|
patentmagus posted:I would ask them how they associated you with the web site. There must have been some bread crumb that they followed. It would be good to know what it is. They'll probably refuse to tell you. Also excellent advice, and again, much appreciated.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
What good does it do to be "technically correct" when my point was that my statements/hearsay were admitted as evidence and her hearsay was excluded almost in it's entirety? It's just like euphronius pointing out to another poster that 'his parent's are speaking with a lawyer, not the poster' even though the matter pretty much directly involves him and he's in direct communication with his parents about the matter. It serves no point, does not further the discussion and is harassing. Being technically correct is never an excuse to be rude. EDIT: I've already been probated once in this thread and I feel like I'm walking a high wire with a number of posters trying their best to push me off. Respectfully I am going to bow out of this thread once again (until my next legal drama unfolds). I'll say that perhaps I should have changed "never" to "should not be". In any case, I'll let you return to your regularly scheduled boredom. Angry Hippo fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:Being technically correct is never an excuse to be rude. While this is technically correct, in practice it is completely wrong and should be mocked. (this is not at all a metaphor for your posting in this thread)
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:What good does it do to be "technically correct" Someone doesn't want a promotion to Grade 37.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:Being technically correct is never an excuse to be rude. No, but when you're dealing with a dense jerk, it's a nice segue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
Haha an estate attorney is not going to meet with a couple and have a kid in the room directing the legal strategy. It's absurd. It was important to disabuse of him of his agency in the transaction, he won't have any.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:What good does it do to be "technically correct" when my point was that my statements/hearsay were admitted as evidence and her hearsay was excluded almost in it's entirety? It's just like euphronius pointing out to another poster that 'his parent's are speaking with a lawyer, not the poster' even though the matter pretty much directly involves him and he's in direct communication with his parents about the matter. It serves no point, does not further the discussion and is harassing. Being technically correct is never an excuse to be rude. The other side failed to meet their burden, your evidence was not considered in that analysis, you did not win, the other side lost. I hope you understand the distinction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Haha an estate attorney is not going to meet with a couple and have a kid in the room directing the legal strategy. It's absurd. It was important to disabuse of him of his agency in the transaction, he won't have any. That and it's important to understand that the ethical obligation of that lawyer will be to represent the couple, not the kid - the lawyer will not have his best interests at heart because he isn't the client. It's the same reason we have to warn employees of companies we represent that we're the companies' lawyer, not theirs - sure, I will help the employee if it coincides with the companies' interest, but if there's a choice, they have to understand that I represent my client, not them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:The other side failed to meet their burden, your evidence was not considered in that analysis, you did not win, the other side lost. I hope you understand the distinction. Do you really think that the statements of past and present co-workers were not considered in any way when determining whether the plaintiffs testimony was credible (part of meeting that burden)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
Kalman posted:That and it's important to understand that the ethical obligation of that lawyer will be to represent the couple, not the kid - the lawyer will not have his best interests at heart because he isn't the client. Do you believe that was conveyed in his post? If it takes a lawyer to explain what the hell he was actually trying to say I don't see it as very helpful or useful information. Edit: This is is, I'm gone, I swear. I'm toxxing myself. I will NOT post in this thread for the next 30 days!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
Oh thank god. Just remember, we're not mad at you because of whatever happened between you and this person. We're mad at you because you come across like a jerk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:Do you believe that was conveyed in his post? Even I got that that was exactly what he was saying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:Do you really think that the statements of past and present co-workers were not considered in any way when determining whether the plaintiffs testimony was credible (part of meeting that burden)? If you won on burden alone, they were not considered. To comment further I'd need to look at the actual statues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:Do you believe that was conveyed in his post? I am not a lawyer, and I understood exactly what he meant. Then again, I'm a non-lawyer that lurks this thread, so that gives me some advantage in understanding concepts that come up in the thread regularly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:Really? Statements made under penalty of perjury detailing real interactions between myself, this woman and other co-workers are all hearsay? How can you say so without even examining the content of them? I don't need to examine the content of them. If they were statements made for this litigation, sworn to or otherwise, I would have kept the judge from ever seeing them. They are inadmissible hearsay. There are grounds for them to be admitted but I don't think that you had them. If they want to help you, they show up. (You didn't win, they lost).
