WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I'm a lawyer in Montgomery County, MD. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Did you represent the chemist at NIST? More seriously chat with PopeCruch. Internet
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
I don't know what any of that nerd poo poo means. I just hope  didn't get lost in there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
PopeCrunch posted:This thread rocks
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
I'm in California if this matters. I was working through a temp agency at a company for about 5 months, then the position I worked in was eliminated. They moved me to a different position in the same company, which i worked for about a month then I got injured on the job and was out of work for 2 weeks. When I was well the company replaced me. The temp agency didn't have any positions open that I could work so I decided to go back to school.My semester ended Tuesday. Am I eligible for unemployment benefits till I get employed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
I just found out a website is using a photo I took of myself, without my permission. It's creepy and I don't want them using it. What can I do other than ask the company to take it down? (I politely emailed them saying it was not a free-for-use image and that I saw they had removed the original watermark.) Also, I had given another company permission to use it, and I assume this is where they stole the image from originally. Or is everyone pretty much hosed these days since you can steal everything off the internet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Wrecking Ball posted:I just found out a website is using a photo I took of myself, without my permission. It's creepy and I don't want them using it. Is the website/company in the same country as you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
The watermark doesn't rhyme with "jazzers," does it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
I am in Canada and the person using it is in the united states. I do not understand the jazzers reference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
It's a joke, and you're better for not getting it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Good luck. Maybe CA and USA have some deal where we are basically the same country but that difference in a nation state thing is a huge hurdle. I'm not an ip attorney but have sued internationally and going through The Hague loving sucks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
IANAL. It might be possible to get it taken down via a DMCA takedown notice sent to their webhost though a direct request to take it down seems appropriate first. http://petapixel.com/2013/07/10/using-the-dmca-to-stop-the-copyright-infringement-of-your-photos/ Note that in the US there are cases where others are permitted to use your copyrighted photo without seeking your permission called "Fair Use." Typically it'd be for purposes of news reporting, review, criticism, parody, scholarly research, etc. Also since it's a photo of you, you may also have control of your "right of publicity" or privacy rights, depending on the state. Especially if the photo is being used for a commercial purpose or paints you in a false light.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
There should be two sets of rights coming into play. Right to your work (the photo you took) and right to your likeness (your appearance). Even if it was "fair use" they still can't use your image or likeness even if it should be covered. It's why half the news reports that use footage of people walking on the sidewalk crop their heads out or blur it out. You have to consent to that, and if you didn't they shouldn't be using it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
I live in the UK and have very little money. My boss asked at the end of November I start working from home, however he stopped answering my emails and I think just left my contract expire (on the 1st). i've sent him numerous emails and left two voice messages for him about whether I've been let go or not, but he isn't getting back to me at all. Futhermore, I haven't been paid for last month yet. I have a copy of the contract (which also did not stipulate my working hours, which turned out to be from 8:30 - 6 which I believe extends it beyond legal working hours per week) What is the cheapest option for me to pursue here? Like I said I don't have much and have never hired a Lawyer but want to make sure I'm paid for all my work in november Calico Heart fucked around with this message at 12:38 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
I'm starting a new job on Monday, and the recruiter is asking me to do a training thing on their website today. It looks like it's going to take at least an hour or two, and I'm pretty sure I'm not getting paid for it. Is that kosher? I'm a contract to hire employee working through an agency (so technically I'm an employee of the agency), but my paperwork said I would be considered a W2 employee. Also, something I found odd - I'm apparently overtime exempt (don't get time and a half), but I still get paid for hours over 40 per week. All of that just seems... weird and I'm starting to wonder what I'm walking into. Anyone have experience with any of that who can tell me if all of this is normal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I'm starting a new job on Monday, and the recruiter is asking me to do a training thing on their website today. It looks like it's going to take at least an hour or two, and I'm pretty sure I'm not getting paid for it. Is that kosher? I'm a contract to hire employee working through an agency (so technically I'm an employee of the agency), but my paperwork said I would be considered a W2 employee. Also, something I found odd - I'm apparently overtime exempt (don't get time and a half), but I still get paid for hours over 40 per week. All of that just seems... weird and I'm starting to wonder what I'm walking into. Computer employee paid more than $27.63 an hour? e: Or more than $455 per week. http://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime/fs17e_computer.pdf joat mon fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Unpaid training can be legal but they generally have to be upfront about it. e: not a lawyer, not wearing pants
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Computer employee paid more than $27.63 an hour? Less than $27.63/hr, no benefits. But yes, computer employee. Edit: Apparently, I don't actually have to do the training until I get there because it's not even accessible from outside the intranet.  NancyPants posted:Unpaid training can be legal but they generally have to be upfront about it. Your username lied to me. 
