic, let me provide an answer for England and Wales. First, corporations as a rule should not be treated differently to natural persons. A company is a legal person, capable of being prosecuted, and should not be treated differently from an individual because of its artificial personality. [This is from the official guidance of the Crown Prosecution Service, the public prosecutor in England and Wales.] http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_prosecutions/#a02 However, a corporation is different to a natural person in two ways. First, it is only capable of acting through its agents—directors, employees, shareholders and so on. So the corporation can only be guilty in the sense that a crime is committed by a natural person on its behalf. But then you have the question, when is a person acting on behalf of a corporation, and when is a person acting as a private individual? So, for some crimes, it is a clear defence for the corporation to say, "the person was not acting on behalf of the corporation". A company cannot be criminally liable for offences which cannot be committed by an official of a company in the scope of their employment, for example rape. Second, the corporation cannot be sent to prison, it can only be fined. So if an offence requires a custodial sentence, it cannot (in common law) be committed by the body corporate. The offence must be punishable with a fine (this excludes murder, treason, piracy). http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_prosecutions/#a05 In some cases it has been felt desirable that a corporation should be punished for manslaughter and other serious crimes perpetuated by its agents. Parliament has acted to create a specific offence of corporate manslaughter. No doubt other jurisdictions have similar provisions. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/19/section/1?view=plain I would imagine that many States in the United States apply similar principles.

Are there any limits on the crimes a corporation can be convicted of?

In the United States, a corporation can be convicted of criminal offenses ( example ). Can corporations be charged with any criminal offense, or are there some that cannot apply to anything except a human being? I'm interested in formal limits established by statute, caselaw saying a corporation can't satisfy the elements of certain crimes, and/or practical considerations making it essentially impossible to convict them of some kind of crime. While I'm especially interested in the US, I'd also be interested in other countries.

In the United States, a defendant can only be convicted of a crime if they meet certain mens rea requirements. There are some crimes that do not have this requirement, but they are required to be less serious crimes. A corporation has no mind. It therefore cannot have a "guilty mind" required for the mens rea requirement. We have therefore developed two ways of holding corporations liable for bad acts. These theories are not uniformly adopted. There are a series of department of justice memos (see, e.g., the McNulty Memo ) establishing the federal government's approach to this issue, but remember the DOJ doesn't make law and so it is up to courts to determine if they "buy" the approaches used by the DOJ (or other prosecuting entities). The first theory is one of respondeat superior . It holds basically that the corporation can be held liable as employer for the bad acts of its employees. This theory is highly constrained, since at common law we usually don't hold a real person employer liable for crimes of their employees (only for torts). The second theory is a "legal fiction" of consciousness. We simply determine that if one or many managers are aware of an act, that the corporation is deemed to have the relevant awareness. This gets even more "fictional" for crimes where the mens rea is not mere knowledge but purpose. A third possibility involves holding the corporate entity liable for "aiding" or "conspiring" or "soliciting" the commission of a crime. This approach is troubled because traditionally one can only be found to have "conspired" if one had a certain mens rea so this doesn't really resolve the problem. To address your exact question: Corporations can be convicted of any crime so long as they have the relevant mens rea and performed the actus reus causing the harm. So there are not "limits" on the crimes they can be convicted of in any hard sense; it's just very challenging to satisfy the mens rea requirement in any non-fictional sense and this has lead courts to be very reluctant in applying criminal sanctions. In practice this has meant that corporations are mostly prosecuted for conduct that relates to business in some commonsense way. But this isn't always the case. For example, FedEx was indicted for smuggling controlled substances and in some ways treated like an ordinary drug dealer might be.

Under what principles can one be sued for not obeying a clickwrap contract they never signed?

Many software packages come with a EULA which uses claims such as "by opening this package you hereby agree to ... (some laws going far beyond classical copyright)". Now, what happens if your friend opens the package and installs it on his computer, and I would use the software not in a way permitted by the EULA. For example, I decompile someone's code which they prohibit by EULA. Under what grounds can I be sued? I never agreed to the EULA so it's not contract violation.

It's a contract violation if you're under the EULA. It may be a contract of adhesion , but such "clickwrap" contracts been found to be acceptable and enforceable in software EULAs out of necessity. However, there may be some limits . If you're not under the EULA, as you argue, then you lack a license to use the software at all and it's an outright copyright violation and/or a theft or misappropriation of the software. Whether or not you can be sued depends in part on what you do with it — if you don't release the material or otherwise cause damages then there's not much to sue for... Added for clarification: to answer the framing question, supposing neither contract or copyright applied, one could be sued in tort or in equity (i.e. for unjust enrichment).

Under what principles can one be sued for not obeying a clickwrap contract they never signed?

Many software packages come with a EULA which uses claims such as "by opening this package you hereby agree to ... (some laws going far beyond classical copyright)". Now, what happens if your friend opens the package and installs it on his computer, and I would use the software not in a way permitted by the EULA. For example, I decompile someone's code which they prohibit by EULA. Under what grounds can I be sued? I never agreed to the EULA so it's not contract violation.

Under the circumstances you describe, the friend who installed the software is unambiguously subject to the EULA. The EULA presumably includes a provision prohibiting your friend from letting you use it, much less reverse engineer it. Therefore, your friend is in violation of the license agreement and will be liable for any resulting damages. If you caused the damage, you may, depending on the circumstances, be liable in turn to indemnify your friend for the damages.

Is displaying Open Source License Acknowledgments legally mandatory?

When a piece of software explicitly requires that their open source license acknowledgments be included in derivative software (software that uses the open source software), is this a legally enforceable requirement? According to this blog post it is, but let's look at an example. PayPal have an open source project, card.io , that third-party mobile app developers can use for scanning credit cards in their apps. They state : Add card.io's open source license acknowledgments to your app's acknowledgments. However, when I downloaded apps that use this project (Uber, PayPay itself, TaskRabbit, EAT24, grubHub, etc.), in some cases I found that they had a section on software licenses, however I did not find the license acknowledgments for card.io inside any of the apps (Uber is a good example of this). What are the legal ramifications of not including the license acknowledgments in a visible part of the app (let's say it's a banking app here)?

When a piece of software explicitly requires that their open source license acknowledgments be included in derivative software (software that uses the open source software), is this a legally enforceable requirement? Yes What are the legal ramifications of not including the license acknowledgments in a visible part of the app (let's say it's a banking app here)? That would depend on if it was a requirement that the acknowledgement be publically accessible; it may be buried in a copyright notice in the source code. Remember, Copyright in software resides in the code, images and displays as "literary" works - algorithms are not subject to copyright. If the person has breached the copyright licence then the copyright holder can take action against them. Normally such action would be a request to comply with the license followed by a cease and desist order. In this case what action they want to take is up to PayPal or the copyright holder who granted the licence to them.

Is displaying Open Source License Acknowledgments legally mandatory?

When a piece of software explicitly requires that their open source license acknowledgments be included in derivative software (software that uses the open source software), is this a legally enforceable requirement? According to this blog post it is, but let's look at an example. PayPal have an open source project, card.io , that third-party mobile app developers can use for scanning credit cards in their apps. They state : Add card.io's open source license acknowledgments to your app's acknowledgments. However, when I downloaded apps that use this project (Uber, PayPay itself, TaskRabbit, EAT24, grubHub, etc.), in some cases I found that they had a section on software licenses, however I did not find the license acknowledgments for card.io inside any of the apps (Uber is a good example of this). What are the legal ramifications of not including the license acknowledgments in a visible part of the app (let's say it's a banking app here)?

If the copyright holder states "you have the right to create derivative works of my software if you do X, Y and Z", and you don't do X, Y and Z, then creating a derivative work is copyright infringement. The copyright holder can sue you for copyright infringement. The copyright holder cannot force you to do X, Y and Z. They can give you a hint that they wouldn't sue you for copyright infringement if you do X, Y and Z and that may be "an offer you cannot refuse". You can not tell the court "I want to pay damages for breach of contract for not doing X, Y and Z" if that is cheaper. Say the license was "you can create a derivative work if you donate $10 to the Red Cross" you can't say the damage is just $10. You were offered a license for the cost of $10, you didn't take it, that's your own fault. You pay for copyright infringement.

Is a license necessary to produce patented inventions?

Say I am a malicious CEO of Company A which has patented one of our products. At a later point in time, I then publicly give verbal permission to Company B to produce this product. (Permission is not given over any other avenue of communication) After Company B has made a fortune off of our product, would I be on good grounds for infringement? Does it change if I have given them written permission but not filled out a licensing agreement? In short, can I use anything besides a licensing agreement to give permission to produce a patented product ? If the answer is different from country to country, then assume we are talking about US law.

You say the permission was "public", therefore I am going to assume that it cannot be argued that there was no agreement. There are two possibilities: If Company B has given consideration for the promise then there is a binding contract and Company A may be able to end it but could not seek redress for when it was in place. If there is no contract then the principle of promissory estoppel should have essentially the same effect. An agreement, including an IP licence, does not have to be in writing nor does it have to have any particular form.

Can you present a clear record if you do Driver Safety Course in Texas?

It appears that speeding tickets in Texas, or at least most metropolitan areas, for example, Austin, Texas , have a standard option of a Driving Safety Course , which is allowed once a year, and will let you dismiss a speeding charge, supposedly without any record, and pay a reduced fine, all whilst pleading no-contest to the citation. What if you do that, just to spare the headache of a trial, even if you truly think you didn't drive unsafely at all? If it so happens that you are selected by traffic police again to fill the coffers of a municipality, would you be able to raise an affirmative defense, and bring your spotless driving record into the picture ?

After one takes a Driving Safety Course in Texas, a record of such is placed on the driver licence. However, the course is required not only for dismissing the tickets, but is also available for some sort of extra insurance discounts, too. As such, it would indeed appear that one could still claim to have a clean record, even with the presence of the course on the record. (As per the notion of not creating prejudice, I would think that the prosecutor would not be allowed to dispute such statement in front of a jury , nor to explain the exhaustive list of reasons that the record might originate from. Voir dire would likewise be a separate question in such circumstance.) P. S. Additionally, it's explicitly not allowed to be used for adverse actions, as per http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.45.htm#45.0511 Art. 45.0511. DRIVING SAFETY COURSE OR MOTORCYCLE OPERATOR COURSE DISMISSAL PROCEDURES. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (a-1), this article applies only to an alleged offense that: ... (n) A charge that is dismissed under this article may not be part of a person's driving record or used for any purpose. (o) An insurer delivering or issuing for delivery a motor vehicle insurance policy in this state may not cancel or increase the premium charged an insured under the policy because the insured completed a driving safety course or a motorcycle operator training course, or had a charge dismissed under this article.

Should a foreigner have a US-based company to sell through Amazon cloud-based warehouses?

Let's borrow and expand on Can a foreigner setup an unstaffed company in United States? . Everyone knows that you can rent computing resources from Amazon.com in the cloud, but not many know that they also offer their physical warehouse and shipping facilities as a service, too, visible to the end-customers as Fulfilled by Amazon . What would be the appropriate legal structure for a foreigner from Hong Kong to sell products from China through the U.S. warehouses of Amazon to the U.S. customers? Do they have to setup an unstaffed US company, or a would a subsidiary in their own country suffice?

