|
Jet Ready Go posted:
I'm guessing that the owners of the relevant copyright holders haven't complained yet. I have a question for the lawyers here. I'm thinking that Flash-Slowpoke might be the only one of the designs that would be an actual parody. The others just look like mashups of two unrelated popular characters. Edit: Or does parody have to be like the PETA Pokemon game where the work more aggressively attacks the underlying premise. Dr. Arbitrary fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Mar 16, 2013 |
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:I'm a clueless dipshit that's trying to sell art with no idea how copyright works. You're all being sooooo MMMMEAAANNN Dr. Arbitrary: I don't know any of the exact lines for parody, but I don't think any of those would survive a challenge. At least in practical terms if the vendor receives a complaint, they'll just drop the design out of caution. For stuff like that, it can cost the original copyright holder more to play whack-a-mole than it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:Also, given all that everyone has already said, what protects companies like TeeFury and not me that allows them to make and sell designs as follows: The fact that they haven't received a take down notice yet? All of these violate copyright, I think. There are some in there I don't get the reference to because I'm apparently not a big enough nerd. It turns out the internet is full of copyright infringers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
Easy. They haven't been caught yet. Here's the thing with parody. Under law, parody doesn't mean 'I drew this character like another popular character.' Parody has to critique or comment on the subject. That's why parody is allowed--because artistic critique is socially useful, and because the law doesn't expect you to go and ask the creator for a license if you're going to bash the poo poo out of the work. Here, take a look at these two pictures:  The picture on the right is a painting that copied and used the photograph on the left without permission. In Blanch v. Koons, the court held that the painting was an allowable parody, because it critiqued the consumerism of the magazine that the photograph was taken from. However, it's worth noting that Koons lost pretty much every other copyright infringement suit that he got in. And these examples were held not to be parody:  Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates (not parody because it took more from the original work than was necessary to critique it)  Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books (not parody because it critiqued OJ Simpson, not Dr. Seuss) That said, if you come up with your own frowning cat, you're probably okay on two conditions. First, you can't market it as "Grumpy Cat" or similar, or anything that would confuse a consumer into thinking he was getting Grumpy Cat merch, or otherwise dilute the value of the "Grumpy Cat" trademark. (That covers trademark infringement.) Second, it can't be substantially similar--it can't be any more similar to Grumpy Cat as the magazine covers or the alphabet quilts I posted upthread. (That covers copyright infringement.) Satisfy those conditions, and you're probably okay, in my capacity as a random internet person.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
You don't even need to start typing Jet Ready Go, so feel free to gently caress off. I've got you covered: THANK YOU Bro Enlai for finally giving me the information I've requested. Sheesh. You others could learn a thing or two from him about bedside manners. I hope you guys don't treat your real clients like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:I hope you guys don't treat your real clients like that. On the other hand real clients pay money for the privilege of our being nice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:On the other hand real clients pay money for the privilege of our being nice. Only in law do you have to be paid for being a decent human being.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:Only in law do you have to be paid for being a decent human being. No, not really. Isn't it like the opposite, in a way?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:Only in law do you have to be paid for being a decent human being. Only in law do you have to be paid for
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
burf posted:Only in law do you have to be paid for It was more of a general observation than a specific one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:Only in law do you have to be paid for being a decent human being. Also the sex industry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
This is just a "if I won the lottery" fantasy. Say you lived in an at-will state and won the lottery and you hated your boss and wanted to make his life hell. Could you get in legal trouble if you quit and bribed all of the other employees to quit at the same time?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
just a law student but that sounds like it could be tortious interference? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
Shut up about that guy's stupid hello kitty grumpy whatevers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:This is just a "if I won the lottery" fantasy. Say you lived in an at-will state and won the lottery and you hated your boss and wanted to make his life hell. Could you get in legal trouble if you quit and bribed all of the other employees to quit at the same time? Not sure how it works south of the border, but in Canadian law key employees have a fiduciary duty not to solicit clients or other employees. Which makes for an interesting tightrope when the former employee is claiming damages for the wrongful dismissal, while simultaneously asserting that he or she wasn't important at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
Schitzo posted:...key employees have a fiduciary duty not to solicit clients or other employees. Which makes for an interesting tightrope when the former employee is claiming damages for the wrongful dismissal while simultaneously asserting that he or she wasn't important at all. I don't follow. Is an employee only able to claim damages for wrongful termination if he was a key employee?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 07:23
|
|
|