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
The saddest thing in law next to a defeated pro-se is a victorious one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Hypothetically, I was sexually harassed and put in a complaint to HR, which has been investigated by my company's EEO department. I emailed my contact yesterday for an update, and she said that she was finishing up the case and would contact me next week. I (hypothetically) know that my witnesses haven't been interviewed, so how can the investigation be complete? If he admitted to the things I wrote in my intake, would they just not see the need to talk to my witnesses? If they close the case without talking to them, I don't see how the man who harassed me could remained employed....it must be that they felt they had enough on him that they didnt need to go any further, right? They haven't told me ANYTHING so far, so I know if I ask her she won't say a word, so please help lawgoons. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
You are actually in a good spot since you reported to HR. Just keep track of what happens and be a little more patient, these things take a little bit of time. If nothing happens you probably need to get a lawyer at that point to see if a conference with HR, an EEOC complaint or a letter from a lawyer is appropriate. If you feel you are being retaliated against (unlikely in any half decently run corp) go immediately to a lawyer. euphronius fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Jun 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
Uh, a friend of mine was recently open betaing a F2P online game, and it seems his company got some bad legal advice about what constitutes gambling and or taxation, particularly where he was running the servers from (outside my country) California. It's a game of skill, and one of the two currencies he had in there was available to be purchased with money, and, although said currency was used to play more times in a day, there was a daily event which awarded it. Unfortunately, someone had told him that although his company cashing out is explicitly illegal players exchanging said currency for money was fine, and some of the people on his chat openly discussed trading coins for currency. Unfortunately, from what I've googled, not explicitly forbidding a secondary market virtual items for currency in the TOS and failing to police it definitely constitutes gambling. I've advised him speak to an attorney, ASAP. I don't think he's made much from this at all (and the currency price in question was trivial), it was in beta after all, but could he get into serious trouble with this? edit: nevermind, I was way off. CoolCab fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Jun 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 11:19
|
|
|
So my girlfriend's sister might have a weird lawsuit on her hands. Wondering what sort of advice I should give her (beyond the obvious "talk to a lawyer", which I'm going to tell her to do either way. But she's lazy and I'd like to have some more details) So she worked in a french bakery and sliced open her hand on accident (as far as I can tell, not due to negligence on the part of the owner) and had to go to the hospital to get stitches. Nothing life-threatening, but hit some major vein and was bleeding a lot. The owner was furious and almost fired her on the spot, eventually firing her a few days later. She documented it as a workplace injury (not sure about where, but I'm told she did do the required state documentation) so this isn't just a back-alley thing. What are her options? Does it change if it's a tiny business? (I think they employ like 8 people maximum, probably 6.) Are there specific lawyers she should talk to? What sort of ballpark of legal costs should she be prepared to cough up to pursue this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
To pursue what? Workplace injuries happen, her workplace's insurance will probably cover her medical costs, but what more does she expect to get out of this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:To pursue what? Workplace injuries happen, her workplace's insurance will probably cover her medical costs, but what more does she expect to get out of this? Well, she was fired for it, my understanding is that that's unlawful? (notable: Washington is an at-will employment state, but she was specifically told it was for that reason)
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
Falcon2001 posted:Well, she was fired for it, my understanding is that that's unlawful? (notable: Washington is an at-will employment state, but she was specifically told it was for that reason) http://www.lni.wa.gov/IPUB/262-249-909.pdf Looks like Washington is one of the states that does not permit retaliation for filing a workplace injury claim. Talk to an attorney, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
Devor posted:http://www.lni.wa.gov/IPUB/262-249-909.pdf Thanks! This is the sort of thing that I was looking for.  Kind of terrifying that Washington is just "one of" the states, and not like "one of all fifty that do this because seriously, wtf" but Labor Laws are old news around here, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
Did he fire her for "submitting a claim" or "causing an accident leading to injury"? This is the kind of distinction that MAY matter. That jumps out at me but ianal so eh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Javid posted:Did he fire her for "submitting a claim" or "causing an accident leading to injury"? This is the kind of distinction that MAY matter. That jumps out at me but ianal so eh. I don't know offhand, I'm sure it was probably just a bunch of swearing in french. The guy is a bit of a loon and has a reputation for going on tirades. I'll ask her though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:They've been citing non-scientific, non-patent references more often recently in my experience, I got a few rejections based on wikipedia a while ago, which is hilarious. As an examiner, Wikipedia is a great tool to show ordinary skill at the time of invention (or now filing I guess)
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Javid posted:Did he fire her for "submitting a claim" or "causing an accident leading to injury"? This is the kind of distinction that MAY matter. That jumps out at me but ianal so eh. From that Washington State FAQ: quote:The law might not consider the above actions to be employer discrimination if you have: So this seems to be saying that unless there was some sort of training about proper knife usage that she flagrantly violated, or unless she has a pattern of accidents, the employer would not be able to say "you cut yourself, you're fired". Because, hey, you're working with knives. It happens. If the employer is allowed to fire you for having an accident that you reported, it defeats the purpose of the workers compensation law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:What good does it do to be "technically correct" when my point was that my statements/hearsay were admitted as evidence and her hearsay was excluded almost in it's entirety? It's just like euphronius pointing out to another poster that 'his parent's are speaking with a lawyer, not the poster' even though the matter pretty much directly involves him and he's in direct communication with his parents about the matter. It serves no point, does not further the discussion and is harassing. Being technically correct is never an excuse to be rude. What happened with all the stuff about wages?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