A Google search for foreign company fulfilled by amazon returned these pages: Amazon.com Help: FBA International Taxes and regulations: U.S. | Amazon Global Selling Amazon.com Help: Delivering Imports to Amazon The gist is that non-resident sellers have to do at least the following to sell to U.S. customers on FBA: Not be located in a country subject to a comprehensive embargo. Have staff with enough English proficiency to understand contracts. Identify itself to the Internal Revenue Service, an agency of the U.S. Treasury, by providing Form W-8BEN to Amazon during seller account registration. Research which goods are subject to import duties, using information provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on its website. Hire a customs broker in the port city and grant it power of attorney to handle certain documents. These are listed on CBP's website. Amazon's designated customs broker is Samuel Shapiro and Company, and major international express couriers (DHL, FedEx, and UPS) may also provide this service. Have your customs broker obtain an import entry bond. Obtain an importer number from the port where your goods enter the U.S. using CBP Form 5106. Your customs broker may help you with this. Ensure that you have the rights under copyright, patent, and trademark law to sell this product in the U.S. Do not attempt to import counterfeit products. Several things may make a product illegal to sell in the U.S., despite it being legal in your own country. Examples include a copyright or trademark license that is territorially limited, a copyright on an underlying work that has expired in your country but not under the U.S.'s 95 year rule for pre-1978 or corporate authored works, or a U.S. patent that has no counterpart in your country, especially a software patent. Ensure that the product is not otherwise a prohibited import, such as a dangerous food or toy or a controlled drug. Again, CBP's website is authoritative. Pay all applicable duties in advance of shipment. There is nothing about having to start a U.S.-resident subsidiary, though a business may choose to do so for other reasons related to anticipated growth of the company's U.S. operations.

How can a database derived from copyrighted works be public domain?

I've been using the website RefractiveIndex.INFO to get some optical constants for a physics project. It seems like all the graphs reference a book or some source for the data they contain. For example, the most popular one would probably be for water ( located here ), which references G. M. Hale and M. R. Querry. Optical Constants of Water in the 200-nm to 200-µm Wavelength Region, Appl. Opt. 12, 555-563 (1973) . When I read about the database here , the author says that he has released the database to the public domain. How can he do that if the data in this database is not really his own? Also this leaves me unsure exactly how to cite the source. It feels odd to not include the authors of the actual data.

At least in the United States (and I'm pretty sure this is true around the world), facts and information cannot be copyrighted. Just because a work is copyrighted, doesn't mean every part of that work is copyrighted, and factual information conveyed by the work is a part which is not subject to copyright. Copyright on a collection of facts is limited to the selection and arrangement of those facts, and only if that selection and arrangement has some bare minimum amount of originality. See Feist v. Rural , 499 U.S. 340. In this case, it looks at first glance like the person who made that site made their own selection of which materials and which sources would be included; the one place where they really seem to have copied their selection is from glass catalogs with datasheets from specific manufacturers, who would have a hard time arguing that "everything we manufacture in this widely-recognized class of substances" is an original selection. What the author of the website has done is relinquish his rights in his selection and arrangement of the data. In some places, there are other rights besides copyright that do apply to databases; for instance, the EU recognizes database rights to protect significant investment in compiling a database of stuff. But the US does not have that concept. For citing stuff, that's not really a legal question, and has more to do with academic standards. Ask your adviser or teacher if you have one.

How can a database derived from copyrighted works be public domain?

I've been using the website RefractiveIndex.INFO to get some optical constants for a physics project. It seems like all the graphs reference a book or some source for the data they contain. For example, the most popular one would probably be for water ( located here ), which references G. M. Hale and M. R. Querry. Optical Constants of Water in the 200-nm to 200-µm Wavelength Region, Appl. Opt. 12, 555-563 (1973) . When I read about the database here , the author says that he has released the database to the public domain. How can he do that if the data in this database is not really his own? Also this leaves me unsure exactly how to cite the source. It feels odd to not include the authors of the actual data.

Although a paper containing experimental data can be copyrighted, the data itself can not. As for citing the original publication, it is completely up to you. It is not uncommon to cite a handbook or database containing a compilation of data from hundreds of sources rather than the original works.

Can one publish an assignment completed during a hiring process?

Say a company gives a week long assignment during the hiring process of a Software Engineer role and ask for the project´s codebase to remain private. Can they morally and legally ask to keep that private? Who has right / ownership of this project?

Answer If you agreed to keep it private, you are bound to do so. Sources This answer pulls information from the following sources regarding the enforceability of non-disclosure agreements. Info Law Group Quora Early Growth Financial Services IP Nexus Bright Journey iBiblio NDAs are enforceable Non-Disclosure Agreements and Confidentiality Agreements are common elements of the hiring process. It would not be unusual if they required you to sign one in consideration for an interview. If you signed one, you should consider it a binding contract and absolutely enforceable. Project Ownership Regarding project ownership. If the employer had an existing codebase and asked you to contribute to it in exchange for being considered for a job opening, they would own the project, the code and the work product you contributed. Caveat for Fraud All this assumes an actual job exists and they are not tricking you just to get free labor. If they are, then that would be fraud and contracts are not enforceable if their is "fraud in the inducement." Disclaimer : I am not an attorney. I am not your attorney. Do not follow my advice. Hire a real attorney. Never take legal advice from strangers on the internet. Treat my answer and every answer on this site just like you would advice from a bunch of drunks at a bar — all of whom received their "legal educations" from watching episodes of The Practice, Boston Legal and Ally McBeal.

Can one publish an assignment completed during a hiring process?

Say a company gives a week long assignment during the hiring process of a Software Engineer role and ask for the project´s codebase to remain private. Can they morally and legally ask to keep that private? Who has right / ownership of this project?

It depends on what the explicit agreement was but generally speaking based on the facts you've given yes they can ask for it to remain private. In consideration for being a job candidate you agreed to do work and keep the work private. Their half of the contract was to evaluate you as a job candidate and your half was to do the work and keep it private. Did the other party fulfill their part?

2 speeding tickets or just 1 for driving a long distance above limit and being caught in 2 radars?

This question originated from a recent action taken by the Highway Patrol in Brazil to catch speeders who slow down only when close to static speed radars and then speed up again. They wanted to catch speeders by placing one extra portable speed radar close (a few kilometers apart) to the other. Besides catching speeders on the second radar what eventually happened is that some speeders received 2 speeding tickets (1 from the static radar and 1 from the portable one) and that's the point of my question: if you are driving above the limit and keep that speed for a long distance, is that 1 violation of the law or 2? Getting 2 tickets for 1 law violation might be considered a double punishment? If the idea of getting 2 tickets is OK, at which point ended the first speeding and started the second? I specifically mentioned Brazil in my question, but this question is wide enough to be applied in other countries. Those answers are welcome too.

In the UK, s28(4) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 states that Where a person is convicted (whether on the same occasion or not) of two or more offences committed on the same occasion and involving obligatory endorsement, the total number of penalty points to be attributed to them is the number or highest number that would be attributed on a conviction of one of them (so that if the convictions are on different occasions the number of penalty points to be attributed to the offences on the later occasion or occasions shall be restricted accordingly). In other words, if you commit two or more offences 'on the same occasion', a court will only award penalty points attributable to the offence attracting the most points. 'On the same occasion' is interpreted by the court. I'm not aware of any case law on this point, so a court will be able to apply its discretion. Note that this only applies to the penalty point aspect of the sentence : the convictions will all stand, and any fines awarded as a result are not subject to the same rule. Of course the police may use their own discretion and charge a subset of the offences actually detected. A short glossary endorsement means that the offender's licence will be 'endorsed' with a number of penalty points. penalty points are recorded on the driver's record at DVSA and expire after a number of years, depending on why they were awarded. A minor speeding offence will normally attract three points which last four years. Receiving twelve points within three years normally results in an automatic twelve-month ban; newly licensed drivers can have their licence revoked on reaching six points.

Is a speeding ticket invalid if the listed speed is not what it was?

I recall reading about speeding ticket defenses in some jurisdiction in the United States or Canada that the fact that the officer "reduced" the alleged speed that he obtained through his radar and such, invalidates the whole ticket. (Which is probably one of the reasons that the officers never negotiate what number they put on the ticket.) E.g., if the traffic citation says you were going 80 in a 70 zone on an interstate, but, it turns out, the officer does have evidence from his laser that you were going 85 instead, then the ticket is invalid and should be dismissed by the judge as improper. (Would it matter if, for example, the officer did have another reading at exactly 80? Or if he has also followed you bumper-to-bumper for a couple of seconds at the speed of, say, 75, or 78?) Could anyone possibly find any reference or confirmation of this? Would something like this be applicable in Texas?

Here is a link to the relevant Texas Statute: Title 7, Subtitle C, Chapter 545, Subchapter A : Sec. 545.351. MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT. (a) An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing. Combine that with: Sec. 545.352. PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS. (a) A speed in excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another provision of this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful. This section mentions, as an example, among other points: (2) except as provided by Subdivision (4), 70 miles per hour on a highway numbered by this state or the United States outside an urban district, including a farm-to-market or ranch-to-market road; What this means is that if you are driving over 70 miles per hour on a type of highway mentioned in (2) above then you are, by legal definition, driving at a speed that is greater than is reasonable and prudent. When you are cited for speeding you are not charged for driving at a specific speed in an area posted at another speed. You are cited for violating a broader law, such as in Texas, driving in an unreasonable or imprudent manner. The mention of the speed is merely a recordation of the facts that support the state's case against you. Let's take the proposal to demonstrate the speed is too low to its logical conclusion. You plead not guilty and it comes out during testimony that you weren't driving 80 but really 85. The judge will still find you guilty of the underlying charge as the facts in the case still support that finding. I have personally witnessed mistakes in tickets result in dismissal. Those mistakes have, however, been related to other facts about the case though: time of day, date of offense, etc. I've also witnessed people attempt to claim a lower but still illegal speed. For example, "I wasn't going 85 I was only going 80." These resulted in findings of guilt.

Is a speeding ticket invalid if the listed speed is not what it was?

I recall reading about speeding ticket defenses in some jurisdiction in the United States or Canada that the fact that the officer "reduced" the alleged speed that he obtained through his radar and such, invalidates the whole ticket. (Which is probably one of the reasons that the officers never negotiate what number they put on the ticket.) E.g., if the traffic citation says you were going 80 in a 70 zone on an interstate, but, it turns out, the officer does have evidence from his laser that you were going 85 instead, then the ticket is invalid and should be dismissed by the judge as improper. (Would it matter if, for example, the officer did have another reading at exactly 80? Or if he has also followed you bumper-to-bumper for a couple of seconds at the speed of, say, 75, or 78?) Could anyone possibly find any reference or confirmation of this? Would something like this be applicable in Texas?

I've never heard of reducing the speed making the ticket invalid. In fact, many jurisdictions will amend the ticket to the actual speed that was taken on the radar if someone attempts to go and fight a ticket in court after an officer cut them some slack by lowering the speed, likely to eliminate that line of argument before the hearing begins. You have to remember that a traffic citation can be amended at any point before the judge starts hearing arguments, and I've seen an officer amend a ticket right there in the court room before arguments began (which is why people shouldn't depend solely on a mistake to get them out of a ticket when heading to court). But to put this in perspective, prosecutors over the span of law have frequently used the tactic of lowering the offense in a wide variety of different circumstances because it makes it easier to get a conviction, gives them a break, etc. Whatever the reason, lowering the offense does not inherently make the offense invalid. Imagine a judge dismissing a murder charge because the prosecutor made a deal and only charged them with manslaughter, even though they clearly had the evidence to get a conviction for second degree murder. Since speeding is only a traffic violation and not that "serious" it is much more likely that it is just a judge using their discretionary power and thinking, "well if you're willing to cut them a break and lower the speed, why not just let them off completely with a warning?" Going back to my first paragraph with this, chances are if you actually go to court your ticket will either a) get completely dismissed by the judge and you just get a warning or b) amended to the actual speed you were going. Likely it will depend on your previous traffic citation history.

Speed Zone Studies and 85th Percentile Speed in Texas

If you have a speeding ticket in Texas, how exactly could a Speed Zone Study help to defend against the citation? If the ticket says, for example, 80 mph in a 70 on an interstate (which is the lowest possible citation in a 70 zone, according to an officer), what information from a traffic study would be sufficient to overrule such citation in Texas? (And assume that the flow of traffic already contradicted the posted limit at the time of the citation .) Obviously, if the study were to say 80 mph, it'd be all clear, but it's more statistically likely that a study would find an 85th percentile speed to be some number between 72 and 77 mph, then what?

