|
Kalman posted: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. 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".
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Oh boy I get to put this one in front of the Law Goons. I'm lighthearted about this now because I don't think they have a case, but wanted to put this in front of a lot of other peoples' eyes to see if I should be lighthearted. So in April 2011 in the state of Iowa, I was involved in a car accident, if you want to call it that. Exiting the highway onto a busy road was where this occurred. The off ramp has 3 lanes and a stop light, the center one you can turn right OR left from onto the busy road. The light was red, I was 3rd in line in the center lane set to turn right. In front of me is a car, and 1st in line is a van. The light turns green and the van moves into the intersection to turn left, then SLAMS on the brakes to turn right in the middle of the intersection. The car in front of me slams on his brakes, I slam on mine and *bump* I hit his car. His car then bumps into her car. This is all at about 7 Mph or so. The guy looked back and waved me off. It was my "fault" since I was the rear vehicle, but he wasn't worried about it. Then the lady in the van gets out and we both decide we should pull off and exchange information. We do so, laughs were had, and the lady was cool about it. She said she "wasn't worried about it, but should just do what we ought to do", and it would "set a good example for her kids" of which she had two in the vehicle. The damage to my car and the guys car was a scuff, and the van had no real visible damage. No big deal, no worries. The guy later tells me after she leaves that he wasn't going to file anything since it was her "fault" anyways and there was no damage to any vehicles. His words, not mine. I do find out later that she filed a claim with the insurance company for some unspecified amount, I figured maybe to buff out any scuffs we didn't see. Fast forward to today, and I received a summons that she is suing me and my insurance company to the tune of $75,000. Included in the summons is a claim of medical bills, pain and suffering, and the like. There is a mention that another vehicle is involved, but it's all about how evil Jastiger hit her car wrecklessly and the like. I would expect this in any kind of summons, but its really throwing me for a loop. I get ahold of my insurance company, Progressive, and they are all about helping me out. The legal lady there assures me that there is no worries, they have no case, and that $75,000 is ridiculous. She offered $600 per person in the car and they turned it down, pressing for a jury trial. I asked about the guy in the car and she said he had no interest in filing anything because there was no damage to anyone or anything. He is filing no case. I do have insurance and she said I'm covered here, but if the damages exceed my insurance limit, do I have reason to be worried? To me this seems like a silly cash grab from a lady that wants to take me for a ride. Does the fact that the guy isn't also citing anything a point for or against my chances of defense here? Could I be called back to Iowa for this case or is it completely out of my hands and in the insurance company's?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:1) ...but if the damages exceed my insurance limit, do I have reason to be worried? 1) It depends on Iowa law. In Texas, as in most states, there is a Texas Standard Auto Insurance Policy, that is generated by the Texas Department of Insurance. Generally, every policy that Geico, or Progressive, or whoever issues to a Texas driver is that exact same policy. Whether or not Iowa law allows for recovery above its State Standard Auto Policy limits is a question for Iowa Law Goons. 2) The fact that its all bullshit sounds like the best chances for your 'defense' here. 3) Your insurance company has a duty to Defend and Indemnify you. If you ever have to testify, or be deposed (i assume they're called depositions everywhere), then yea, you'll probably have to drive back to IA. That said, I wouldn't worry about any of it. Your insurance company will handle everything, and from what you've told us, there's pretty much no chance you will ever have to pay anyone a dime. You can seriously relax, this stuff happens all the time (in our world.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
I wouldn't stress too much about it, but make sure that your insurance company's on top of things. Call them every now and then to check on the status of the case. Make sure they've hired an attorney for you to respond to the lawsuit. Call the attorney every now and then to see what's going on. That sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:The one I've never understood is last words falling under "excited utterance." I mean, if I knew I was gonna die, and could gently caress over some people I didn't like, I'd say all sorts of poo poo about them just to get it entered into the court record. "Last Words"(Generally referred to as 'Dying Declaration') and "Excited Utterance" are two separate exceptions to the hearsay doctrine. Dying Declaration is an exception when the speaker believes his death is imminent. Excited Utterance is when the speaker makes an exclamation due to surprise or duress which deprives him of his ability to form a deceitful state of mind. i.e. "OH poo poo, I JUST RAN THAT MOTHERFUCKING HOBO OVER."