KillHour fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Thanks for all your suggestions guys. In the end I politely contacted the company via email and they agreed to take my photo down without any hassle. Must be a rare thing to agree upon these days, but I a happy! They totally were using me to sell a product. So lame.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
What was the product, though?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Horse dildos
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Plastic surgery no, wait erectile dysfunction yes they were selling erectile dysfunction
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Calico Heart posted:I live in the UK and have very little money. Can't help you out with the main issue because I'm not a lawyer but you are nowhere near working over "legal working hours" 8.30-6 x5 (I assume) less one hour lunches is 42.5 hours a week. If you were working over 48 hours a week on average over a 17 week period (which even if you don't take hour lunches, you aren't over that) the company would usually get you to sign an opt out form basically saying you're cool with working over 48 hours a week. E: Even if they didn't get you to sign it there's not any penalties on their side unless you started to become ill or brought it up as an issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:yes they were selling erectile dysfunction I'll take two!
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Boy, so here's a couple of questions. And when I say it's hypothetical, I really do mean that. This first question is something I've wondered since I read about it in a thread on another (dumber) internet forum. So first of all, I'm little confused as to some of the particulars of how the law works regarding statutory rape. Specifically, the way it was explained to me is that--unlike with a lot of other crimes, where there has to be intent to commit a crime--someone who has sex with someone who turns out to be a minor is guilty of statutory rape regardless of any other circumstances. So if the adult was provided with a forged driver's license, etc. That's all irrelevant and the only thing that matters is that the other party was a minor. Assuming that's true and I understand it correctly, let's say that in whatever circumstances you would need to construct this scenario, the minor rapes the adult. Does that still mean that the adult is guilty of statutory rape? That would seem to be the logical conclusion based on what I understand, but that sounds... really stupid. The other question is one of how law applies to citizens abroad. This came out of the earlier question, so the specific example used was of someone who goes to a foreign country to have sex with someone who is of legal age in that country, but would be considered a minor in their own country, and whether or not there was anything the home country could do about it. But asked more generally, as a US citizen traveling abroad, am I subject to all US laws while traveling? Obviously I can't commit treason against the US at any time, but beyond that am I only legally obligated to follow the laws of the nation I am currently in? (I'm sure that this is a complicated question that depends on a lot of different things. Let's assume US-citizen abroad in Western Europe. Are their any general rules of thumb?) These are some pretty creepy questions (the first one moreso, I think) but I tried to think of a non-creepy way to ask them. They just seem like more unusual areas of how the law applies/might apply, so I'm curious to understand what's at work there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Traveling to third world shitholes with low/no age of consent to gently caress children is very much A Thing so you're good there, dude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Javid posted:Traveling to third world shitholes with low/no age of consent to gently caress children is very much A Thing so you're good there, dude. Yeah, I'm sure I sound really gross in that last post. Honest to God though that this doesn't map to anything my life past or present. I hope to continue that trend.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Geniasis posted:Boy, so here's a couple of questions. And when I say it's hypothetical, I really do mean that. You need to have intent to have sex with the victim, just not knowledge that the victim is underage
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:What was the product, though? Don't get too excited, it was only hair dye! I like the E.D. choice though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:You need to have intent to have sex with the victim, just not knowledge that the victim is underage Ah. That makes sense. Seems pretty obvious now, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Who owns Number One Observatory Circle and has authority over the Vice president's staff?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Geniasis posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Who owns Number One Observatory Circle and has authority over the Vice president's staff? The Freemasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Horrible Smutbeast posted:Even if it was "fair use" they still can't use your image or likeness even if it should be covered. It's why half the news reports that use footage of people walking on the sidewalk crop their heads out or blur it out. You have to consent to that, and if you didn't they shouldn't be using it. This is not entirely accurate. If you're in a public place you can photograph or film anything that's in "plain view." You very much can take pictures or video of people's faces as they walk down a sidewalk and you don't need to get the person's consent to do so. However with video you can sometimes run into a tricky situation if you're also recording sound and you're in a state where mutual consent is required in order for a conversation to be recorded. https://aclufl.org/resources/know-your-rights-guide-to-public-photography/ What you're talking about is misappropriation – you can't use a person's name or likeness for commercial purposes without their consent. So in your example, if a news team films people walking down a street while delivering the news (free press and all that jazz) they're in the clear. But if Coke films people walking down the street and then uses that film in an advertisement to sell Coke and doesn't have the consent of the people they filmed, then they're in trouble. People and organizations often ask folks to sign consent forms not because they legally have to, but because it's cheaper to have someone sign a form than it is to fight a potential groundless lawsuit. e: Not that much of this matters for this particular case – this sounds like misappropriation for sure unless it's a political ad or something. e2: Also IANAL and this is all stuff that I half remember from a photography class I took years ago and had to Google to refresh my memory, so take what I say with a huge grain of salt. kedo fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Dec 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Pretty sure whenever I see filming for commercials or movies or TV shows on the street, they have big signs that say "filming in progress, if you don't hide your face and run away we have the right to use you in this recording for whatever we want." Who knows if that's legal or just publicity seeking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