You seem to misunderstand what prima facie means: accepted as correct until proved otherwise. The facts are that you exceeded the posted speed limit; therefore it is legally accepted that you were driving at a speed "greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing". To overturn the prima facie assumption you must prove beyond reasonable doubt (for a criminal matter) or on the balance of probabilities (for a civil matter) that the speed at which you were travelling was "reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing". Demonstrating that other people were also driving at this speed does not show that you were "reasonable and prudent" because prima facie they were themselves not "reasonable and prudent". A possible (if unlikely to succeed) defence would be to demonstrate that the combination of your driving skill, your vehicle's performance and the road conditions were such that you were as or more capable of avoiding a collision at 80mph as the general population is at 70mph. A professional race car driver in a high performance vehicle on a perfect driving day might have a chance with this.

Lease ends at the end of the month. Verbally agreed to pay monthly moving forward, with 30 days notice. Am I under legal obligation?

My current one year lease ends at the end of this month (i.e., in 3 days). Because I was having trouble finding a new place I called the owners and asked if it would be possible to stay on with my current place month to month. They said that would be fine, they just want 30 days notice before I leave. I can't recall the conversation exactly but I believe that I agreed to this. This was all done over the phone, I have not signed anything new. Last minute a new place came through. So I'm signing a lease on the new place tomorrow that starts at the first of the month. I obviously no longer have any need for month to month renting at the old place. I'm just wondering if by "verbally agreeing" to give them 30 days notice moving forward I would be legally obliged to pay for another month's rent there to cover that 30 days? Or would that not matter since nothing new was signed and my current lease is still in force? (I.e., I haven't actually started a new month yet under the month to month agreement?) This is all happening in the suburbs of Chicago if that is relevant.

First, you will need to look at your existing lease. Most leases automatically transfer to month-to-month after the initial term ends. It is quite probable that your landlord said "fine" to the month-to-month extension because it was already part of your existing lease. Second, you will need to look at your existing lease and see what notification was required for you to move out. Typically, a lease transitions to month-to-month and in your lease it probably already said that you needed to provide 30 days notice even if you were leaving at the end of the lease's original term. Third, yes, you are on the hook for rent until you give 30 days notice. Your "verbal agreement" is a contract and your landlord agreed to allow you to stay in the apartment as long as you gave him 30 days notice before moving out and paid your rent every month. Most of this is probably already spelled out in your current lease. Even if it isn't, you have indicated that you have a verbal contract with your landlord.

Lease ends at the end of the month. Verbally agreed to pay monthly moving forward, with 30 days notice. Am I under legal obligation?

My current one year lease ends at the end of this month (i.e., in 3 days). Because I was having trouble finding a new place I called the owners and asked if it would be possible to stay on with my current place month to month. They said that would be fine, they just want 30 days notice before I leave. I can't recall the conversation exactly but I believe that I agreed to this. This was all done over the phone, I have not signed anything new. Last minute a new place came through. So I'm signing a lease on the new place tomorrow that starts at the first of the month. I obviously no longer have any need for month to month renting at the old place. I'm just wondering if by "verbally agreeing" to give them 30 days notice moving forward I would be legally obliged to pay for another month's rent there to cover that 30 days? Or would that not matter since nothing new was signed and my current lease is still in force? (I.e., I haven't actually started a new month yet under the month to month agreement?) This is all happening in the suburbs of Chicago if that is relevant.

Also to note is that "30 days" is a bit of misnomer because if you give notice on the 15th you don't get to stop paying rent on the following 15th. 30 days notice is basically 30 days plus how ever many days until the end of the month. This is obvious to some but not always apparent.

Can I sell my notes on a book without copyright infringment?

I read a machine learning book. I invested a lot of time to make extensive and clear notes. Some concepts required a lot of research to understand. I have explained some concepts in my own way. Further I have implemented some algorithms from the book. If I sell my notes, will it be a copyright infringement?

If all the notes and code are your original expression of ideas, that would not be copyright infringement. You should consider writing your own book on machine learning, and selling that. Copyright protects the particular expression of concepts, but not the concepts themselves. If you have a better way of expressing the challenging concepts of machine learning, that is clearer than the prior text, and your own expression rather than the author's, that's a separate work. If the original text says something in English like "you randomly determine clustering start points, then assign data points to the closest cluster, then re-estimate cluster centers by the average of the data points assigned to the cluster, and repeat those last two steps until the cluster centers don't change by more than a small epsilon between iterations, and repeat this process several times with different random starting points, using xyz measure to assess the quality of the finished clustering and take the best," that describes an algorithm but not as clearly as you might do it. If you have source code which implements this, which you completely wrote yourself, that's a different expression of the concept, and you would have choice about how to license it (so long as you're not infringing on somebody's utility patent). In addition to a clearer explanation, your added notes about how to choose the number of clusters, how small epsilon should be, how many random restarts to do, how to watch out for nonconvergence due to periodic oscillation of a cluster center by more than epsilon, etc. might also provide more value beyond the prior text. Of course, you should credit the original author in your text, and I am not a lawyer.

Can I sell my notes on a book without copyright infringment?

I read a machine learning book. I invested a lot of time to make extensive and clear notes. Some concepts required a lot of research to understand. I have explained some concepts in my own way. Further I have implemented some algorithms from the book. If I sell my notes, will it be a copyright infringement?

It sounds like you are likely protected by the " fair use " doctrine against claims of infringing the original book's copyright. Furthermore, it sounds like your notes would qualify for copyright protection of their own as a " derivative work ."

Is it possible to learn who has a copyright? (USA)

To briefly summarize the situation, a video game was made fifteen years ago. Two development companies and one publisher were involved. All three companies have now been sold to other companies, some of them several times, and some copyrights they held were sold independently of the companies themselves. There doesn't seem to be a record of this particular game's copyright in any of these deals (the game did not sell particularly well). Speaking with members of the original development team, it is believed the publisher had the original copyrights, but none of them are sure. The copyright does not appear on http://cocatalog.loc.gov/ using any conceivable search. The company most likely to have picked up copyrights from the original publisher is not responding to communication attempts. In the US, is it possible to find out who owns a copyright? If so, how is this done? UPDATE The game was first published in Europe, then the PAL region , finally being published in the US. I'm only concerned with the US copyright, but it appears the dates and locations of original release may be important to consider. At least some development occurred in England.

Copyright law is a country-by-country matter. Most countries are signatories to the Berne Convention , which provides a common framework, but there are still variations, generally in the duration of copyright or the definition of copyrightable material. According to the Hirtle chart , a video game that was first published in Europe in the year 2000 and subsequently published in the United States is still copyrighted in both the United States and whichever European countries it was published in. It is likely to be a work of corporate authorship, so the US copyright will expire on January 1, 2096 (unless a law extending the duration is passed). In the United States, the requirement to register a copyright was eliminated in 1989 as part of the Berne Convention Implementation Act ; registration still provides benefits when filing a copyright-infringement lawsuit. Most European countries eliminated their registration requirements much earlier, if they had them at all: the Berne Convention dates from 1887. Copyright does not simply cease to exist when the owner does, or if the owner cannot be determined. The difficulty of tracking down copyright holders for old or little-known works is the driving force behind orphaned works legislation . There are no orphaned works laws in the United States, and since copyright is country-by-country, European laws won't help you if you're interested in publishing in the US. In order to track down the copyright holder, you'll need to figure out who originally held the copyright (probably the publisher, but it could be either development company, or both, or the game might be a collective work of the individuals who worked on it). If it was a work of corporate authorship, and none of the game-copyright sales mention it, copyright will have been transfered when the company owning the copyright was sold (as part of a general "and all intellectual property" clause).

Is it possible to learn who has a copyright? (USA)

To briefly summarize the situation, a video game was made fifteen years ago. Two development companies and one publisher were involved. All three companies have now been sold to other companies, some of them several times, and some copyrights they held were sold independently of the companies themselves. There doesn't seem to be a record of this particular game's copyright in any of these deals (the game did not sell particularly well). Speaking with members of the original development team, it is believed the publisher had the original copyrights, but none of them are sure. The copyright does not appear on http://cocatalog.loc.gov/ using any conceivable search. The company most likely to have picked up copyrights from the original publisher is not responding to communication attempts. In the US, is it possible to find out who owns a copyright? If so, how is this done? UPDATE The game was first published in Europe, then the PAL region , finally being published in the US. I'm only concerned with the US copyright, but it appears the dates and locations of original release may be important to consider. At least some development occurred in England.

One can observe who sends a cease-and-desist letter (or files a lawsuit) for copyright infringement, and if they're successful in showing the letter recipient (or court or defendant) they have a copyright. That's the most reliable way to find out. Unfortunately, there is no central registry of copyright transfers. In such a case, the defendant has a better chance (esp. against willful infringement claims) if they made a reasonable effort to determine who the copyright holder most likely is, and licensed/bought rights from that party for at least some fee. If people are being reasonable ( not a safe assumption ) and a mistake was made in choosing who to license from, it can often be worked out in settlement as the claimant presents their basis and the retrievable history becomes clearer.

Is it possible to learn who has a copyright? (USA)

To briefly summarize the situation, a video game was made fifteen years ago. Two development companies and one publisher were involved. All three companies have now been sold to other companies, some of them several times, and some copyrights they held were sold independently of the companies themselves. There doesn't seem to be a record of this particular game's copyright in any of these deals (the game did not sell particularly well). Speaking with members of the original development team, it is believed the publisher had the original copyrights, but none of them are sure. The copyright does not appear on http://cocatalog.loc.gov/ using any conceivable search. The company most likely to have picked up copyrights from the original publisher is not responding to communication attempts. In the US, is it possible to find out who owns a copyright? If so, how is this done? UPDATE The game was first published in Europe, then the PAL region , finally being published in the US. I'm only concerned with the US copyright, but it appears the dates and locations of original release may be important to consider. At least some development occurred in England.

In general, no, there is no foolproof way to determine who has copyright. There is no central registry that is sure to have that information. For video games specifically, this is often a problem. For some old games made by bankrupt studios that were acquired by others, sometimes even the acquiring company may not know if it has all the copyright it needs or if it owns some parts of a franchise only, especially if multiple companies were involved. The best way to determine who holds the copyright is probably to contact all of the original companies, ask them who they gave the copyright to and follow the chain. Be prepared, though, that they may give you inconsistent and incorrect answers.

Is it possible to learn who has a copyright? (USA)

To briefly summarize the situation, a video game was made fifteen years ago. Two development companies and one publisher were involved. All three companies have now been sold to other companies, some of them several times, and some copyrights they held were sold independently of the companies themselves. There doesn't seem to be a record of this particular game's copyright in any of these deals (the game did not sell particularly well). Speaking with members of the original development team, it is believed the publisher had the original copyrights, but none of them are sure. The copyright does not appear on http://cocatalog.loc.gov/ using any conceivable search. The company most likely to have picked up copyrights from the original publisher is not responding to communication attempts. In the US, is it possible to find out who owns a copyright? If so, how is this done? UPDATE The game was first published in Europe, then the PAL region , finally being published in the US. I'm only concerned with the US copyright, but it appears the dates and locations of original release may be important to consider. At least some development occurred in England.

This sounds like it's more a matter of determining the original name / wording used to file the copyright. Without knowing more of that language, you're left to the typical sleuthing options: names of the company owners / major shareholders as of 15-18 years ago. other DBAs and holding companies of the company originally presumed to hold the copyright. brute force search of all categorically-related copyrights in the time range. The advice I would really like to give you is knowledge of how IP attorneys filed video game copyrights in the time span of 1985-2000. This could reveal any unexpected filing categories that could have been used as part of niche or experimental copyright strategy (at that time) for this kind of IP.

To what extent, if any, do I have ownership over, and rights to, works I create on my own time?