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:I wouldn't stress too much about it, but make sure that your insurance company's on top of things. Call them every now and then to check on the status of the case. Make sure they've hired an attorney for you to respond to the lawsuit. Call the attorney every now and then to see what's going on. That sort of thing. Hell yes. Remember that they are technically paying for your defense, so you deserve to be involved.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Oh boy I get to put this one in front of the Law Goons. I'm lighthearted about this now because I don't think they have a case, but wanted to put this in front of a lot of other peoples' eyes to see if I should be lighthearted. Progressive has a "duty to defend" you. They are going to hire a law firm to represent you (not them, but you). That law firm will work extensively with the insurance company. They're going to request things like photos of the damage, medical records, etc. Any damages the lady receives above your policy limits can be recovered from you, though the lawyers will do their best to keep it within the policy limits (are your policy limits $75,000 or less? If so, you almost certainly have nothing to worry about, but talk to your lawyers to make sure). While I cannot guarantee you won't be called to testify or lose any money, given that you had a car between you and her with no damage and no injuries, it's pretty unlikely. $600 per occupant is basically a "this is cheaper than paying the lawyers" fee. And since liability isn't an issue (i.e. the "accident" was your fault), there's probably not much of a reason to call you to testify at trial; they may depose you, and will almost certainly take a recorded statement (if they haven't already). So, did this summons and complaint come from her, personally, or did it come from a law firm representing her? If what you've said is accurate and complete, it's unlikely she would be able to get a law firm to represent her unless they were super-shady, or she lied to them. Have you talked to the lawyers the insurance company retained yet? Or was this something you, like, just got in the mail?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:3) Your insurance company has a duty to Defend and Indemnify you. If you ever have to testify, or be deposed (i assume they're called depositions everywhere), then yea, you'll probably have to drive back to IA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted: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). I think the completed picture is a derivative work in any jurisdiction. The question prompt said that the OP "finished it completely including a background", which to me suggests that they did linework, colors, and everything--indeed, OP says that she did "about 90% of the work." That's a bit more substantial a change than gluesticking the picture to a bathroom tile in Mirage and Lee. To me, it seems more akin to taking a story that you commissioned from somebody, and making it into a movie. Of course, this is all academic because there are probably no damages. No statutory damages either, because I doubt the author of the original sketch timely registered the work, if at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
Other IP Goons I've got a friend who wants me to patent an Idea for him and his friends. I told him first that we would be doing a joint venture, and dumping all present and subsequent IP into a general partnership, and then have that entity apply for whatever patent protection they need. That part is easy, and I can search the USPTO's filings pretty effectively. One of their "developers", we'll call them, is pretty tech savvy, and he would likely be able to generate a satisfactory description of the invention for the application. BUT when it comes to actually applying for the patent, is that something I can teach myself to do, or walk myself through? If not, is there any way to outsource the process piece by piece? I do Oil and Gas, Real Estate, and Business Entity transactional work and litigation, in Texas. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
So, does anyone have any experience with small claims court in Seattle? I'm suing my landlord. I've got most of the legal poo poo covered, just two questions: 1) Dress code. I know it's a little more casual than regular court; I'm not wearing a suit. Is a button-down short-sleeve plaid shirt okay, or do I need something solid with a tie? 2) According to the RCW I'm suing under, I can recover expenses. Do I include expenses in the amount I'm suing for, or is that awarded additionally? Further, if I'm awarded expenses, does that count towards the award amount for the purposes of appeal (I'm suing for $4 less than the minimum for the case to be appealable, so it matters)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