kedo posted:This is not entirely accurate. If you're in a public place you can photograph or film anything that's in "plain view." You very much can take pictures or video of people's faces as they walk down a sidewalk and you don't need to get the person's consent to do so. However with video you can sometimes run into a tricky situation if you're also recording sound and you're in a state where mutual consent is required in order for a conversation to be recorded. Weird, I've seen a lot of cop outs where it's someone filming in a sports center and they panned over the pool area and had to throw out all the footage because a woman complained that she was caught on film without permission (and was in her swimsuit) despite it being a public place. I think mostly it boils down to whether or not you're willing to fight it in most cases though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
That's a case of "the footage isn't worth dealing with the legal hassle and bad publicity." Plus there might be specific local regulations about filming the pool area.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
I live in Massachusetts and my employer has just informed me that I have been overpaid between September and December and that they want the money back. That's perfectly reasonable, but they want it as a single lump paid asap and also to keep my entire next paycheck to cover the overage. This is hard for me because I don't make a lot of money. I currently work as an adjunct college professor and am applying for unemployment benefits next week, as my workload just dropped from four sections this semester to one next semester. I want to know what my rights are or where I can find out, if anyone knows. Also, I am concerned that this overpayment will make it harder to file for unemployment. They informed me of the overpayment via e-mail on Tuesday and want a response from me by this coming Monday. I feel like I ought to be able to request a longer-term repayment schedule in light of my near-poverty circumstances, especially since they apparently didn't notice what they were doing for three months.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Sup. Israeli goon here. tl;dr version in advance - I wrote a facebook post describing how a sales person cursed me and threw me out of the store, and now I'm about to get hit with a defamation suit. I've tried to consult the lawyers in my small town, but they're all like "we don't know poo poo about slander / defamation / איסור לשון הרע - if you browse the information online and feel confident that you're correct, you may go to trial without a lawyer, otherwise, feel free to give us your monthly paycheck for consultation / representation". This is a bit of a long story, sorry in advance. A while back, I got really tired of my local computer store (in a small town in Israel) being horrible. So I left a review on their facebook page stating that since they're the only computer store in town (two stores with different names, but owned by the same guy and operated by the same people), they use their monopoly (and the fact that people around here are kinda computer illiterate) to sell cheap crap at unreasonable costs. The review was deleted shortly thereafter, and when I came to the store to compare prices vs online / Jerusalem (two months ago), the salesperson told me that I will never again receive service in either store, and I may kindly gently caress off. Why? "You know exactly why". Went home, described the incident in a facebook post, which I also reposted to the store's facebook page. Got exactly one reply, and basically forgot about it - until yesterday evening, when I got a letter saying I'm about to get sued. I have to erase the offending post, issue an apology, pay for the lawyer fees involved in sending the warning letter, and pay 50,000 NIS before the case goes to trial (the intention is probably to state that the 50,000 NIS will be the compensation requested should a trial take place, as that is the maximum penalty according to the law, but that's not what the letter actually says). I've already drafted up a big reply letter about freedom of speech, more publicity if they actually sue, a request that they apologize to me for the salesman's behavior before any further action takes place... But I thought I might as well ask for advice before I take any action. Whatever is online is pretty much everything the lawyers I've spoken to know on the subject, so the Google translation of the article in question might be useful. As far as I can see, the fact that the information I've published is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth might be enough to exonerate me, but I'm not sure if I'm going to be the one who has to prove that is the case, nor how I would go about doing that. Everything else - the fact that they don't have to show any damage on their part or malicious intent on mine - is kinda discouraging. Edit: 1. They can probably afford the lawyer fees to send a bunch of letters back and forth much more readily than I, so I'm not fond of the idea of having a professional write a reply for me. 2. Their lawyer actually caught me for a chat, and heavily insinuated that they're going to have people testify that they totally would have bought thousands of shekels worth of merchandise from the store, except they saw my post. (One of us is misreading what the law says. As far as I can tell, they don't actually have to demonstrate any tangible damage done by what I wrote) He also asked me to call him, probably to reiterate what a brilliant idea settling out of court would be. I'm thinking - record the conversation, and see if I can get him to repeat the incriminating stuff about how they're planning to lie to the court. My family thinks that's a stupid detective fantasy and I shouldn't call him at all. Xander77 fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Dec 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
IANAL but you need to edit your location into the top of your post. The default responses will only be applicable to an American. In any case, you should not respond. Either hire a professional to respond or ignore it until you are served actual legal notice, they are probably full of hot air. Andy Dufresne fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Dec 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Request a bet din then burn a Torah hth op
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 15:40
|
|