I am a software engineer in California. If I create a piece of software, in my own time, using my own equipment , do I own the copyright on that creation, or does my employer? I see things such as "Google asserts copyright, even on work I do in my own time" ( HN discussion ). In the HN discussion, someone asserts, California law is pretty clear, if you do it on your own time, on your own equipment, it's yours. Sadly, he does not cite a source for this. The closest I'm able to find is in California's Labor Code §2870, (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either: Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer. (b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable. However, this uses the text "rights in an invention" ; does that cover copyright? (Is this the correct law?) Does "Relate … to the employer's business" cover the entirety of software engineering, or just the particular software engineering my employer does? Otherwise, what law is there that backs up the above claim, if any? Or does my employer own copyright on everything down to the love letters I write?

However, this uses the text "rights in an invention"; does that cover copyright? Yes. (Is this the correct law?) It certainly seems to be. Does "Relate … to the employer's business" cover the entirety of software engineering, or just the particular software engineering my employer does? Imagine that you work for a company that writes trading software. In your spare time, you develop a photo editing tool. Do you think a court would find that your project "related to the employer's business"? I do not. Or does my employer own copyright on everything down to the love letters I write? Google does not own everything their employees create; they only claim to. If someone challenged them on it, a court would decide, and probably not in their favor.

To what extent, if any, do I have ownership over, and rights to, works I create on my own time?

I am a software engineer in California. If I create a piece of software, in my own time, using my own equipment , do I own the copyright on that creation, or does my employer? I see things such as "Google asserts copyright, even on work I do in my own time" ( HN discussion ). In the HN discussion, someone asserts, California law is pretty clear, if you do it on your own time, on your own equipment, it's yours. Sadly, he does not cite a source for this. The closest I'm able to find is in California's Labor Code §2870, (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either: Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer. (b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable. However, this uses the text "rights in an invention" ; does that cover copyright? (Is this the correct law?) Does "Relate … to the employer's business" cover the entirety of software engineering, or just the particular software engineering my employer does? Otherwise, what law is there that backs up the above claim, if any? Or does my employer own copyright on everything down to the love letters I write?

Does "Relate … to the employer's business" cover the entirety of software engineering, or just the particular software engineering my employer does? Entirety? That's a very loaded word. Elements of software engineering go beyond the type of engineering. For example if you spent all your time at work developing an innovative workflow which allowed coding faster and more accurately, the employer owns the workflow. If you then utilized this workflow to support your off-the-clock software creation efforts (of a software product different from your employer's) you will find yourself in a gray area. (Of course that assumes that the workflow is protectable.) It's not just time and equipment that create software. As was stated, this sort of thing comes down to what your employer tries to assert and how hard they push, and then how hard you push back. This pushing is often motivated by the financial value of the work and you might be able to resolve the problem through licensing agreements.

If a tenant moves in without a signed lease, must the landlord go through the eviction process to remove them?

I know some landlords don't require tenants to sign anything (no lease). So what is the minimum necessary for a tenant not to be charged with breaking and entering (or unlawfully living in the home) if the landlord decides to kick them out? For example if a person has already moved in without signing anything, and subsequently the landlord wants them to sign a lease, but the tenant refuses to do so, is the tenant still protected by tenancy laws or can the landlord phone the cops right away and have the "trespasser" removed from the house? As long as a person has demonstrated that they initially had permission to live in the property, do they have some claim to continue to do so until the eviction process is completed? The worst case scenario I can think of is if the tenant moves in with a verbal agreement from the landlord that no lease will have to be signed, he hasn't paid rent yet, and hasn't received a key and the landlord says "I changed my mind; you have to move out."

Yes, they still have to go through the normal eviction process and must still provide the minimum number of days required by their local jurisdiction in order to vacate the property. By moving in and establishing residency, the tenant and landlord form an implied lease - the tenant does not need anything in writing in order to establish their legal rights to tenancy. More information: No written lease--Am I in trouble?

Is using font on a business card considered commercial use?

I'm currently designing a business card for a client and looking for an applicable font. A lot of these fonts are marked with some sort of payment required for commercial use. While I don't plan to use any of these on the business card, can that really be considered commercial use? My client isn't going to be selling his cards, only using them to further his business via advertising, so wouldn't that technically be considered fair use rather than commercial?

Unfortunately the answer is a vague "it depends." Commercial versus non-commercial is not clearly defined in actual law, and is usually up to the specific license to define what it considers to be commercial use. If you were putting them on your business cards, then it's just being used for advertising and whether it's commercial use is a bit controversial. If the license explicitly prohibits the use of the work in advertising, then the license should explicitly mention that and should not rely on the term "commercial use" to cover or protect it. Creative Commons ran an excellent study on commercial versus noncommercial use back in 2009: Defining “Noncommercial” - A Study of How the Online Population Understands “Noncommercial Use” In the United States, for example, the Copyright Act does not define a copyright owner’s rights in terms of commercial or noncommercial use. Instead, copyright law sometimes attaches legal significance to whether a use is “commercial” or “noncommercial” or whether a user is deemed to be a commercial or noncommercial entity, However, rarely are the terms defined, and the law offers no specific guidance on how to differentiate between commercial and noncommercial uses or users of copyrighted works. If you were putting them on a business card you were making for the client, then that would be more clearly identified as commercial use because you're using it in something you are selling for a profit. What your client will be using them for is not relevant, because you're the one selling them to the client and you need to have the right to be able to do that.

Would I need permission to make a TV show called "Stackexchange"?

I was thinking about making a TV show about a bunch of teenagers who learn new things everyday from the Stack Exchange sites. Would I need permission to call it "Stackexchange?"

Reviewing https://stackexchange.com/legal/trademark-guidance shows the following: The logos associated with Stack Exchange Inc. and any Stack Exchange site are a trademark. The purpose of trademark law is to prevent consumers from being misled as to the origin of a product. So if you were making a product, and you used a Stack Exchange name or logo in your product (or in its advertising) in such a way that would mislead someone into thinking that your product was owned by, operated by, endorsed by, or in any way part of Stack Exchange Inc., you would be violating the trademark and this would not be legal. Our logo images and site names are copyrighted. Any content on the Stack Exchange Network not contributed by users is copyrighted. Copyright is different than trademark. Ordinarily you couldn't copy it. But if you were writing a news story or blog post about a Stack Exchange site, reproducing the logo image would almost certainly be considered "fair use" and allowed under trademark law because you were not using it "in trade." So the answer to your question is yes, you would need to seek the permission of the trademark holder.

Can you be given a too-close-to-stop-sign citation if area was unmarked?

If there is a nice spot on a city street in Austin, Texas, and a lot of cars often park there without getting any tickets, and it is not marked with the no-parking-here-to-corner sign (even though the other part of the street and the adjacent streets are abundant with such signs properly erected), and there are no distinguishing red, yellow or any other paint on the curbside at all, would a parking ticket for parking a car in such a spot, allegedly too close to the stop sign, be valid? All the while at the opposite side of this street from this spot the cars are parked even at the curbside within the intersection between the streets (as the other street at this intersection has no stop signs at this spot), without ever receiving any parking tickets? Or, if they likewise would receive a citation, how would it be legal without no-parking-here-to-corner signs, nor any distinguishing paint on the curbside?

Can't park within 30 ft of a stop sign. Tex Tn Code 545.302 b4. If this is the law they don't need to post a sign. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/TN/7/C/545/G/545.302

Can you be given a too-close-to-stop-sign citation if area was unmarked?

If there is a nice spot on a city street in Austin, Texas, and a lot of cars often park there without getting any tickets, and it is not marked with the no-parking-here-to-corner sign (even though the other part of the street and the adjacent streets are abundant with such signs properly erected), and there are no distinguishing red, yellow or any other paint on the curbside at all, would a parking ticket for parking a car in such a spot, allegedly too close to the stop sign, be valid? All the while at the opposite side of this street from this spot the cars are parked even at the curbside within the intersection between the streets (as the other street at this intersection has no stop signs at this spot), without ever receiving any parking tickets? Or, if they likewise would receive a citation, how would it be legal without no-parking-here-to-corner signs, nor any distinguishing paint on the curbside?

The citation may have been completely correct, but you can use the absence of markings to contest it. And since adjudication of these matters is entirely at the discretion of an administrative judge you could have good odds of the citation being dismissed. Illustrative anecdote : I once was in NYC and parked overnight on the street at a T intersection with other parked cars. Because my car was registered in another state it was towed instead of just ticketed. In the morning I took pictures of the curb, which on close inspection had been painted, but where most of the paint had worn off. I mailed that photo along with the citation to the administrative court and received a full refund a few weeks later. (I also noticed at a later date that the curb had been repainted.)

DHL lost packet, Sender does not answer

The Scenario I bought a notebook online from a private person. As he lives to far away, we agreed on he sending it via DHL. I paid the money, he took the packet to the mail office, but the packet got lost on the way. DHL started a search, but on my request refused to inform me about the state, with the reasoning that I shall ask the sender, as he holds the contract with DHL. The Problem The sender is not responding to my email, texting, or phone calls. How can I get my money back? Is he required to give me back my money, since I did not receive the notebook? Or shall I blame DHL? Both me and the seller live in Germany, so answers regarding German law would be appreciated very much :) Details about the transaction: I did pay by bank transfer/SEPA, the sender is an individual, he gave me a copy of his ID card, we made no special agreements on refunds or whatsoever

According to BGB §447 , by default the purchaser is liable if a purchased good is damaged/lost in transit: § 447 Gefahrübergang beim Versendungskauf (1) Versendet der Verkäufer auf Verlangen des Käufers die verkaufte Sache nach einem anderen Ort als dem Erfüllungsort, so geht die Gefahr auf den Käufer über, sobald der Verkäufer die Sache dem Spediteur, dem Frachtführer oder der sonst zur Ausführung der Versendung bestimmten Person oder Anstalt ausgeliefert hat. "Erfüllungsort" is a synonym for "Leistungsort", and according to BGB §269: § 269 Leistungsort (1) Ist ein Ort für die Leistung weder bestimmt noch aus den Umständen, insbesondere aus der Natur des Schuldverhältnisses, zu entnehmen, so hat die Leistung an dem Ort zu erfolgen, an welchem der Schuldner zur Zeit der Entstehung des Schuldverhältnisses seinen Wohnsitz hatte. So, if I am reading the BGB correctly, then it's you, the purchaser, who bears the risk of the goods getting lost during transport. The seller probably has the obligation of helping you to make a claim against DHL. But the loss of the package is between you and DHL, I'm afraid. Notes: This only applies to purchase from a private individual. If you, as a consumer, purchase from a business ("Verbrauchsgüterkauf"), the business bears the risk of shipping (BGB §474). There is an article on eBay's help pages which also explains this: eBay: Versandrisiko für Käufer und Verkäufer All this probably only applies if both seller and purchaser live in Germany. For international deals, the rules are (even) more complicated...

DHL lost packet, Sender does not answer

The Scenario I bought a notebook online from a private person. As he lives to far away, we agreed on he sending it via DHL. I paid the money, he took the packet to the mail office, but the packet got lost on the way. DHL started a search, but on my request refused to inform me about the state, with the reasoning that I shall ask the sender, as he holds the contract with DHL. The Problem The sender is not responding to my email, texting, or phone calls. How can I get my money back? Is he required to give me back my money, since I did not receive the notebook? Or shall I blame DHL? Both me and the seller live in Germany, so answers regarding German law would be appreciated very much :) Details about the transaction: I did pay by bank transfer/SEPA, the sender is an individual, he gave me a copy of his ID card, we made no special agreements on refunds or whatsoever

Not specific to Germany but see here regarding privity of contract. Is there a recourse against UPS for not delivering packages on time? Generally speaking, unless Germany has different laws or different default contractual arrangements, DHL owes you nothing. Your agreement is with the owner who is the person that owes you either your goods or your payment. Unless you took ownership before the DHL picked it up. In the US we call this FOB in which case the buyer is responsible for damage or loss during transport but I highly doubt that is your arrangement.

Can a private individual force a competitor to cease a illegal practice which gives a competitive advantage?

