|
I'm not sure any non-compete could possibly survive when someone is being employed on a freelance basis.
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:26 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:I'm not sure any non-compete could possibly survive when someone is being employed on a freelance basis. Unless it's not really freelance employment
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Unless it's not really freelance employment Well yeah but in that case you have a Judge starting at a freelance contract that isn't really freelance employment with a non-compete which covers any activity in the entire country and he's going to tell scumbag employer to get stuffed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
I'll add a bit more and maybe this'll help define the situation: If I go, this venture likely tanks. Do I know that for sure? No, but I'm certainly not going to try to duplicate it. My employer has a number of projects going on right now. I'm going to ballpark and say 7-10 on a nationwide basis, and that might not even be a high enough number. Wouldn't holding me to such a non-compete in reference to only writing be a waste of time in that case since he's got so much else going on? It would seem that he'd put that time and money into more profitable ventures, especially since he's made it clear to me on a number of occasions that there are other more enjoyable things he could be doing with the capital to make this project run. A joke? Maybe. Insulting as hell? Yeah. Anyway, does this help at all? quote:The more important questions are: one, how likely do you think they are to enforce it, and two, how important do you think it is to them in negotiating your new contract? Answering these might help, too. 1.) I honestly don't know, but I'd lean towards the negative as I mentioned above. Of all the projects, I feel pretty low on the totem pole and I know mine's not profitable. 2.) I've been trying to get a new contract signed since late June before it expired in early July. It's almost September, so...yeah. Am I important to this project? Absolutely, however the writing I want to do versus the writing they want me to do are entirely different. Would I bring a higher readership? Yes, but that's because the places that would bring me on already have one to begin with aside from any talents I may have. In the end, *I* could see my employer writing it off as the project has been called a "money pit" on more than one occasion (and not by me), but I don't want to make any assumptions. StupidSexyVaultGuy fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Aug 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
If an engineering research student is doing research on projects that will likely lead to patents, grant money and/or published papers for the school but is unpaid, is their lack of being paid minimum wage illegal?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
Lord Gaga posted:If an engineering research student is doing research on projects that will likely lead to patents, grant money and/or published papers for the school but is unpaid, is their lack of being paid minimum wage illegal? Is doing research part of their educational curriculum?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Is doing research part of their educational curriculum? Not this research, no. This is something theyre doing "for experience" and functions as a job. I get paid to do the a similar/the same thing under a different research professor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
Lord Gaga posted:If an engineering research student is doing research on projects that will likely lead to patents, grant money and/or published papers for the school but is unpaid, is their lack of being paid minimum wage illegal? Why would the patentability of the projects you're working on have any bearing on your pay?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:Why would the patentability of the projects you're working on have any bearing on your pay? Because it measurably benefits the school financially to have them do this research which is one of the qualifiers for the FLSA's is this private sector internship requiring payment. The following six criteria must be applied when making this determination: * The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment; TRUE * The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern; TRUE * The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff; I would disagree with this. I get paid to do similar research as an employee. I am confident if no one would work for free she would employ people to do the exact same research. * The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded; Disagree. This is where the patent-ability of their work comes in. * The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and True * The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship. True
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
So what you're saying is at least four of the six factors for determining the applicability of the FLSA (and hence the minimum wage requirement) weigh against applicability? So it's likely not going to require minimum wage? I guess I'm not particularly bothered that the school is benefitting financially from volunteer labor. Food banks save a lot of money by getting volunteers to serve food, even though they might have paid staff to supplement volunteers when there aren't enough volunteers. Similarly, volunteers who make goods for nonprofits might not get paid, even though whatever they make (knitted sweaters or something, I don't know) can be sold by the nonprofit. Even if it's a for-profit school, as long as the student/intern understands at the outset that it's purely a volunteer thing, I think you'll have a really hard time getting the FLSA to apply.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