Quick boring lease question to cleanse the palate after The GrumpyCat Show. In VA. I'm the tenant, month to month lease, rent is due the first of the month. State Landlord/tenant act says: "A. The landlord or the tenant may terminate a week-to-week tenancy by serving a written notice on the other at least seven days prior to the next rent due date. The landlord or the tenant may terminate a month-to-month tenancy by serving a written notice on the other at least 30 days prior to the next rent due date." I'm unclear on when the final payment due is. So if I give notice next week, can I say I plan to move out at the end of April, or am I still on the hook for May 1's rent? Basically, is it 30 days notice + final rent payment (effectively "30-60 days before you plan to move out") or does the >30 days notice before the next payment mean you can end the lease without penalty without making that payment? I hope I am articulating this clearly, maybe it's a dumb question, but it seems like it could go either way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
Tyro posted:Quick boring lease question to cleanse the palate after The GrumpyCat Show. You give your notice at least 30 days before the rental due date when you want to be gone, and pay rent up to that date. And, obviously, move out by that date. If you want to be gone at the end of April, give your notice no later than March 31. Then pay April rent and move out during April. You won't owe May rent. You should also check your state's procedure for requesting your security deposit-some states require the landlord to send it automatically, while some states make you request it. urnisme fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Mar 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 15:09
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:I don't follow. Is an employee only able to claim damages for wrongful termination if he was a key employee? No - but in the case of key employees there are the competing considerations I mentioned above.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
I'm trying to upload a video to YouTube that is a re-edit of a popular movie. It got instantly blocked with copyright claims, but I'm pretty sure it counts as fair use. Would this be fair use, and if so, what kind of wording should I use in explaining it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Jewcoon posted:I'm trying to upload a video to YouTube that is a re-edit of a popular movie. It got instantly blocked with copyright claims, but I'm pretty sure it counts as fair use. Would this be fair use, and if so, what kind of wording should I use in explaining it? Maybe, if it's a parody. If you scroll up a bit, I posted a brief description of parody and what is and isn't parody. But in short, it's probably fair use if your re-edit constitutes a comment or critique on the original movie, and you didn't use any more of the movie than was necessary for commentary/critique purposes. If you google "DMCA counternotification", you'll probably find some model language you can use in your explanation. When you send in the counter-notice, the rightsholder must either sue you directly or let YouTube put the video back up. Note that the rightsholder may decide to sue even if you have a rock-solid parody claim, if they really want the video down and they think you won't (or can't) fight them in court. I am not aware of any cases where this has actually happened, but there is a nonzero risk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Bro Enlai posted:Maybe, if it's a parody. If you scroll up a bit, I posted a brief description of parody and what is and isn't parody. But in short, it's probably fair use if your re-edit constitutes a comment or critique on the original movie, and you didn't use any more of the movie than was necessary for commentary/critique purposes. Thanks for the information! So fair use's main application is parody then? Annoying, but it makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
Jewcoon posted:Thanks for the information! So fair use's main application is parody then? Annoying, but it makes sense. IANAL, but I think it also includes quoting and citing for academic or critical purposes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
YouTube content ID takedowns are not DMCA takedowns and do not have to follow the same rules. Fair use is a factor in a DMCA takedown, but instant blocking means content id - good luck arguing fair use as an exception to a private ordering regime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
So my health insurance company is stupid (In Washington here). I'm not having an issue with my claim being denied, but they are paying out the claim as a different procedure than I submitted... sort of. So my insurance specifically covers cosmetic surgery for trans people, but of course there are no in-network providers for cosmetic surgery. I had a boob job recently (in Seattle) and was submitted to insurance company. The EOB says I had breast reconstruction, which I didn't have. I had a straight up breast augmentation, and was filed as such. I exchanged email with my company contact at the insurance company, and they checked into it and came back and said that's what the company filed it as and I'd need to dispute it. The 'reasonable and customary' amount I was reimbursed isn't even enough for a half a boob job in Tijuana! I'm guessing getting a claim for my particular procedure is pretty uncommon so they haven't done a cost analysis and just lumped me with the breast cancer crowd. I'm thinking about seeing an attorney to go through the dispute process, but at the same time it's only over about 6k, so I'm thinking of doing it myself since you can't win against the insurance company until you get to the step of suing them anyway. I kind of have aversions to seeing doctors and attorneys, as I've had really, really, awful experiences in the past when they find out I'm trans (everything is fine until they look up my medical records or need to know about my history). What does anybody think? Is this something I might contact HR about since our insurance is self-funded? Having coverage for this type of thing was a big reason I even took a job here... Anyhow, richwhitepersonproblems.txt. AbsoluteLlama fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 10:04
|
|
|
Jewcoon posted:I'm trying to upload a video to YouTube that is a re-edit of a popular movie. It got instantly blocked with copyright claims, but I'm pretty sure it counts as fair use. Would this be fair use, and if so, what kind of wording should I use in explaining it? Kalman posted:YouTube content ID takedowns are not DMCA takedowns and do not have to follow the same rules. Fair use is a factor in a DMCA takedown, but instant blocking means content id - good luck arguing fair use as an exception to a private ordering regime. This. When you're dealing with Youtube, there's more involved than the simple fair use analysis. You also have to consider the effects on your partner status (e.g. if you get a copyright strike, will this harm your monetization of other content? This varies depending on your tier of partner status with Youtube, how many strikes you have, etc).