Consider two businesses, "Us LLC" and "Them, Inc." which are both in the field of selling widgets to the general public. The production of these widgets fall under a government regulation that mandates they be, for example, made of a particular material. "Them, Inc." is selling widgets well below competitive price points because they make theirs out of a non-compliant but significantly cheaper material. "Us LLC" makes compliant widgets, but cannot compete on this unequal footing. The regulatory agency responsible has ignored requests to enforce the regulation on "Them, Inc.", and will not issue a waiver of the regulation to "Us LLC". Does "Us LLC" have any legal standing to either compel the regulatory agency to enforce the regulation, or to directly compel "Them, Inc." to comply? Would the noncompliance of the competitor, combined with lack of enforcement by the regulator, hold any defensive merit if "Us LLC" were to start using the non-compliant material?

No, it is no use complaining to the policeman that everyone else was speeding too when he pulled you over. You have made a complaint to the authorities; prosecution is at their discretion. If you have solid evidence that your competitor is non-compliant then you can safely use that in your marketing. You could also use the media against your competitor or the regulator. Competition is about more than price.

Can a private individual force a competitor to cease a illegal practice which gives a competitive advantage?

Consider two businesses, "Us LLC" and "Them, Inc." which are both in the field of selling widgets to the general public. The production of these widgets fall under a government regulation that mandates they be, for example, made of a particular material. "Them, Inc." is selling widgets well below competitive price points because they make theirs out of a non-compliant but significantly cheaper material. "Us LLC" makes compliant widgets, but cannot compete on this unequal footing. The regulatory agency responsible has ignored requests to enforce the regulation on "Them, Inc.", and will not issue a waiver of the regulation to "Us LLC". Does "Us LLC" have any legal standing to either compel the regulatory agency to enforce the regulation, or to directly compel "Them, Inc." to comply? Would the noncompliance of the competitor, combined with lack of enforcement by the regulator, hold any defensive merit if "Us LLC" were to start using the non-compliant material?

The only time you can force a competitor to do anything is if they are interfering with an existing contractual relationship that you already possess. In your scenario, this is not the case. The real question this scenario seems to be asking is "how can the government be required to enforce its own regulations" or more likely, "it's own RFP". You posit that the widget materials requirement appears to be statutory or regulatory under your scenario... At least as I read it. This would more likely be spelled out in the RFP. A request for proposal (RFP) is a solicitation, through a bidding process, by a government agency, municipal, state, or federal, interested in procurement of a commodity, service or valuable asset, to potential suppliers to submit business proposal. This is typically where you find any materials requirements. Government procurement law sets forth several requirements to combat against bid rigging with specific oversight mechanisms depending on whether we are discussing local, state or federal contracts. Generally, government agencies do not ignore the requirements that they themselves set forth. These are usually in their bidding procedures and guidelines, such that when they put a job or a contract out for bid ( the RFP), guidelines exist to ensure that the contract award goes to the most qualified, lowest bidder who can meet all requirements of the procurement request. There is oversight built into these strict public procurement laws. However you seem to suggest, in your hypo, that the government agency is ignoring their own proposal for material requisites, or the regulation that informs those requirements. If this ever occurred, the best you could do is complain first to the head of the agency who put the contract out for bid. If they ignored you and you had legitimate proof their widgets were substandard, you would complain to your government representative for your district, to seek enforcement under whatever statutory or regulatory framework those material requirements would fall under, if not the RFP itself.

Under US Law, can a minor have a will?

Pretty much the above, can a minor with say, considerable earned assets of his own have a will made, and if not is there any alternative to a will that's possible for a minor?

This will depend on the state. However, most states have age requirements similar to that found below: California's Probate Code Section 6100 : (a) An individual 18 or more years of age who is of sound mind may make a will. One alternative to a will would be a revocable trust with named beneficiaries. There would be adult trustees who would have specified responsibilities for the trust and the trust could specify that its assets are distributed to the minor when he or she reaches the age of majority. Some financial institutions will also act as trustee for a fee. One can also set multiple conditions on when and how the assets are distributed upon reaching the age of majority. For example, after the subject reaches the age of 18 and creates a last will and testament.

What is the purpose of the inheritance tax in the United States?

I know the United States has the inheritance tax. But I do not really know the purpose or the point behind it. What is the point of the inheritance tax? Why must the inheritance assets be taxed instead of given directly to the heir(s)?

The purpose of the inheritance tax is to raise revenue for governmental activities, just like like income taxes, sales taxes, value-added taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, and other taxes.

What is the purpose of the inheritance tax in the United States?

I know the United States has the inheritance tax. But I do not really know the purpose or the point behind it. What is the point of the inheritance tax? Why must the inheritance assets be taxed instead of given directly to the heir(s)?

Consider a scenario: You make investments(perhaps in the stock market or real estate, but any investment will serve for the example). When you sell those investments, you realize (hopefully) a capital gain. In the US, the two principal forms of taxation on individuals is on income and capital gains. Let's say you bought stock 10 years ago, and it's doubled in value to date, and you're still holding it. You don't pay the capital gains tax on that increased value until you actually sell it. As long as you're holding on to it, you havent "realized" your capital gains. Same with real estate...no capital gains until you sell. In effect, the estate tax (inheritance tax) is a form of capital gains recapture tax, that "recognizes" the capital gains as you "sell" your final assets to your estate and subsequently your heirs through the probate process.

Can a potential juror plead the fifth?

I am interested in the law surrounding jurors. During juror selection ( voir dire ) a potential jurors can be asked questions to determine their suitability to serve on the jury. Is it ever legal for a juror to refuse to answer any question? Could one, for example, "plead the fifth"?

Yes, there are cases where refusing to respond to the question would be legal. The juror could plead the fifth – so long as he hasn't spilled the beans about what he is trying to protect – which provides for the protection from compelled self-incrimination (any incriminating statement that could be used against you in a criminal charge – civil liability doesn't count here). Anything that is said in voir dire is on the record and under oath. You are effectively witnessing against yourself. As stated on NOLO : Witnesses can assert the privilege against self-incrimination in civil proceedings as well as criminal ones, despite the seemingly limiting language of the Fifth Amendment. They can assert it in state or federal court, in a wide variety of proceedings (including trials, depositions, administrative law proceedings, and investigatory proceedings like grand jury hearings). . . . If, by answering, the witness could provide evidence that might aid the government in prosecuting him, then he has the right to refuse. There has to be evidence, though, that testimony would subject you to criminal charges. "What is your hair color?" obviously cannot subject you to criminal charges. "Have you ever driven while intoxicated?" Would only be incriminating while the Statute of Limitations has not passed. After that point, you have not 5th amendment protections for having driven under the influence because it will no longer subject you to criminal charges. Additionally, there are cases in which you could refuse to answer but the court could still compel you to answer. For instance, sometimes questions in voir dire get very personal. If jurors believe a question is too personal, they can try to refuse to answer on those grounds, let the judge know, and the judge would make the decision. If the judge decides they must answer, and they continued to refuse, the judge could hold them in contempt. On a slightly more practical note, if you are objecting to questions, it will impact whether the attorneys on either side will allow you to stay on as a juror. After an objection to a specific question, the attorney may just decide to nix you.

How can I transfer ownership of an LLC in Virginia?

In 2011 I filed paperwork with the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) to form an LLC. I was the "registered agent" for the LLC. Now, in 2015, I would like my wife to own 100% of the LLC. I have changed the "registered agent" for the company from my name to her name with the SCC. However, SCC says they don't deal with the question of "how to make someone 100% owner of the company." What would I need to do to officially make my wife 100% owner of the LLC? Would this paperwork be need to sent to a federal agency or remains internal to the managers/shareholders of the LLC?

The LLC is a registered organization with the Commonwealth of Virginia. There is nothing you would do with a federal agency regarding transferring ownership of the LLC. You will probably need to see an attorney or use a legal service in order to affect a transfer. The reason for this is that the specific articles of organization of your LLC will determine if and how you would transfer ownership. If you don't have buy-sell provisions in your articles of organization then Virginia law would dictate how the transfer would proceed. Some sites, such as LegalZoom , talk about how to transfer ownership of an LLC. It may be as simple as creating a bill of sale transferring ownership of the LLC from you to your wife. It may be more complicated based on your operating agreement, if it includes buy-sell provisions, and or Virginia law. Other web sites talk about how easy it is to transfer ownership. However, they also recommend the use of an attorney. If you read Virginia law and the Secretary of State's website you will find forms such as the Articles of Amendment for an LLC. An attorney can tell you if all you need to do is amend your operating agreement and then do a bill-of-sale transfer. Because the transfer is dependent on so many things that are not obvious, e.g. articles of organization, Virginia law, etc., it would be best to seek the advice of an attorney or some other legal service that specializes in LLCs for your locale.

Can a foreigner be charged for solicitation in another state?

if a foreigner who doesn’t live in the states, paid for prostitute services in new york 1 year ago and wasn’t caught or anything like that but if for some reason, the police found out about it somehow.. The statute of limitations is 2 years in New York. And if the foreginer were to visit Hawaii in half a year from now or 1.5 years from the date of solicitation, can he be charged in Hawaii? It is a different state from New York but it is still within NY’s 2 years statute of limitation.. what do u think are the chances?

You can be charged for a crime until the statute of limitations has expired. If it was not a federal crime then your concern would be interstate extradition (a.k.a. rendition ). If the crime was committed in another state then if you are charged and a warrant is issued for your arrest it depends on how serious the crime was. Even if local police find that you are a fugitive, it is up to the state in which you were charged to decide whether they will pay the costs to retrieve you. If they won't, then the state in which you are found will not detain you further on that warrant.

Can a foreigner be charged for solicitation in another state?

if a foreigner who doesn’t live in the states, paid for prostitute services in new york 1 year ago and wasn’t caught or anything like that but if for some reason, the police found out about it somehow.. The statute of limitations is 2 years in New York. And if the foreginer were to visit Hawaii in half a year from now or 1.5 years from the date of solicitation, can he be charged in Hawaii? It is a different state from New York but it is still within NY’s 2 years statute of limitation.. what do u think are the chances?

Tangential to your question but the statute of limitations limits the time within which legal proceedings may be initiated. If an arrest warrant were issued within time then the person could be prosecuted at any time before they died.

What are the basic legal requirements I have as a website owner?

Let's say I run a basic website with no special legal concerns. What legal issues does every website have that I should know about?

Every website needs a terms of service and a privacy policy. A simple Google search will find you plenty of TOS/PP generators. Then, you just a need to place an easy-to-find link to your TOS/PP on all the pages of your website. No matter what kind of site you run, it is also a very good idea to register as an official copyright infringement agent . It costs about $140, but it could save you a LOT of hassle in the future. Other than that, it's hard to say much more since you haven't revealed much about your website. You should be more specific if you want more information.

It is appropriate to include Google Maps screenshot acknowledging it is from Google?

As my web spider was crawling, I found this site . It uses a Google Maps screenshot without using the widget or acknowledging that it is from Google. Is this legal? Should I inform the site to remove it?

I doubt it's legal, and it's definitely unethical. That said, I don't think you have any special responsibility to police Google's intellectual property rights, unless you work for them or something.

Ethical Hacking

How is Ethical Hacking (Certified Ethical Hackers) defined by U.S. law? Is there any law which protects an Ethical Hacker for helping to find out bugs and security loopholes in online/digital services being used by a corporation/government agency? What is the stand of other countries on this matter?

In regards to U.S. Law to be employed by the government. You would need to be certified to DoDD8570 specs. Here is a baseline to understand what certifications are required depending on the role you are looking to be gainfully employed. These mostly require being GIAC certified among some of the other certifications. In regards to becoming a "Certified Ethical Hacker", you would need to pass the CEH test by the ECCouncil . As for laws protecting "Ethical Hackers", there really isn't any. The law which applies is mostly for prosecuting criminal acts. Not really for the protection of the security consultant. This law is called Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in the U.S. and in the U.K. the Computer Misuse Act 1990 .

Can a suspected thief see who called the police?