Patent ownership stays with the inventor in the United States, barring other contractual arrangements. Unless a contract says "I agree to assign" or "I hereby assign," any inventions the inventor conceives and/or reduces to practice during their employment are theirs, subject to shop rights and other things I'm not getting into. Generally, employers keep interns away from those sorts of items, but it certainly shouldn't impact wage standards. Further, the vast majority of patents are a net economic drain on the patent owner. Only every so often is one worth anything. The above is generic observations; I am not your lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
I have an odd sort of question regarding adverse possession, tenant rights, and trespassing in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The house next to my dad's property was foreclosed back in, I believe, 2003. Since then, the house has sat empty, the yard has become overgrown, the roofs have started taking damage, and all the copper piping has been torn out and stolen. I'm fairly sure the building itself was also condemned by the city. Recently, we took a look around - while the outside looks bad, the actual structure seems to be in pretty good shape (besides the pipes, of course). As a result, I've been toying with the idea of squatting in the house and fixing it up. It would help my dad and the rest of the neighbors, since having an abandoned house is an eyesore, and I'd get the benefit of not paying rent. Before I do anything, I want to know what sort of legal trouble I could get into, so basically I have two (multi-part) questions. 1.) Criminal trespass Obviously, I would like to avoid being arrested for a felony charge. When we looked around, we got in through a semi-unlocked door, and there was also an unlocked window on the second floor. Some of my research came up with the claim that trespassing only applies if you 'break in' - that is, if you break open a window or door to get access, it's trespassing. But if you go through an open window, there's no B&E and no trespassing. From what I can tell from reading this, That's bullshit, right? A window is "not designed for human access", it would still be trespassing. The lock on the back door is a key pad, and while it's set to the default code (0000), using that code would count as "unauthorized opening of locks", rights? So unless I'm wrong, I have no defense there. The defense that the property is abandoned seems a little bit more promising, but I can't seem to find any specific definition in PA law for what that means. The building is owned by a national bank after (I think) it was foreclosed. No one has occupied the building, and they haven't tried to sell the property. They also haven't maintained the property. However, they seemed to have contracted a company that placed a sign in the window and (I assume) installed the locks. Is the sign sufficient to make the place not be abandoned, despite the lack of use and maintenance? Does the building being condemned make it also abandoned? The only definition I found for "abandoned" was: "An abandoned property is a chronically vacant structure or lot which is not being actively maintained, improved or marketed by the owner", from here. That isn't a legal document, though, so I don't want to trust in it. Basically, if I get arrested for trespassing, do I have any defense at all? And a more vague question, how likely is it that I'd be arrested for trespassing in Pittsburgh without some sort of warning to leave first? 2.) Squatting and tenant rights This is the other question I have, and it's one that I'm completely lost on. My research found some claims from squatters online that you can gain a tenant's rights even though you're not living there with the owner's consent. Most of the claims seem to revolve around the idea that a squatter gets these rights if they squat for a sufficient amount of time, with most claiming at least 30 or 45 days. Now, this isn't a deal breaker for me, but knowing what sorts of rights I have is very important for making plans. Most importantly, I want to know if I can gain the right to a formal eviction - written notice, writ of possession, 24-hour notice to vacate, all that. If I reach the point in the squat where I want to move in my computer or something, I need to know whether one day I'll come home with all my stuff missing, and whether the courts will tell me to go suck eggs. I also read that when you have tenant's rights, only the owner can start the eviction process, which ties back into my first question. If I understand correctly, if I have tenant's rights, I can't be arrested for trespassing, right? If what I'm doing is trespassing, but only for the first 30 days, well... that's important to know. Sorry to ask such big, complex questions. I tried to do the research myself, but I don't have any legal training and it just confused me. I've considered asking an attorney, and that will probably be my next step, but I don't really have the money to get a lawyer on what is really only a pipe dream at the moment. If the answers are "Yes, it's trespassing and no, you can't get those rights, duuuuuuh", I'll feel like a bit of a doofus for spending all that money. Anyway, thanks! edit: Oh dear, I think I just found a much more concise way to ask my question: how much of the information here is true, and how much of it applies to PA? Jonked fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Aug 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 06:12
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:So what you're saying is at least four of the six factors for determining the applicability of the FLSA (and hence the minimum wage requirement) weigh against applicability? So it's likely not going to require minimum wage? Whether or not one person is bothered by it is not the issue at hand. People are focusing on the patent thing when its the least important part. Students work on projects with million dollar budgets that the school is only able to complete because of the student's research. The law doesnt say it needs to meet 4 or 5 or 1 out of 6 criterion, it says it needs to meet the criterion. What I am asking is more, is there an FLSA exemption for schools? Food banks and non profits have special exemptions under the FLSA. http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs71.htm
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 12:34
|
|
|
