|
Alchenar posted:It's ridiculous and you don't have to sign it. But talk to your attorney anyway so they know about her insane request. Attorneys really prefer not to be surprised by things like that.
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
Bro Enlai posted:Note that even where there is fault, the spouses may opt for a no-fault divorce just to avoid a lengthy court battle over whether hubby did or did not boff the babysitter Some states (e.g., NY) historically did not allow no fault divorce. Even if the parties agreed, there still had to be some reason given for dissolution. This was finally remedied in 2010, when they added a no fault cause for divorce. Fault in divorce isn't like in tort - the fact that its available does not generally mean you want to go that route, even if you want to have custody/support fights.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
They are asking for a retainer because when you inevitably don't pay for the work they did (nothing personal, most clients are a pain to get money out of, up to and including multinational corporations) at least they'll have five grand instead of three.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
It's like she's never heard of CDA section 230. (She's never heard of section 230.)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:CA has the strictest bar requirements in the country. You can be a paralegal and sit for the bar, but it's a process. You can't just walk in off the street and take the test. Strictest minus that whole part where, you know, you don't need to attend an ABA accredited law school.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
platzapS posted:I'm applying for a cashier job in a big-box retailer in Florida, USA. The application says: It's a pretty standard IP retention clause. If you record your hot new single on company time they might try and retain rights, but that clause is likely in the contract as a standard clause, not because they want to steal your single bemoaning the life of a cashier.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2013 02:35
|
|
|
The most problematic case is an engineer who comes up with something work-related and claims he came up with it on his own time. That's when you see lawyers get into it over retention clauses. But typically it's just boilerplate to save them some trouble, not something to worry about.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2013 06:50
|
|
|
windshipper posted:My parents leased a horse to a lady in Oregon, we live in Washington. There was a contract drawn up and signed by both parties regarding care and responsibilities. While I do not have a before picture of the horse, I'm not sure it's needed. They received him back today in this condition: It'll probably be easier to file in Washington, although less convenient. You might well be able to get into court in Oregon, though, depending on the provisions of the contract and your states' specific rules on jurisdiction. Probably worth finding someone local just to talk through the ramifications of each, though - conflict of laws is complicated and fact-specific. Before you sue, you probably want to try to resolve it between the two of you - this doesn't necessarily mean you don't want to hire a lawyer to make a demand, just that your first demand should likely be for compensation without a lawsuit, not an immediate "we are suing you" letter. (Also, jesus, poor horse. Consider contacting whoever the animal control authorities are in the woman's home state/city, they may have criminal charges to bring.)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2013 07:14
|
|
|
nm posted:Seriously "We just want to hear your side of the story" starts 95% of interviews that send people to prison. They're not all guilty. We really need to post David Simon's essay on this from Homicide in the OP. The one in this (hopefully functional) link. http://books.google.com/books?id=uw...utput=html_text. It's long, so I will summarize: if you are a suspect, it is literally never in your interest to speak with police without your lawyers presence and advice. Also, I work at a giant law firm. For white collar criminal work, I would hire them. For misdemeanor criminal stuff? I would wish I could hire a PD. Most private defense attorneys are poo poo, and most PDs in most jurisdictions are every bit as good as the lawyers I work with day to day who bill at 500+ an hour. Kalman fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Mar 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:Will I really need top get my design copyrighted or trademarked in order to sell it? Isn't there less a dire way? No. Just to get that vendor to allow you to. (Your design is copyrighted already, you would just register it at the copyright office.)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:Nah I'm just going to change the elements of the design. I don't care that much about this cat. I was just loving around when designing it and thought it was cute. If you still use the words grumpy and cat in association with it, that wordmark posted a bit up thread will come back to bite you. And I do work in IP. If an infringer called me to ask what they could do to change their design so as not to infringe, I would start laughing and not stop til after I hung up. (Then I would memo to file the call in case we ever wanted to sue for willful infringement and bill the client. Hurray lawyering.) You never talk to cops without your lawyer present and you never talk to opposing counsel period. Nothing good will ever come of either.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:Even though I understand the pitfalls of asking, and I'm not going to use the design i posted to avoid any problems... as a person I still don't understand the derision behind it. You shouldn't be laughed at or sued for trying to avoid infringement. You should be laughed at or sued for asking the lawyer for the person who is potentially suing you for help. It is not their job. Not only is it not their job, there are at least two ethical problems in their providing that help, absent their client having directed them to do so. Their interest is not in you getting as close as you can without going over the line - their interest is in you staying as far away as possible. Additionally, contacting the other party's lawyer directly opens you up to them contacting you, which normally they try not to do and are barred from doing if you're represented by counsel. We mock people who talk to cops voluntarily or who call the other side's lawyers because we are trying to get across that these are categorically bad ideas. Now, the actual question in your post: Willful just means you knew of the work you were infringing and continued to do so. Belief that you aren't infringing can matter... but typically it matters when you have a lawyer telling you you are okay in this specific instance, not when your gut says so. It doesn't have anything to do with whether you intended to infringe in the first place or any sort of negative motivation. If they can show you knew about it and continued to infringe, they will ask for a willfulness enhancement. Which triples damages. The notice they sent us probably enough, but a phone call would basically lock it in.