I recently lost my cell phone and then saw a Craigslist posting of a cell phone that looked similar to my cell phone with the exact same model and storage capacity and color, but its screen was smashed. The location seems to be local. The poster posted on the day after I lost my cell phone. He/she said on the posting that it was bought and then dropped, thereby causing the smashed screen. I am extremely wary about calling the police. Part of the worry comes from the fact that I shared a personal email address with the stranger. The email address does not contain any real names, but I am concerned that something may be used to track down a person's location or identity, and if that happens, I may be in danger of a vengeful attack. Part of the worry also comes from whether the police would keep whoever calls the police secret. Anyway, I am not entirely sure how the American law system works in response to suspected theft. What does or can the police do legally? Can the suspected thief see the identity of the one who alerts the police?

The legal system is set up to alleviate the problem or conundrum of intimidation by perpetrators. In the US criminal system, the State is the plaintiff, not the individual. In the extant described situation, very likely all you would have to do is sign an affidavit that the recovered phone is your phone, and that it was removed from your possession by unknown means on or about a certain date. From your description given here you don't know if it was stolen...you appear to have perhaps dropped it or left it somewhere, and someone picked it up/found it. Clearly it didn't belong to them, but this is more like "recovered lost property" rather than "received stolen property." The craigslist poster might be entirely un-chargeable with a crime, though they might have to give up the phone to you.

Can a suspected thief see who called the police?

I recently lost my cell phone and then saw a Craigslist posting of a cell phone that looked similar to my cell phone with the exact same model and storage capacity and color, but its screen was smashed. The location seems to be local. The poster posted on the day after I lost my cell phone. He/she said on the posting that it was bought and then dropped, thereby causing the smashed screen. I am extremely wary about calling the police. Part of the worry comes from the fact that I shared a personal email address with the stranger. The email address does not contain any real names, but I am concerned that something may be used to track down a person's location or identity, and if that happens, I may be in danger of a vengeful attack. Part of the worry also comes from whether the police would keep whoever calls the police secret. Anyway, I am not entirely sure how the American law system works in response to suspected theft. What does or can the police do legally? Can the suspected thief see the identity of the one who alerts the police?

It is a standard part of common law justice systems that the accused has the right to know the basis of the accusation. In the circumstances you describe you would be required to make a statement and if charges were brought that statement would be given to the alleged thief. If you want them caught and your phone returned you have to be willing to look them in the eye and accuse them. For the U.S. specifically see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice

Is a randomly-generated book a violation of copyright?

Let's say I create a computer program that randomly chooses words and records them. Now, this generator spits out an exact word-for-word copy of a non-public-domain book. If I publish this (without knowing it's a copy), would I be in violation of the original book's copyrights? What if I could reasonably prove that it was generated randomly?

Copyright infringement requires that you actually copy elements from an earlier work produced by a different author. If you created a similar, or even identical, work independently, it is not copyright infringement. When considering whether or not infringement has occurred, the court is likely to consider whether the defendant could reasonably have had access to the plaintiff's work. If the court finds that they could have, then the defendant would be required to produce evidence of original authorship. Consider the My Sweet Lord/He So Fine case, where the court found the defendant had subconsciously copied the plaintiff's song. Had Harrison been able to produce evidence of original authorship, the judgment could have been different. In your example, it is unlikely that an suit in copyright infringement could be decided against you, as you've stated the text is generated randomly. However, more evidence of this randomness might be required to support your case. Of course, whether a computer or automated process can produce works independently is still questionable; I'm not aware of cases that have tried this. The US Copyright Office has said that Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. Of course, whether this has a bearing on your particular scenario is undecided, and I'm not sure how it would be decided. It is almost certain that the worst case outcome would be an injunction requiring you to cease publicising the product, or perform reasonable checks prior to publication to ensure that the product of your program infringes on works; it would be unlikely that you would have costs ordered against you, especially if the program is truly random, and the random text was given as much, or more, publicity than the coherent text.

Is a randomly-generated book a violation of copyright?

Let's say I create a computer program that randomly chooses words and records them. Now, this generator spits out an exact word-for-word copy of a non-public-domain book. If I publish this (without knowing it's a copy), would I be in violation of the original book's copyrights? What if I could reasonably prove that it was generated randomly?

You can introduce it, but they would introduce experts who would say the odds are billions-to-one of generating an identical work is possible. In that case, the jury would probably find that it was more likely copied, than independently, yet identically, created. This would be on the magnitude of a matching but unrelated DNA....wth a 99.95% probability of this being impossible. There are no absolutes in a trial, so could you prevail....sure. But my money would be on the plaintiff!

Is a randomly-generated book a violation of copyright?

Let's say I create a computer program that randomly chooses words and records them. Now, this generator spits out an exact word-for-word copy of a non-public-domain book. If I publish this (without knowing it's a copy), would I be in violation of the original book's copyrights? What if I could reasonably prove that it was generated randomly?

you would most certainly be in complete violation of the previous book copyright. The owner of that copyright would have no problem winning a judgement. However, if you were able to prove that the random text generator had produced the book, you'd likely avoid damages, and merely have to remove your infringing "book" from circulation. Your example is of course a "silly" one, but it could apply also to the far-less-silly situation where a substantial excerpt...a paragraph or so...matches up.

Liability of posting potentially dangerous articles on blog

I work with electronics and some of it requires working with potentially dangerous voltages which could cause severe injury or fatality. So my question is this: If I decided to start a blog and write an article describing how to build a high voltage power supply, am I liable for providing such information? Especially if someone injures themselves after trying to reproduce my project/experiment. Will the warning shield me from liability? I ask because see a lot of hobbyist websites posting large warning notices at the top of each page or throughout the article. Though, sometimes there is no warning.

I would probably have a legal disclaimer out of an abundance of caution. That being said, you have a right to free speech via First Amendment guarantees. While that right is not absolute and some words “by their very utterance” cause injury or incite an immediate breach of peace, and do not receive constitutional protection, (there is the old adage you do not have the right to shout fire in a crowded movie theater). This (your blog) is not that. To take it to its logical (or illogical) extreme, there are many things on the internet, in magazines, scholarly articles, etc. that could injure someone or cause damage in the event that one who was not qualified or competent to perform the action described undertook to do so. A child could burn themselves following the directions on a mac and cheese box but they shouldn't be cooking in the first place. The same rings true for high voltage electricity - a non-licensed electrician should probably not create a high voltage power supply. But, will some? Yes. But you are not liable for printing a blog about the practice. On another but related note, if you are a licensed electrician your licensing authority may require that you take precautions to ensure you do not inadvertantly direct others to engage in practices of licensed professionals that could cause harm by giving them information. I doubt this but I don't know because I am not an electrician. As far as could you be liable for writing it....under our legal system you can be sued under a theory of negligence for just about any action someone thinks was unsafe or causes injury. And you never know what a jury will do. But I think that to sue someone for simply writing something would be fairly easily dismissed through a motion for summary judgment by a competent attorney in the event you got sued. If everything a person wrote, that if followed by an unqualified person resulted in injury, resulted in liability for damages than it would have a chilling effect on their First Amendment right to free speech. That said, I go back to my original statement that it couldn't hurt to have a simple liability waiver for extra protection. It could be something as simple as: "The information contained herein is not mean to be comprehensive and is for informational purposes only. You should not undertake to perform anything described herein without adequate training and/or supervision. The Author disclaims any responsibility for any injury, damage, or loss as a result of reliance upon the information found on this site/blog." If you do use a liability waiver, make sure it is bold and obvious. Otherwise, it can backfire!

Does a landlord have to tell you the reason for entering your apartment?

Today a "representative of the investors" in my apartment complex entered my apartment for an inspection. As the inspector was leaving he said to me that I passed the inspection, but just barely. I asked him what that meant and if there were specific inspection criteria he was looking for, but he declined to answer. Afterwards, I contacted the apartment management office, and was told that they weren't told what was being inspected, just that someone would be entering apartments. I was just wondering if there is any reason a landlord has to tell you why they are entering the property you're renting, or if with sufficient notice they can simply enter for any reason. I assume this could potentially differ on a state by state basis, so general knowledge is fine. I live in RI.

In RI it appears that two days notice and a reasonable purpose is enough. There are states that list the reasons a landlord can access a unit; RI is not one of those states. http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/title34/34-18/34-18-26.HTM

Does a landlord have to tell you the reason for entering your apartment?

Today a "representative of the investors" in my apartment complex entered my apartment for an inspection. As the inspector was leaving he said to me that I passed the inspection, but just barely. I asked him what that meant and if there were specific inspection criteria he was looking for, but he declined to answer. Afterwards, I contacted the apartment management office, and was told that they weren't told what was being inspected, just that someone would be entering apartments. I was just wondering if there is any reason a landlord has to tell you why they are entering the property you're renting, or if with sufficient notice they can simply enter for any reason. I assume this could potentially differ on a state by state basis, so general knowledge is fine. I live in RI.

You do not give a jurisdiction; as tenancy law is one of the most regulated areas of law this is highly jurisdiction dependent and may vary depending on if it is a residential or commercial tenancy. For example, in New South Wales, Australia, a landlord may enter a residential premises ( http://www.tenants.org.au/factsheet-08-access-and-privacy ): With consent of the tenant Without consent or notice: in an emergency, or to do urgent repairs, or if the landlord thinks that the premises have been abandoned, or in accordance with an order of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), or if they have serious concern about the health/safety of a person on the premises (after they have first tried to get consent). Without consent but with notice (periods vary) and within limitations: To inspect the premises To carry out or assess the need for: necessary repairs/maintenance (non-urgent) work to meet legal health/safety obligations To value the premises To show the premises to prospective tenants To show the premises to prospective buyers

Can employee be restricted using his or her BYOA or BYOL by employer?

Can employee be restricted to use his or her BYOA(Bring Your Own Application) or BYOL(Bring Your Own License) by employer? I recently buy 1 per seat license of diff application from scootersoftware . They said I can use this application in my home PC and my company's PC etc as long as I'm the only user who use my license. And I said that I want to use this application to quickly get my work done to my company(my employer). But my company said that you can't use your license in this company because this license is not bought by this company. And strange thing is that the application is used in another section of my company. So the problem is not the application security matter. My boss said it seems my company don't want manage individual license. Should I obey them from this reason? I believe scootersoftware is the only company that can say such a things. From my view, my company behave as they have monopoly license. But in fact they only bought a few dozens of per seat license. Does my company violate scootersoftware's right? Or am I missing something?

For a large organization, software licensing compliance is a very broad and intractable problem. The licensing environment is very different for the big company than it is for little tiny you. Many large companies are subject to audits by software vendors (i.e. Adobe, Oracle, etc.) in which they have to show licenses purchased for each active seat. There's a whole new INDUSTRY around maintaining license compliance. An employee bringing in their own software and installing it on a company computer complicates this vastly. That is the environment that the question should be considered within. The large company makes the decision somewhere along the way that your individual efficiency in performing your individual tasks is less important than maintaining auditable software licensing compliance. Since they own the computer/laptop/server, it's their decision. Many times it seems that corporate policies as they apply to the individual worker are obstructive and limiting, but there's a bigger picture to the situation.

Can employee be restricted using his or her BYOA or BYOL by employer?

Can employee be restricted to use his or her BYOA(Bring Your Own Application) or BYOL(Bring Your Own License) by employer? I recently buy 1 per seat license of diff application from scootersoftware . They said I can use this application in my home PC and my company's PC etc as long as I'm the only user who use my license. And I said that I want to use this application to quickly get my work done to my company(my employer). But my company said that you can't use your license in this company because this license is not bought by this company. And strange thing is that the application is used in another section of my company. So the problem is not the application security matter. My boss said it seems my company don't want manage individual license. Should I obey them from this reason? I believe scootersoftware is the only company that can say such a things. From my view, my company behave as they have monopoly license. But in fact they only bought a few dozens of per seat license. Does my company violate scootersoftware's right? Or am I missing something?