Adverse possession in PA takes a continuous 21 years (plus some other requirements.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 12:41
|
|
|
Jonked posted:I have an odd sort of question regarding adverse possession, tenant rights, and trespassing in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It sounds like a bad idea that will involve the police and your stuff on the curb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 14:41
|
|
|
Twelve-year forums vet actually coming here for legal advice; this does not feel like it represents progress  I have a pretty low-impact situation going on, but would love to have my rear end covered legally and am having trouble tracking down some clear definitions on harassment.As brief as I can manage: My mother-in-law has a really nice house with a large finished basement, and had a friend of ours staying there, a nice girl who nannies our kids and cleans both houses. Her rent was $10/night w utilities and run of the house, hot tub etc, great deal for both parties. There was no lease or paperwork ever signed, just a good faith trade, sorta. So she asks if her boyfriend can stay there some nights, that's fine, whatever. Then she leaves for a couple months and her boyfriend takes over the arrangement. He's a super-irritating hippie who goes around all day with his shirt off, doesn't clean as he's supposed to, makes all these eco-changes to the house without asking first, borrows my mother-in-law's laptop and steps on the screen accidentally, it's toast. He gets in a very mild physical altercation with the gardener over use of the sprinkler system, gardener shoves him, he locks the poor guy out and starts threatening to file a police report because of the act of violence (the gardener did initiate physical contact). At this point we're like, "it's not working, gtfo." On top of that, my mother-in-law finds a big-rear end pot plant in her garden. Classy! Unfortunately, the plant's been moved and we don't have a photo of it for proof, though he doesn't know that. Anyway, she told him that's a deal-breaker and he needs to move out immediately (this was Sun 8/26) and have his stuff out by Friday (8/31). Last night (8/27) he lets himself in and is making food in the kitchen, gets into an argument with my mother-in-law and insults the entire family, insults our parenting, insults her 87-year-old mother, just totally out of line. He leaves, she calls me in tears and freaked out (longer story, but the dude is basically a vagrant and not all there  , she lives alone with her invalid mom and he's a freaky dude, I don't blame her for feeling nervous/vulnerable) I immediately go over there at like 11 pm and I'm texting him telling him he needs to come over and get his stuff; he was just there ten minutes ago, but refuses to come over. We go back and forth and he tells me to stop contacting him or it will be harassment. I started moving his stuff out but learned that I can't do that legally, so it's all back in the basement where it was.QUESTION 1: Is it harassment just because he tells me to stop contacting him and I don't, if it's neither threatening nor insulting and involves a legal matter? Nobody wants a legal situation, we just want him out. I have no other avenue of communicating with him other than text, guy has no house and no phone. More issues: my wife has employed him at her business as a cleaner. He has a key to the office that she obviously wants back ASAP. QUESTION 2: He has been notified by text by me (I'm part owner) that he's fired effective immediately; is it "harassment" to continue to contact him to get the key back? Actually these are both kind of the same question: Is it harassment if the content isn't threatening or insulting, etc? I understand it's harassment from his end if he says "don't contact me anymore" and I do, but don't they evaluate the evidence (text logs) before making a decision on that? Are there legal ramifications if I continue to contact him via text to get the drat key back, provided I'm not threatening or insulting? Doesn't the employer have a right to property, i.e. if he's fired and is ignoring requests to return the key, is it harassment to continue to try to get back what is kind of stolen property at this point? Last point: my understanding is that even if there wasn't a lease in place at my mother-in-law's, if he's there more than three days he has tenant's rights and we'd have to go through a formal eviction process. All well and good, I doubt it will come to that (dude has no phone, no residence, no bank account, etc), but we want him the gently caress out of our lives. In Oregon if the tenant commits an "outrageous act" (evidently the exact words, per orbar.org), they can be given a 24-hour written notice to leave. Isn't his conduct, plus these insults he dropped on me over text, plus growing grass in the garden without consent, enough cumulatively to constitute an "outrageous act"? I don't know how much of this is answerable and I'm hoping he just gets his rear end out; he has zero assets and this legal poo poo he's talking is likely just an act. But I don't trust him and I want the key back, and I really want to push that point, but this "stop contacting me" harassment threat is making me hesitate. Is that any kind of a concern? rivetz fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Aug 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
Spend some bucks to change the locks. Getting the keys back is irrelevant if a 5 minute trip to Home Depot gets him a copy of everything. Don't even ask for the keys back, it's a waste of time. If he gave them to you right now, you still need to change all locks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Adverse possession in PA takes a continuous 21 years (plus some other requirements.) I was kind of hoping that I'd get a general ballpark idea of what it would involve before talking to a lawyer. Especially since it looks like I'd need to talk to two attorneys, one that handles criminal matters and one that handles housing matters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