This question is purely out of curiosity. I was browsing tumblr today (I know, I know) and stumbled across this post about copyright and commissioned art. The short version is that someone bought a sketch on commission and later finished it and added colors. Someone else is claiming that without a contract for the purchase, the piece of art does not fall under work for hire, and the purchaser does not have "the right to alter, edit, or vandalize the artwork in any manner (without the artist’s permission)" and therefore the altering of the original piece is an illegal action. Is this bullshit? It sounds like bullshit to me but I have no idea, really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
effervescible posted:This question is purely out of curiosity. I was browsing tumblr today (I know, I know) and stumbled across this post about copyright and commissioned art. The short version is that someone bought a sketch on commission and later finished it and added colors. Someone else is claiming that without a contract for the purchase, the piece of art does not fall under work for hire, and the purchaser does not have "the right to alter, edit, or vandalize the artwork in any manner (without the artist’s permission)" and therefore the altering of the original piece is an illegal action. quote:Now let me explain what you DON’T own without signing a legally binding contract upon buying the art: Ahaha what the gently caress. Pack it up art dealers and museums, you're not allowed to display or resell work for profit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
quote:Now let me explain what you DON’T own without signing a legally binding contract upon buying the art: Oh jeez, who came up with that? A RIAA or MPAA shill? It's so stupid on so many levels that it's hard to argue against. It's like a flat earther with a satellite dish. The key issue is that transferring ownership does not equal transferring copyright. For example, you don't get the copyright when you buy your favorite hentai. However, the publisher probably got the copyright from the artist. All you own is the smut mag. Once you own a piece of art (or a copy thereof) about the only thing you can't do is make and sell copies. For that you need to own the right, hence the term "copyright". You do have every right to stain it, destroy it or drop a deuce on it. You can resell ownership, which you do have, at will. Interestingly, if you draw mustaches on everyone in a piece of art you bought then you have a copyright on that particularly adolescent expression. The original artist would actually violate your copyright by displaying the desecrated artwork without your consent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Once you own a piece of art (or a copy thereof) about the only thing you can't do is make and sell copies. For that you need to own the right, hence the term "copyright". You do have every right to stain it, destroy it or drop a deuce on it. You can resell ownership, which you do have, at will. Not copyright, but VARA might prevent you from defacing the art. I doubt some random piece of fanart on Tumblr qualifies for VARA protection tho'
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Bro Enlai posted:Not copyright, but VARA might prevent you from defacing the art. I doubt some random piece of fanart on Tumblr qualifies for VARA protection tho' A VARA work has to be one "of recognized stature," so no.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:A VARA work has to be one "of recognized stature," so no. Not necessarily, just to prohibit intentional or grossly negligent defacing or destruction. If you do deface a non-recognized stature work the author can say "take my name off that poo poo" though. Moral rights are stupid. Lousy Berne convention. Dogen fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
Dogen posted:Not necessarily, just to prohibit intentional or grossly negligent defacing or destruction. True--I was thinking destruction of the work, but I guess "defacing the art" doesn't necessarily have to mean destruction. That said, as you point out, it doesn't allow the artist to stop the defacing of a work of insufficient stature, just allows that artist to prevent use of his or her name on it, or to prevent defacing the work in a way that would injure the artist's reputation, which doesn't seem to apply here. Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
But see Mirage Editions, Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co., 856 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Lee v. A.R.T. Co., 125 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1997). So it's a jurisdictional mess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:But see Mirage Editions, Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co., 856 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Lee v. A.R.T. Co., 125 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1997). So it's a jurisdictional mess. Was that intended to respond to me? If so, one of those isn't a VARA case (in fact, it precedes VARA), and the other isn't contradictory, as far as I can tell from a quick glance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:Was that intended to respond to me? If so, one of those isn't a VARA case (in fact, it precedes VARA), and the other isn't contradictory, as far as I can tell from a quick glance. It's responding to the original post. In the 9th circuit, the completed sketch is possibly a derivative work (if Mirage is still good law there). In the 7th Circuit, it probably isn't (same caveat).
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:Ahaha what the gently caress. The last part is inartfully phrased but accurate - you can resell the original copy you purchased, but you can't sell the underlying work for profit without further permission. It's a bad description of basic copyright law - transfer of a copy is not transfer of the work. Display of the purchased work is legit, though (17 USC 109c) - you just can't slap it onto the side of a mug. The others are VARA specific restrictions on visual art - they're reasonably accurate statements of the limits VARA imposes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 19:44
|
|