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:I may not have a clear understanding of how to certain laws work, but copying and homages are very different things. I am very aware that although comparisons can be made to MY design and the Grumpy Cat Cat.. they are NOT physically the same and are very much measurably different. Had I known Grumpy Cat was a thing, I could have told you it had a copyright. Everything does without need for formality - you only need to formalize it to prove it or sue someone. So, actually, yes, I did know all along and you should have known better. Copying and homages are NOT very different things - that's the essence of the problem. They're the metaphorical two sides of the same coin. They're measurably different? You don't know what the legal measuring stick is, so how would you know? We could talk substantial similarity and all that, but you don't seem interested in listening to people who do it for a living telling you that it's not as simple as "it was a homage you guys!" We could talk about abstraction and protectable elements and the New Yorker cover and all sorts of fun other things that go into determining whether something is infringing even if its not a literal copy (hint: go up thread and look at those two magazine covers). We could tell you things about willful infringement and the standards for non-copying infringement (and by the way, all of this discussion would not help your case, since access and knowledge would be easier to prove). And then we could talk trademark, where standards get even fuzzier and remote similarities can kill you. But ultimately, if you want to make shirts with grumpy cats on them, you should probably look into a lawyer who can explain to you how to avoid your grumpy cat being seen as Grumpy Cat in the eyes of the law. We are not mocking you because it's fun or because we are full of rage - we are mocking you because you are quite literally nm's pipe-stealing crack head. You keep trying things and we keep telling you "no, that's probably not going to help" and then you get mad at us for telling you how it works.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
brylcreem posted:What if I were record and stream the first contact/invasion with alien life and it's picked up by AP and broadcast worldwide? Does that agreement prevent me from making megabucks selling the video to The key word is non-exclusive. You can try to sell it to Fox. But the AP also has rights to sub license, according to the ToU. And Fox almost certainly has a pre existing deal with the AP.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 20:48
|
|
or something?
|
fork bomb posted:You can also just say "I don't know" so that you're not admitting anything but also not being "suspicious" by pleading the fifth. Admitting you were speeding is not the same as admitting you stabbed a dude - be polite and friendly to traffic cops and they will frequently be nice to you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
nm posted:Consent searches are unconstitutional per the Minnesota Supreme Court, so they won't fish for searches. I should clarify that admitting politely is a good tactic if you were a little bit over the limit and would plan to just pay the ticket if you get it. If you want to spend time in traffic court, feel free not to admit anything, but do it politely. Taking the 5th would ensure the cop writes you up for every single thing they can.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:I specifically said I was speeding and asked for a reduction of the fine. I never plead not guilty. In any case, this has become a total derail of the thread (not to mention this subtopic is a derail of the original derail!). If people want to explicitly admit to the police they've committed a traffic violation, more power to them I guess. I see no reason to do that. By all means, go to traffic court! Some of us would prefer to avoid that bullshit for minor offenses. Also, you keep ignoring the fact that admitting the violation is irrelevant - if the cop shows up in court, you are going to lose 99% of the time. This is true whether or not you admitted anything. If the cop doesn't show up, your admission won't matter. So the only point at which it matters is when you're talking to the cop. At which point playing cute will just irritate them. Admitting your minor offense, apologizing, and being friendly won't get you out of every ticket, but they'll get you out of more tickets than being a dick or playing cute will.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:A friend living in Georgia recently contacted me stating that when she logged in to make a student loan payment she discovered a remaining balance of zero and a payment of some $20K made this morning. Aside from contacting the bank and informing them of the account error is there anything she ought to be doing? Her loan probably got sold to a new lender who paid off the old lender.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
Copyright and TM lawyer is what you need. Patents are going to be minimally relevant to the copying issue. But given that you just said you plan to copy it, you're an idiot. Part of Scrabulous/WWF argument was that they were independent creations in the same genre. Related, influenced by, sure - but copy of? You have problems.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
_areaman posted:
Copyright includes the right to exclude others from making derivative works. So, nope, try again.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 08:55
|
|
|