It just makes no sense dude... You're thinking of putting in money to an attorney, to put in money into "fixing up" property that isn't yours, in the hopes of encouraging the bank to do something (?), and risking legal consequences and all of your personal property. Talking to a criminal attorney about starting a criminal enterprise (albiet a pretty benign one) is kinda weird. The best way to minimize your risk is to not squat in an abandoned house that isn't yours. Why don't you inquire about buying the property from the bank like a normal person?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
Counselor Wuzzle, that takes money. Hello.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Also, property is theft, dontcha know?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
OK - so I made this semi well known video showing the discovery of asteroids over the last 30 years or so, actually I made a few and this is the most recent one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONUSP23cmAE Now some other people like my video, and steal large portions of it to promote their particular religious viewpoints (this is just one of many copies): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dvVcgXUc1A Now they credit me, even putting my name and picture in the video at the 30 second mark, and then the next 2 minutes are pretty much my video with their voiceover completely misrepresenting the data. Not only is this violating my intellectual property, I feel that it is harmful to my reputation. So, I see this posted on youtube and feel well within my rights to submit a takedown, I've made more than a few takedowns of simple reposts of my video where they refused to credit me. And I've actually given permission to create a number of derivative works when the creators sought my permission prior to publication, but I've specifically stated that no derivative work may promote a political or religious permission so even if they had contacted me I would not have permitted this work. Anyway, the DMCA notice goes through it's currently taken down, but now they've decided to file a counter claim quote:"We received the attached counter-notification in response to a complaint you filed with us. As described in the United States Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) 17 U.S.C. 512, by this email, we're providing you with the counter-notification and await your notice (in not more than 10 business days) that you've filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the counter-notifier's allegedly infringing activity. Such notice should be submitted by replying to this email. If we don't receive notice from you, we will reinstate the material to YouTube." So, they're basicly a corporation and gambling that as an individual I'm not going to have the time or resources to go to court to defend my rights. And given that I'm not loaded with cash and barely have enough time, they're probably right unless you guys have some suggestions on what I can do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 00:32
|
|
ROCKET SCIENCE
|
NancyPants posted:Counselor Wuzzle, that takes money. Hello. Yeah... Sorry Jonked if I'm being harsh, but there are a million reasons it's a bad idea. Let's say the house burns down by accident, or you get robbed, or any neighbor calls the cops cause lights are on in the abandoned house, or or or...
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Yeah... I don't think you are being harsh. Guy is coming into a thread of lawyers asking you all how to break the law. It's pretty insulting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
rivetz posted:Questions Question 1: Probably not, but I don't know your state law. Question 2: Because employment is involved here and a relationship is involved, you may want to talk to an employment attorney to cover your rear end. Also, the answer will vary based on state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
Queen Elizatits posted:I don't think you are being harsh. Guy is coming into a thread of lawyers asking you all how to break the law. It's pretty insulting. And woozle wuzzle, I understand why you thinking squatting in general is a bad idea. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, I wouldn't be liable for the house burning down unless it resulted from negligent behavior on my part, right? Being on the property by itself wouldn't be enough to establish negligence. And your third point... well, that's sort of what my question was all about. If the site I linked is correct, the police wouldn't actually have the basis for a trespassing arrest because the complaint didn't come from the owner/the property was abandoned (which wouldn't necessarily stop them from taking me in, just provide defense against a felony charge).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
Queen Elizatits posted:I don't think you are being harsh. Guy is coming into a thread of lawyers asking you all how to break the law. It's pretty insulting. No he/she isn't. He/she is trying to find where the line between 'within the law' and 'outside the law' is. (And has presented cogent arguments on the side of 'within the law.') * That's pretty much what lawyering should be - people coming to you before they do something to make sure it's not illegal or risky in some other way. I wish to god my clients would have done exactly what Jonked is doing. (and then actually followed my advice) Maybe I'm being harsh, but where do you get off telling me I should be insulted by Jonked's questions, even if he/she was asking how to commit a crime? Lawyers are pretty far down on the list of classes of people who need to be white-knighted. What is it about his/her quest for clarification of what the law is that offends you so much? I'm a bit flabbergasted on both points. * which is not to say that it's a good idea, because the only way to find out for sure may well involve a night's stay in jail, a few thousand in legal fees, plus a civil suit for all the damage to the home, fair or no - which is another few thousand in legal bills. Maybe you should win, and maybe you would win on both the criminal and civil sides - but will it be worth it? Cost-benefit analysis says no. The website you posted is pie-in-the-sky SF, CA political action stuff, not something an individual in Pittsburgh should rely on. You might(?) find something more helpful in here somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