Essentially, if you are licensed to use the software in a certain manner, then you are entitled to do so. However, the company that employs you may have employment policies that prevent you from doing so. In this case, you may be bound by the employment policies and/or contract, which you should probably comply with, in order to avoid breaching that contract. There may be other reasons why the company forbids you from using a single-user license - if there's any kind of desktop virtualisation, for example. However, you'd need to be a lot more specific about your environment.

How to make sure my website complies with things like COPPA?

I want to start an online browser game following all laws. A few days ago I heard of COPPA - Children's Online Privacy Protection Act . In this link, they clearly explain in all details what must be done, and what kind of website must comply. As a person that knows (absolutely) nothing about law, I am glad to find this right-to-the-point text that tells me exactly what to do. My question is, how do I find out if there are other things like this to follow? I am glad I heard of COPPA, otherwise I would have no idea I had to follow it. I am now worried that there might be other laws to follow that I don't even know they exist. How to make sure I am following everything that must be followed? Is there some kind of "list"? I am using COPPA just as an example - I don't want to be restricted only to privacy laws. The thing is, I can't even dream of what other laws could exist. (I'm lucky to have found COPPA) I am brazillian, the website would be hosted in Brazil. But I would like people from other countries to be allowed to play as well. (I don't know if this matters) If you really need to know more details about the game to properly answer this question, let me know and I will add them - but I was hoping to a more general answer first, so I can analyse them myself and decide what is needed and what is not. I am not sure if this question is too-broad the way it is now - if it is, I will add the details. EDIT: I don't think this question is a duplicate from Where can I find a comprehensive document of computer laws? . Even though its title suggests that, both answers only refer to security and hacking. I am talking about the content of my website, and I am not "hacking" anyone nor doing anthing close to that. EDIT 2: Just to clarify, I do not expect someone to show up with a complete list and solve my problem like magic. The thing is, as of now I have not the slightest idea of how to proceed. I mean, (at least the majority of) existing MMO browser games (like Clash of Clans, Neopets, Club Penguin, OGame and such) must have done something to make sure they comply with all needed laws.

The FTC has myriad regulations (depending on site/content/ etc.) that must be complied with - this is especially true if children will be interacting with others. Ideally, you should have the assistance of an intellectual property attorney or a regulatory specialist if this is something you expect to be wide reaching and/or geared toward children. All of that being said, the following link offers much information regarding compliance with COPPA for small entities. If you plan on doing the compliance work yourself, there is also a liaison, or virtual "help desk" run by the FTC. Depending on what you're doing and your ability to interpret complex regulatory frameworks, you could accomplish this yourself. I'd recommend that you start here, where you'll find links to other regulations that may be applicable and easily found, and then decide if you need a specialist based on the breadth of your work product and what you find that may apply. Or, at a minimum, you may be able to narrow the scope of your question after reviewing this help section, if you find you need help analyzing a certain section. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-coppa-frequently-asked-questions Good luck!

Is it illegal to reverse engineer an unsecured API

Is it legal to reverse engineer an unsecured API? Simple REST API used in Android app No SSL (just straight HTTP) Passwords are sent in plain text over this HTTP API I ran the Android app and placed wire shark in the middle of the connection with a simple man-in-the-middle attack. I could then examine how the API calls were structured, and created my own program that used the API and displayed the same data in better ways. The API has not been explicitly released or documented for public use.

If the application end-user licence agreement prohibits reverse engineering, then reverse engineering is prohibited, no matter if there is some security measures or not and no matter your purposes. When you walk on the street, the fact that you pass near an open door or window doesn't make this home a public place, and does not make you free to enter in the house to ensure that there is nothing to steal "in order to inform the house holder about the threat". The same logic apply for this API. If you have any concern, you may get in touch with the software editor. If they are willing to do so, you may have a contractual written agreement from them allowing you some otherwise forbidden actions and clearly stating the limits you should not cross. Actually, some large editors even organize security bounty programs allowing anyone to proceed with security analysis of their products up to a certain defined limit. But, without such written agreement, the answer seems quite clear to me. As an addendum, local laws may have some subtleties like what is covered exactly by the notion of " fair use ", is it legal to reverse engineer a software one did not install and therefore never agreed to the agreement, etc. You can find some relevant information here and there . However I would personally not rely on such excuses to be "out-of-jail" guaranties. In France, we had Serge Humpich who, while taking all the precautions to stay within the boundary of the law (all discussions went through a lawyer, longer story here ), was condemned when he proved to the GIE (organism in charge of French credit cards) that our payment system was not secured enough. I can also mention the case of Guillaume Tena who was condemned for having proved that the assertion of an anti-virus editor that their product was able to stop 100% of viruses was false.

Does my school have a right to get involved over something relating to them, but done in isolation of them?

Okey, this is going to be quite a specific question about something that has come up. I am a school student, and I sent various emails to the developers of the school management software that my school uses. I was questioning them about the possibilities of API access into the data, besides the unofficial API which I (you could almost say) hacked into. I did mention that I broke into the unofficial API in my emails, and it may be questionable whether that was legal or not - but besides the point at this stage. (Their system was totally unsecured, so technically I didn't hack it at all, but this is a question for security.stackexchange. Another important thing is that I used the words "reverse engineered" which doesn't really describe what I did, but would be technically illegal full stop) So, my school has been contacted by the developers (whom I had emailed), and basically the school is now wanting a meeting with me and my parents. I am not sure exactly what the meeting is about at this stage, but it may have something to do with my last email which was abusive and I described how terrible the software this company makes actually was. (I sent this email after they ceased to respond to my emails, in frustration) Facts I NEVER metioned my school in my emails, and my emails where from my personal email address which is NOT associated in ANY way with the school. I used my full name in the emails I stated my study year level at school Somehow, this company has tracked my school down (possibly through the national student data, since this company is basically managing it - is this even fully legal?) But here's my primary question: Does my school have any right to get involved, considering I never involved my school or linked to them in any way? If I had referenced my school, I can see why they would want to get involved - I have basically been pointing out how terrible the student management software they use is. But I didn't. How do they have a right to be involved?

From the sound of it, you have stated that you gained access to school data, possibly including private information about other students, professors, schedules, grades, disciplinary information, financial tuition or salary info, etc., that you were not authorized to have. The question of whether it was properly secured is rather beside the point. The school will now need to know the precise scope of your snooping: whether you were able to modify any information (i.e. change grades), what purpose to your snooping, etc.

Does my school have a right to get involved over something relating to them, but done in isolation of them?

Okey, this is going to be quite a specific question about something that has come up. I am a school student, and I sent various emails to the developers of the school management software that my school uses. I was questioning them about the possibilities of API access into the data, besides the unofficial API which I (you could almost say) hacked into. I did mention that I broke into the unofficial API in my emails, and it may be questionable whether that was legal or not - but besides the point at this stage. (Their system was totally unsecured, so technically I didn't hack it at all, but this is a question for security.stackexchange. Another important thing is that I used the words "reverse engineered" which doesn't really describe what I did, but would be technically illegal full stop) So, my school has been contacted by the developers (whom I had emailed), and basically the school is now wanting a meeting with me and my parents. I am not sure exactly what the meeting is about at this stage, but it may have something to do with my last email which was abusive and I described how terrible the software this company makes actually was. (I sent this email after they ceased to respond to my emails, in frustration) Facts I NEVER metioned my school in my emails, and my emails where from my personal email address which is NOT associated in ANY way with the school. I used my full name in the emails I stated my study year level at school Somehow, this company has tracked my school down (possibly through the national student data, since this company is basically managing it - is this even fully legal?) But here's my primary question: Does my school have any right to get involved, considering I never involved my school or linked to them in any way? If I had referenced my school, I can see why they would want to get involved - I have basically been pointing out how terrible the student management software they use is. But I didn't. How do they have a right to be involved?

Almost certainly. The relationship of a student to a school is governed by specific laws and, in the case of a private school, a contract. These will impose obligations on the student to comply with whatever rules are applicable and, in general, to not take actions that are not in the school's interest. If a school has become aware of activities by a student that breach the "rules"; then they can most certainly take disciplinary action. This would be applicable even if the activities were directed towards a third-party and had the effect of "bringing the school into disrepute".

Could an employee be fired as they are about to quit in order to pay them severance?

In series finale of The Office , Jim and Pam are about to quit their jobs in Scranton to move to Philadelphia. As they are about to quit, their manager, Dwight, fires them, and tells them that they will be paid severance. Assuming that their severance payments are provided for in their contract, is Dwight likely to be successful in terminating them in this manner in order to pay them severance? Would the company be likely to succeed in a suit for costs against Dwight?

In the U.S. severance payments are not provided for statutorily, and are rarely made when an employee quits or is fired for cause . However, even when not provided for within contracts it is common to see voluntary severances paid during lay-offs. Furthermore, in the U.S. it is more likely that they would be "laid off" in order to qualify for unemployment insurance. In Pennsylvania one can make claims on the state-run unemployment insurance system only if one is able to work and does not refuse suitable work when offered . If one quits one is not eligible for these payments. Ultimately unemployment claims are born by the employer (since their legally-mandated unemployment insurance premiums are adjusted based on realized claims). So managers with the authority to layoff employees can impose real costs on their companies, both in terms of direct severance payments (which may be optional), and in terms of the inflated unemployment premiums that will hit the company down the road. However, I have never heard of a company attempting to recoup such costs from managers, since such decisions are specifically delegated to managers with hiring/firing authority. It seems much more likely that a manager deemed to have abused the company's purse would be demoted or fired rather than being sued, unless there were some gross fraud involved (e.g., kickbacks).

What considerations determine copyright infringement?

In copyright case law, what roles do process versus output play in determining infringement via creation of a similar work. By process I mean, "How much access did the creator of the new work have to the putative base work?" By output I mean, "How similar, textually, is the new work to the older work?" I am primarily curious about the USA.

One principle of copyright law is that if you can prove independent authorship, there cannot be liability no matter how similar your work is to the prior work. "If by some magic a man who had never known it were to compose anew Keats's 'Ode on a Grecian Urn,' he would be an 'author,' and if he copyrighted it, others might not copy that poem, though they might of course copy Keats's." (Sheldon v. MGM Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 1936)). Now, of course, the challenge is proving that you've never heard a given piece of music, or never read a particular work of fiction. If you have, even unconscious copying exposes to liability. And if the plaintiff can prove that you had access (such as the scriptwriter who sent a copy to a movie studio), they will have an even easier time proving the copying. If there is no proof of copying or not-copying, the copying can be proved circumstantially either through expert testimony or the jury's evaluation. The expert might testify something like "There is an identical tonal progression in these two songs, even though they were written in different keys. There were a million different ways the songs could have been written, but they are identical in this respect." The jury can consider that information and find the defendant liable. Or, the judge may simply tell the jury, "You may listen to these two songs, and find the defendant liable if you find them to be substantially similar to the extent that it is more likely than not that the defendant copied the plaintiff." TL;DR: The process can be conclusive, but if it isn't, then the output will be the evidence that the jury will consider.

If a malicious website steals my credit card info, what happens?

Let's say I submit my credit card information to a website to purchase something. They give me a message saying the item will be delivered soon, and I don't notice anything wrong. Later I find out that my credit card is being used for unauthorized purchases. I believe my bank protects me against unauthorized use if I notify them. But: Will the bank take a loss? What happens to the malicious website and its owners? (Will it be hard to prove that the website is guilty?) What happens to the other shops where unauthorized purchases were made with the stolen credit card information? Do they take a loss too? If this depends a lot in jurisdiction, just give an overall idea or choose your favourite jurisdiction. If you happen to know how it would be in Brazil, please provide that too (but it is ok if you don't).