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 12:35
|
|
|
AbsoluteLlama posted:So my health insurance company is stupid (In Washington here). I'm not having an issue with my claim being denied, but they are paying out the claim as a different procedure than I submitted... sort of. See a lawyer. If you live even remotely close to a major metropolitan area, there is a good chance that there is an attorney who either specializes in insurance issues for trans people. If you happen to be in Florida or in Maryland, I can ask around for a recommendation. A good lawyer will give you an idea of whether it will be cost effective to pursue the case (i.e. will it cost you more than 6K in attorneys fees to get the entire thing covered?) as well as be able to advise you on any discriminatory issues (if there are any, it's not my area of practice.) The other reason to talk to a lawyer immediately is that there may be a statute of limitations on filing your insurance dispute, as well as with talking to your HR about it. Your attorney can review the policy and applicable state law and let you know. Goonlawyers on the internet generally can't or won't, due to ethics issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 12:47
|
|
|
Diplomaticus posted:See a lawyer. If you live even remotely close to a major metropolitan area, there is a good chance that there is an attorney who either specializes in insurance issues for trans people. If you happen to be in Florida or in Maryland, I can ask around for a recommendation. A good lawyer will give you an idea of whether it will be cost effective to pursue the case (i.e. will it cost you more than 6K in attorneys fees to get the entire thing covered?) as well as be able to advise you on any discriminatory issues (if there are any, it's not my area of practice.) This is 100% true. If you're concerned about attorneys not being trans-friendly, consider contacting a trans advocacy group you know and trust, and asking them for attorney recommendations. Even if they're not attorneys themselves, they likely know a few attorneys, and while those folks might not do insurance work, they probably have friends/can recommend someone who does, someone likely to be more trans-friendly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
I have a question about liability for lost property due to theft. I am a homeowner and rent a room out to a tenant, so we are both living in the house. I wake up at 11 or so yesterday, and find my front door wide open. The tenant had had a cup of coffee and a cig on the patio, and then proceeded to leave with some friends at 7:30AM. This means that my front door was open with no one to monitor it for about 4 hours. My question is that if some jackass had come in and stolen a bunch of stuff, could the tenant be held liable for the costs of what was taken? I have homeowner's insurance, and I think it covers theft enough so I wouldn't really need to worry about recouping the dollar amount of anything taken, but I was curious more than anything. I was sort of pissed off; we live in a safe neighborhood, but come on, anybody could have looked through the screen door and seen the TV, all of our movies/music/games, video game systems, etc. There's about $500 worth of stuff 15 feet from the front door.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
You could sue the guy in negligence, but it is a weak case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Living with a tenant you sued over a few hundred bucks would probably also be the worst thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:Living with a tenant you sued over a few hundred bucks would probably also be the worst thing ever. I'm completely aware, I would never actually do it because  . I figured it would be a super-weak case. Just curious, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
My grandfather died in 1979 (in FL), leaving a trust for my grandmother to live off of until her death. When she died earlier this year (in MD), the part of my grandfather's will stating that everything is to be split evenly "between my four children" took effect. This refers to my mom and her 3 siblings, though they are not listed by name. Well, it turns out he had 5 children, not 4. He was married briefly and divorced before marrying my grandmother and had a daughter from that marriage. I don't know exactly what happened, but apparently he tried to keep in touch with her (the other daughter) but she wanted nothing to do with him as an adult. Nobody in my family has had any contact with her since probably the 60s, and for all we know she might not even be alive. Anyway, I'm wondering could this mysterious half-aunt of mine potentially contest my grandfather's will (since he didn't list his beneficiaries by name)? I'm sure it's not going to be an issue. More than anything I'm just curious since I only just discovered that this person exists after my grandma died.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
Diplomaticus posted:This. Well, thanks for the advice everyone. The video has been taken down, I don't want to have to try and fight the Mouse in court.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Florida Betty posted:My grandfather died in 1979 (in FL), leaving a trust for my grandmother to live off of until her death. When she died earlier this year (in MD), the part of my grandfather's will stating that everything is to be split evenly "between my four children" took effect. This refers to my mom and her 3 siblings, though they are not listed by name. Did he know about child no.5 when he made that will?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Did he know about child no.5 when he made that will? Yes, he knew about her since she was born, though he probably didn't know where she lived or anything like that (she would have been in her late 30s when he died).