Crazy squatter dude: I don't know how it works in your state, but abandonment is an affirmative defense to trespassing. This means the burden of proof is on you to prove that the property is abandoned (not sure what the standard of proof would be, but in AP cases in Texas it is clear & convincing, which is higher than the normal civil burden of preponderance). It's a fact question to be sure, but I'd say this situation is probably pretty typical of foreclosures and you would at best be rolling the dice on a felony charge if this idea of abandonment is your only out. I'd say so long as the bank is paying the taxes and hasn't made any statements saying 'gently caress this house', taken with hiring someone to at least do something on the property, shows no intent to abandon. Not sure what the elements of abandonment are in your state.illectro posted:So, they're basicly a corporation and gambling that as an individual I'm not going to have the time or resources to go to court to defend my rights. And given that I'm not loaded with cash and barely have enough time, they're probably right unless you guys have some suggestions on what I can do. This is pretty much right. Based on the limited facts you have provided it sounds like they are probably infringing and your claim is valid, but now they've taken it to where you have to fight them in court. One thing to consider whether it's worth it or not is, is the work in question registered? If not registered you will not really have a chance at recouping any money you put into a suit, you would just be protecting your IP. Anyway if you are interested in doing something about it I would get in touch with a lawyer. edit: Looks like it's not registered though I only did a cursory search using available info from the video. I'd consider registering it if you want to have more protection. edit2: Man it's only $35! That's a hell of a lot better than trademarks. Dogen fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Aug 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 15:12
|
|
|
Jonked posted:I have no plans of actually taking possession of the property, but fixing it up and not paying rent for a couple years would be enough. That is taking possession. You are in way over your head. Stop. Just forget this whole strategy of yours.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 15:15
|
|
|
Jonked posted:And woozle wuzzle, I understand why you thinking squatting in general is a bad idea. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, I wouldn't be liable for the house burning down unless it resulted from negligent behavior on my part, right? Being on the property by itself wouldn't be enough to establish negligence. The source of the initial complaint for trespassing doesn't matter whatsoever. If there's a crappy sign on the front saying keep out, and a neighbor spots you, then you're outta there. I wouldn't gamble that responding Pitt officers are going to give the slightest poo poo about "tenant's rights" for a squatter living in an abandoned house. They will have serious law enforcement concerns (essentially they'll assume you're into drugs somehow), and they'll put you out immediately by way of their squad car. You should not do this. The only outcome is deep regret. Whatever "work" you put into the home is just kinda nutty and lost. You have a very good chance of losing 100% of your personal property that goes into the home. Inevitably there will be police interaction, and if you haven't spent any time in jail then you are deeply underestimating how lovely jail can be. If you're so concerned about the eyesore, then organize a saturday morning neighborhood meetup to clear out the overgrowth and repair.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
The correct method I guess is working the the City Council to get the property condemned and improved through eminent domain if you are that concerned. The law does not look too kindly on self help.
euphronius fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Aug 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 15:33
|
|
|
^^^^ isn't the standard for eminent domain on a property just because it's lovely incredibly high? City Council probably wouldn't do anything, and if they did surely the bank would show up to say "gently caress you we're not doing anything, it's our property"woozle wuzzle posted:If you're so concerned about the eyesore, then organize a saturday morning neighborhood meetup to clear out the overgrowth and repair. Or just burn it down! Actually don't do that, but seriously it's about as good a plan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 15:34
|
|
|
Dogen posted:^^^^ isn't the standard for eminent domain on a property just because it's lovely incredibly high? City Council probably wouldn't do anything, and if they did surely the bank would show up to say "gently caress you we're not doing anything, it's our property" It isn't impossibly hard and happens pretty often. Tax foreclosures and sheriff sales are obviously more frequent. But the jurisdiction can't control the subsequent use (other than through zoning.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 15:41
|
|
|
Dogen posted:This is pretty much right. Based on the limited facts you have provided it sounds like they are probably infringing and your claim is valid, but now they've taken it to where you have to fight them in court. That other video got taken down BTW... so you can't see it any more. I'm not even clear what benefit registering this work would provide, especially since I'm planning on producing a new 2012 edition version of it. I have a bunch of variations of this movie (different time periods, and soundtracks), would they all need registering separately? I don't think it's likely that I'd be able to recoup the costs associated with initiating a case against them, they're in a different country so collecting any judgement would probably have to be directly against their google adsense revenue. Am I likely to weaken my case, or future cases if I don't immediately respond?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