Being as general as possible - refund policies are governed by bank and scheme policies, and so aren't necessarily the domain of law. There may be jurisdiction-specific regulations that limit your liability as a consumer, but there's not usually a legal requirement. This is almost certainly wholly governed by your credit card terms of use.¹ You can report this to your local authorities, but without proof of a crime, it's unlikely to be actionable. The website isn't necessarily to blame, either - if your computer or your connection to the website was somehow compromised, then your details may have been obtained in that way, and the website could have had nothing to do with it. Again, this is almost certainly wholly governed by their scheme agreement.¹ 1. Some off-topic information here, which may or may not be accurate, and which you should not seek clarification for here (check Money SE instead, and first check whether it is on-topic there) - generally, bank policies will refund you for fraudulent transactions below a certain quantity or value. In this case, the bank tends to take a loss and chargeback rights are not exercised. In other cases, the bank will require the merchant to prove that the authorised cardholder did in fact authorise the transaction. The level of proof is governed by the way in which the transaction was conducted and verified at the time of purchase - whether the CVV2 code was verified, whether address verification was completed, whether 3D verification was completed. If the merchant is unable to prove, according to the scheme guidelines, the transaction will be charged back to their account.

If a malicious website steals my credit card info, what happens?

Let's say I submit my credit card information to a website to purchase something. They give me a message saying the item will be delivered soon, and I don't notice anything wrong. Later I find out that my credit card is being used for unauthorized purchases. I believe my bank protects me against unauthorized use if I notify them. But: Will the bank take a loss? What happens to the malicious website and its owners? (Will it be hard to prove that the website is guilty?) What happens to the other shops where unauthorized purchases were made with the stolen credit card information? Do they take a loss too? If this depends a lot in jurisdiction, just give an overall idea or choose your favourite jurisdiction. If you happen to know how it would be in Brazil, please provide that too (but it is ok if you don't).

There are two fundamental forms of credit card transactions: card-present, and card-not-present. Every transaction where the card's mag strip is swiped or embedded chip physically read, is a card-present transaction. Every internet transaction or over-the-phone transaction is a card-not-present transaction. Not by law, but by contractual agreement, the fraudulent card-present transaction is absorbed by the card issuing bank (the card-holder's bank), and the fraudulent card-not-present transaction is charged back to the merchant account. In both cases there is a review/dispute process wherein the charged entity can attempt to recover funds.

If a petition is dismissed without prejudice can it be refiled?

If the rules and laws of a court allow a party to bring a petition, and that petition is dismissed with an explanation but with no mention of "prejudice," can the petitioner refile what is substantively the same petition with the same court? I.e., can one file a new petition requesting the same action even if the facts underlying the matter have not changed (but, perhaps, the petitioner learned enough from the original dismissal to file a more effective petition)? Or must one always use the appeals process for the court if one wants "another shot" at what is substantively the same matter? (An example I'm looking at right now is a PA 506(B)2 Petition . Naturally the Rules don't address this question, and at least here court officers never answer substantive questions regarding rules or process!)

There is a common law doctrine that litigation should be final. A plaintiff is obliged to state their best case and all of their case for the defendant to defend and it will be decided once and for all. If a petition to a court is made and dismissed then unless it is specifically dismissed "without prejudice" then that is the end of the matter; the same facts cannot serve as the basis for another claim - even if the basis is changed. For example, a claim made for breech of contract cannot be reintroduced as a tort; the plaintiff has had their day in court, they lost, move along. If there was a basis in both contract and tort the plaintiff should have introduced these both at the same time. Now, either or both parties can appeal to a higher court that the decision in the lower court was wrong, however, that is an argument primarily about the law used; not about the facts.

What remedies are in place for disclosure of financial information?

If a bank staff member has access to my financial information, and has then disclosed some of this information (for example, my account balance) on social media, what remedies are available to me? Will there be a difference if I suspect this person acted maliciously?

In the absence of a jurisdiction I will deal with mine, Australia. Complain to the financial services provider Explain: What has happened How it happened What effect this has had What you want them to do to make it right Complain to the Financial Services Ombudsman If you have not had the complaint resolved to your satisfaction within 45 days then you may escalate the complaint to the ombudsman. Privacy If the information contains "personal information" that can be linked to you then there has been a breach of your privacy. Your account balance is personal information; the way it was disclosed must allow a third-party to link it to you. The Privacy Act 1988 applies to "Australian and Norfolk Island government agencies and private sector organisations covered by the Privacy Act"; one category of private sector organisations that are covered are corporations with annual revenue of more than $3 million - any bank would meet this criteria. Under the Act you may lodge a complaint ; the OAIC is not required to investigate but if they do then some of the remedies are detailed here . Compensation If you have suffered a loss as a result of the disclosure you are entitled to be compensated. This may be part of a settlement under any of the complaint described above or if the bank is found guilty by the Federal court of breaching the Privacy Act then it can order compensation be paid. Private Legal Action This may be possible against both the employee and the bank (an employer is jointly and severally liable for the actions of an employee). However, you would have to prove a breach of contract or the tort of breach of confidence; "breach of privacy" is not a cause of action in common law in Australia. In the case of the contract, the remedy for the breach may already be in the terms. Otherwise, you would have to prove the value of the damage.

How much of a work needs to be used for it to be derivative?

Consider for example the starship enterprise (registry NCC1701) from the star trek tv series. If someone takes a picture of the ship from the tv show and sticks it on a poster, it is clearly a derivative work. But what if they only show part of the ship? What if they only show a small enough part that it is not recognizably from the enterprise? Or what if they just produce a gray (the starship enterprise is gray) image, with "NCC1701" written on it? Is that a derivative work? Would it matter if it used a different font, or a different color background? Would it make a difference if it was less iconic, e.g. a reproduction of a different ship that only appeared in one episode? My question is not specific to start trek, but regarding any works which have distinctive subcomponents (e.g. the monolith from 2001, the rebel alliance symbol of from star wars, the one ring from the lord of the rings etc.) - how much of an original work needs to be reproduced for it to infringe the original copyright?

Any amount that exceeds fair use/dealing in the relevant jurisdiction. This is a combination of quantity and intent. For the examples you give they are all probably not fair use. As an added complication, the USS Enterprise is almost certainly trade mark which is a different type of IP with different rules.

Recreate copyright information on merged and minified files

When a web-application is finished we minify our source and combine all different CSS and JS files into one, to speed up the performance (pageload). As I thought about it, I recognize that some tools delete all comments (from source) so that you've to add the copyright information on the correct place afterwards. So I came to the idea to reformat this information. Here a example what I mean, default copyright-informations: /*! jQuery v1.11.3 | (c) 2005, 2015 jQuery Foundation, Inc. | jquery.org/license */ {minfied source code} /* * responsive-carousel ajax include extension * https://github.com/filamentgroup/responsive-carousel * * Copyright (c) 2012 Filament Group, Inc. * Licensed under the MIT, GPL licenses. */ /*! Slimbox v2.05 - The ultimate lightweight Lightbox clone for jQuery (c) 2007-2013 Christophe Beyls <http://www.digitalia.be> MIT-style license. */ To something like this: /* * Name Version Licence-Type Licence-URL Copyright Copyright-Owner Source * * jQuery 1.11.3 MIT URL-TO-LICENCE 2005-2015 jQuery Foundation, Inc URL-TO-SOURCE * jQuery UI 1.11.4 MIT URL-TO-LICENCE 2015 jQuery Foundation, Inc URL-TO-SOURCE * Slimbox 2.05 MIT-style URL-TO-LICENCE 2007-2013 Christophe Beyls URL-TO-SOURCE */ But the question is... is that allowd/legal? Or is this already then a copyright/licence-issue? In the licence text I don't found informations about that. edited: URL-TO-Phrases for URLs, because stackexchange identifys doubles as spam.

There is no required form for a copyright license (unless it is a requirement of a sup-ordinate license). Go for your life.

Are vows not to remove rights legally binding?

Part of the GPL license is that the owner of the copyright can never take back distribution rights (un license the work). Is this legally valid or is it similar to any other "free promise" ("I promise to give you a million dollars" isn't binding while "I'll give you a million dollars for this car which I'm taking now").

Under common law, a gratuitous license grant is revocable, one that forms part of a contract is not. Whether the license is a contract or not turns on a number of things; the most relevant being if there was an intention on both parties to create a contract (which would be demonstrated by their actions) and if consideration passed from the receiver to the giver of the license. The GPL probably is a contract because by giving it and the receiver acting on it they have both demonstrated intention and the receiver has given consideration: a promise to redistribute on the same terms. As such it would be irrevocable.

Are any subjects or contents off-limits for publication in &quot;free-speech&quot; countries?

Even if a government claims to respect " freedom of speech ," are there any topics that can be prohibited from publication? Examples might be Uncle Fester books or WikiLeaks.

What a country claims to be the case certainly doesn't guarantee what is the case. The constitution (at least as of 2012) of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (aka North Korea) says: Article 67. Citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association. The State shall guarantee the conditions for the free activities of democratic political parties and social organizations. Needless to say, North Korea is not generally considered a bastion of free speech. The People's Republic of China has a similar provision in its constitution. When we get to countries where those outside the country consider there to be some level of freedom of speech, there are still restrictions. In the UK, the Official Secrets Act makes it a crime for any person to republish leaked classified information. Germany makes it illegal to deny that the Holocaust happened. Until 2013, Canada made it illegal for a person to use telecommunications to say something that would expose people to hatred for some reason covered by antidiscrimination law. Many, many countries criminalize child pornography. Many, many countries have copyright laws. "Free speech" does not mean "you can say whatever you want and the government can't stop you." It means "as a general rule , the government can't restrict what you're saying because they don't like it." I am unaware of any country with a functional government with unfettered freedom of speech.

Can a manager decline a request for a sick day?

At work can a manger tell an employee that they must come in to work after requesting a sick day? What if the reason is something like they need to go to the dentist to get their annual teeth cleaning? Does it matter if the employee is not entitled to any sick days?

Tell the employee they must come to work? Or else... what? If they don't show up they get a demerit and after 1,000,000 demerits they get a verbal warning? What are the consequences in this hypothetical? Of course a contract may dictate a different rule but in an at-will-employment state a manager can certainly tell an employee that they must come to work and can fire or discipline them if they don't come to work. Exceptions that might apply are instances where the employee is physically disabled or otherwise covered by the ADA and also situations where FMLA in implicated. Regarding ADA the rule is reasonable accommodation including modifying work schedules which may give the employer room to dictate timing of appointments. For example if the employee works 1:00 PM to 9:00 PM but continuously takes off work to go to doctors appointments.

mitigation of joint and several liability when renting shared housing

My understanding of the rationale behind joint and several liability is that the tenants would be most knowledgeable how to fairly distribute a cost amongst themselves. My question is what can be done to make sure that one person won't be held accountable for everything? For example I've heard stories where the landlord evicts everyone and sues one tenant for the remainder of the lease. My question is would the following be considered legally binding? Sure the landlord could have all the tenants sign the lease agreeing to join and several liability, but then could the roommates amongst themselves sign something to say that each is responsible for his/her own rent? For example say a landlord rents a house with 5 bedrooms. The landlord has each tenant sign a lease that says "each tenant can be charged as an individual or all tenants can be charged as a group", but then the tenants amongst themselves each sign an agreement saying "each tenant agrees to be responsible for their own portion of the rent". Then if one tenant doesn't pay, would the landlord be forced to go after them in court, or would whoever ends up getting sued by the landlord be able to go after the person who didn't pay, or would it not really make a difference?

Joint and Several liability Joint and several liability means that the landlord can sue the tenants one-by-one until the liability is satisfied. It has nothing to do with how the tenants distribute the costs among themselves. In practice, the landlord will sue the people they a) can find and b) believe have money. No landlord in their right mind will give this up. Intra-tenant agreement If this met the requirements of a contract then it could be enforced and would allow the tenants to agree on the proportion of rent (and other outgoings) that would be paid by each. It is a really good idea, however, it has no impact on the agreement between the tenant(s) and the landlord. However, if one of the tenants does not comply then the others are legally obliged to make up the shortfall. They could go to court to enforce the contract (or equitable rights in the absence of a contract). TL;DR Don't share a house with people you don't trust to pay the rent.