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Florida Betty posted:My grandfather died in 1979 (in FL), leaving a trust for my grandmother to live off of until her death. When she died earlier this year (in MD), the part of my grandfather's will stating that everything is to be split evenly "between my four children" took effect. This refers to my mom and her 3 siblings, though they are not listed by name. The short answer is yes. The long answer depends on how the court interprets the will and whether or not parol evidence is allowe (a lawyerese term that means information that exists outside of the four corners of the document). If so then you could introduce evidence to show that the "four children" are from his most recent wife. If not, then the Court might find the will invalid, and intestate succession would be used (lawyerese term for how assets are distributed per statute when there is no valid will), where that fifth child (technically I guess she is the first child) would have a colorable claim. I am not an attorney in florida
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:The short answer is yes. The long answer depends on how the court interprets the will and whether or not parol evidence is allowe (a lawyerese term that means information that exists outside of the four corners of the document). If so then you could introduce evidence to show that the "four children" are from his most recent wife. If not, then the Court might find the will invalid, and intestate succession would be used (lawyerese term for how assets are distributed per statute when there is no valid will), where that fifth child (technically I guess she is the first child) would have a colorable claim. I am not an attorney in florida Interesting! Thanks for the info.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
 The xxEight info is incorrect, because that's only for intestate succession (distributing an estate without a will). It wouldn't apply to your grandpa at all since he had a will. With a few exceptions, he can cut out anybody he wants. Cutting out a kid is usually OK. (Love you xxEight, just sayin)My ignorant take: The trust was funded in 1979, and it's possible (probable?) that the "division to 4 kids" business is in the trust, not the will. Typically he created a trust prior to croaking, and named the trust as beneficiary in his will. So half-sister wouldn't contest the will, because the will just says "give my $$$ to the trust". Maybe a complex will has the trust creation inside of it? I'm no expert in wills/trusts, and no clue about Florida. But grandpa can probably cut the half-sister out however he wants. There's a trustee out there somewhere (likely an attorney), and that trustee is tasked with handing out the cash. If the trustee determines the half-sister isn't included, then her remedy is probably to sue that trustee, not contest the will. She may have time limits on that, and those time limits may have run. My ignorant guess is that half-sister does not have a claim, or would lose if she disputed it. My advice: Call the trustee. The trustee might only talk to your mom (and her siblings). But she could call, and probably get a very clear and informed answer. woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Mar 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
Diplomaticus posted:See a lawyer. If you live even remotely close to a major metropolitan area, there is a good chance that there is an attorney who either specializes in insurance issues for trans people. If you happen to be in Florida or in Maryland, I can ask around for a recommendation. A good lawyer will give you an idea of whether it will be cost effective to pursue the case (i.e. will it cost you more than 6K in attorneys fees to get the entire thing covered?) as well as be able to advise you on any discriminatory issues (if there are any, it's not my area of practice.) Yeah I know internet lawyers can't talk much. I've compile a list of attorneys to contact. I don't really know 'trans friendly' lawyers as I don't interact with the trans groups in my area and have my own life. I guess I'll have to just get over my issues with doctors and attorneys 
AbsoluteLlama fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Mar 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 00:44
|
|