Groundskeeper Silly posted:Thanks lawyers (and non-lawyer dumbasses!) for all the time you put into this thread. He is 100% an idiot.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
Non Sequitur posted:Ha. No. If I'm willing to drop a thousand or two in filing fees, read up on the law and act pro se (a good LSAT score is basically a law degree, right? *cough*), do I have a prayer of being enough of a gadfly that I could get a name, though? No.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Non Sequitur posted:Why? There are four elements of defamation in NY: Who, exactly, do you think *knows* the name you're looking for?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Here's a stupid one also related to signing poo poo in the great stat of Pennsylvania. He is an idiot. For federal purposes, the E-SIGN Act controls; most states (including PA) have similar laws for state purposes. PA e-signature statute here: http://www.parealtor.org/clientuploads/Legal/Statutes/ElectronicSignatureLaw.pdf
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Attorneys fees are rarely awarded, so don't expect that. At best you might get court costs.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Not exactly a booming economy in this forgotten corner of the state. I'd recommend asking some of the established hacker spaces how they went about it. If you don't know anyone at any of them, PM me and I'll put you in touch with a couple I know.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
Phorphetob posted:Yeah, gently caress you guys. Thanks! I too got pissy about being obligated, without compensation, to help maintain the house my parents owned that I lived in for free. Lawn mowing, fixing the occasional thing, even paying for an improvement I wanted out of my limited supply of cash. Man, I got really upset about it. I don't think I ever considered lawyers, but I felt it was just completely unfair. Of course, I was 12 at the time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
There was a recent California case on this where a guy who installed secret compartments into vehicles (which often were used by drug dealers, for some strange reason) got nailed for, essentially, being willfully blind as to the use they were being put to. Don't have a link handy but I think Wired did a story on it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
She isn't a clerical worker. She's a professor (which seems to qualify as a professional). The quoted section applies to admin assistants and secretaries and similar roles.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Does anyone here know about immigration law? I want to bring my spouse to the States but I have so many issues we think it's going to be impossible Get a real immigration lawyer. You need actual advice, specific to your situation and details.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Genewiz posted:My parents are moving out of the country to enjoy a more affordable retirement and would like me to take over their current home. Since I currently live in it and fore see doing so for the next 15 years, I fully support this idea. Living in this Californian city is extremely expensive and having no rent to pay is a huge advantage. Currently, as we understand it, we have 2 options: A will.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 08:51
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:Get a patent agent. They don't need to file a patent for you if you're just trying to make sure nobody else can patent it, but a proper disclosure has specific requirements. This is not really accurate. The easiest way to prevent anyone else from patenting it is to publish as much as you possibly can about it, as widely as possible. If you're not worried about other people using it, then just publish everything possible about what it would do along with how it would work. The more widely you publish it, the better. Note that this does not prevent someone else from taking your idea and using it, just from patenting it. If you want to prevent use by others, you'd need to patent it yourself. For that, you do want a patent agent or attorney.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:This isn't necessarily enough to stop someone else from patenting it. The disclosure has some requirements that might not be met if you're not thinking about it. What exactly are you thinking of? Enablement? I mean, they could argue it lacks enablement, I suppose, but that's typically a pretty hard argument to make. Invalidation based on non-patent publication prior art just isn't so hard that you really need to go to the expense of a patent agent to make sure it can be done.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:It's really not hard at all to get a patent by dancing around a non-exhaustive description. The disclosure might invalidate the patent during litigation, but you really want to make sure that the Examiner has whatever he needs to stop it during prosecution. If he wants to stop it during prosecution, he basically needs to file a patent anyway, since most examiner searches for non-patent literature are basically limited to scientific publications, which this doesn't seem to be a candidate for. Exhaustive public description will provide a decent option if he's ever sued, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
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. I've gotten a couple of those, but I've gotten the impression that they're usually just the examiner wanting to avoid using official notice by citing to something. They still don't really seem to have a good way of searching that kind of information overall, beyond the limited access Google provides.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
Thuryl posted:I'm not sure uploading a copy of the sketch to your personal website where anyone in the world can view it and save a copy counts as "display (...) to viewers present at the place where the copy is located". Sorry, should have been display of the purchased copy. That was in context to the museums and art dealers comment immediately prior. Upload to a website definitely is not a display to viewers at the place where the copy is located. (My understanding if the original question was that someone bought an original sketch and colorized it. That's possibly a VARA problem, I suppose. I do like the idea of suing the hell out of Ted Turner on that theory.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 21:15
|
|