illectro posted:That other video got taken down BTW... so you can't see it any more. I'm not a lawyer, but registering your work entitles you to a lot more than just proving that you made it but didn't register it. If the work is unregistered, you will not be entitled to damages, only (if I remember right) any profits they may have gained from the use of your work, or what you would have charged for licensing the work to them. I'm probably totally wrong though, since it was forever ago that I last heard an intellectual property lecture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
Little Miss RKO posted:I'm not a lawyer, but registering your work entitles you to a lot more than just proving that you made it but didn't register it. If the work is unregistered, you will not be entitled to damages, only (if I remember right) any profits they may have gained from the use of your work, or what you would have charged for licensing the work to them. Not a lawyer either, but I think that you have to prove actual damages if it's not registered, whereas you can get the statutory damages (something like $150k per work, if I remember correctly) if it is registered.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
Sefer posted:Not a lawyer either, but I think that you have to prove actual damages if it's not registered, whereas you can get the statutory damages (something like $150k per work, if I remember correctly) if it is registered. That sounds pretty close to what I was told as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 23:16
|
|
|
Sefer posted:Not a lawyer either, but I think that you have to prove actual damages if it's not registered, whereas you can get the statutory damages (something like $150k per work, if I remember correctly) if it is registered. 150k is max per willful violation, the normal range is 750-30,000. You can get it down to $200 per if you claim innocent infringement, which in this case would be unlikely as they've already been put on notice. But yeah, registration provides some prima facie stuff for your claim (presumed registerable), as well as providing the statutory damages, thus making it worth your while to file a suit. The mutiple very similar works angle is interesting and I haven't run across it before, the closest thing I know anything about is derivative works. In general you do weaken your ownership interest in IP by not defending it, but I'm honestly not sure how that would apply in this case since it is kind of weird.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
Dogen posted:In general you do weaken your ownership interest in IP by not defending it, but I'm honestly not sure how that would apply in this case since it is kind of weird. You only weaken trademarks by a failure to defend (and it's more complicated than that anyway, you don't have to go after absolutely everything) - copyrights and patents aren't weakened by a failure to defend, though it may open up the potential for some types of reliance/implicit license arguments if you're on actual notice of another's infringement and choose to allow it. Your best bet is to find your local chapter of Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts and give them a call - they should be able to refer you to someone local, if you want to pursue this. Registration is going to be pretty much essential if you want to recoup anything from the case (which you will, because this kind of thing gets expensive). edit: Registration opens access to statutory damages instead of lost profits, and also provides for constructive notice from date of registration (which isn't actually a benefit here, since you have actual notice provided by the takedown if nothing else) and give you the ability to request an injunction. Also, it's mandatory if you want to file a suit. Kalman fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Aug 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:26 |
|
|
So before I start: I'm in touch with the county Bar Association to go through their lawyer referral service. It'll take a couple of days for them to get me the form and for me to send back paperwork and the $30 fee (they're not quite e-commerce just yet) and I didn't really find a clear answer on my warranty forms or online. I bought a Samsung laptop on Amazon in February 2012. It started to go bad in May and was inoperable in August - busted trackpad and speaker. I sent it in for warranty service. It came back with those issues fixed, but the palmrest had something pushing up from inside and made a visible upward divot. Plus, the wireless network card was darn near inoperable (one bar with direct line of sight to my router at three feet distance). I sent it back again and this time it came back without a battery. Since the battery is sealed inside this model, I can't just have them send me a replacement. At each step I troubleshooted myself and gave results to Samsung's support line and each time they concurred that a tech will need to re-examine it. At this point the laptop is basically an unusable lemon and has been useless the entire month of August. I asked Samsung to send me a replacement and I'll send the old one back, they say they can't do that until a Samsung tech (the same ones that busted it TWICE) evaluate it and attempt a repair. To be honest, they're not honoring their own warranty - it's not been fixed despite sending it back multiple times. I am still trying to escalate within Samsung and to see if their social media outlets will help me out, but no luck on either. My question: can I sue in small claims court for failure to uphold the warranty for the purchase value of the laptop? Or do warranty matters have to be handled by a regular civil court? I'm guessing the non-legal remedy answer is just to sit it out and send it back again and again until it eventually gets fixed, but one accident is happenstance, twice is enemy action, thrice is the sender being stupid - there has to be some way I can get a remedy that doesn't involve the fix being done by the incompetent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 16:31
|
|