1. Do you mean "I don't think I should wear a suit" or "there is no way in hell I am wearing a suit?" In either case, wear a suit. 2. Generally, you can't recover anything that you don't ask for (so, yes, ask for costs and all other relief to which you might be entitled). I don't know the answer to part B of this question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:So, does anyone have any experience with small claims court in Seattle? 1) Slacks, long sleeve-button down, tie. 2) Do you mean expenses relating to the damage you suffered? (like moving expenses and utility connection charges) or expenses of filing and winning the lawsuit, more often referred to as "Court Costs" or "Costs of Court" (filing fees, sometimes attorneys fees)? The statute that you're suing under should define "expenses". Quite frankly, you should ask the court for anything an everything you could possibly be entitled to, and let the judge trim it down on you. But, if you don't ask the court for anything more than $XX.XX, the judge usually won't award it. In fact, it would do you well to say, "Your honor, I'm not seeking expenses or court costs; only XX dollar amount." blarzgh fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:IANAL, but here is what typically happens in a case like this: I had JUST gotten it in the mail, but was kind of aware of it before hand. The legal lady at Progressive had told me that I MIGHT be getting a summons back in like May or late April, and sure enough here it is. She says it is something to do with chiropractic bills or some such. One person they were filing for like $1200, the other was like $10,000 and the last person was for like $65,000. I just faxed off a copy of the summons a few minutes, ago so no lawyer retained yet. Should I be expecting a phone call from the lawyer they hire, or is it all on me to get in touch with them? The summons DID have a lawyer's name on it. I'm not sure if its a group or not, but its been two years if that means anything as far as retention goes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:The summons DID have a lawyer's name on it. I'm not sure if its a group or not, but its been two years if that means anything as far as retention goes. wait, wait... Suit was filed 2 years ago, or the accident was 2 years ago?!
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
I'm referring to court costs; I'm actually just suing for my double my deposit back. I'll put those in along with it, then. As for the suit, I don't own one, and am unlikely to get back the amount one would cost in the suit, so I'm disinclined to buy one just for this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I just faxed off a copy of the summons a few minutes, ago so no lawyer retained yet. Should I be expecting a phone call from the lawyer they hire, or is it all on me to get in touch with them? You should be expecting to get a call from them. But again: 1) Everything will be fine 2) Feel free to bother them with any questions you have. This is the service you have been paying them for all these years. Get your money's worth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:So, does anyone have any experience with small claims court in Seattle? 1) Wear a loving suit. The chances are 99% that the other side won't and you will have a huge advantage. It just shows a basic lack of respect and effort on your part if you don't. If you are suing him then you need to prove your case and no matter what documentary evidence you have, you will need to come across as at least prima facie credible if you want to win. If you make an effort and go properly dressed then you will already be there. 2) I am not a US lawyer so I don't know but it sounds like you are worried you might lose and thus might want to appeal. The counterpoint to that is that if you win (which you should be at least 51% sure of if you are going to pursue a claim) then he won't be able to appeal against you if you keep the value below the minimum. Here in the UK, costs of the action are dealt with separately to damages and do not affect the value of the claim. If you are bothered about this though then you really ought to stump up some money for legal advice on the question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:I'm referring to court costs; I'm actually just suing for my double my deposit back. I'll put those in along with it, then. "The party who files a claim or counterclaim cannot appeal unless the amount claimed exceeds $1,000. No party may appeal a judgment where the amount claimed is less than $250." http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/DistrictCourt/SmallClaims.aspx If your security deposit was only $125.00, you must be doing this just for fun. If your question is in regards to the $1,000.00 limit, that means you can only appeal if you sued for more than $1,000.00, and lost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:2) Feel free to bother them with any questions you have. This is the service you have been paying them for all these years. Get your money's worth. dos4gw posted:1) Wear a loving suit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I had JUST gotten it in the mail, but was kind of aware of it before hand. The legal lady at Progressive had told me that I MIGHT be getting a summons back in like May or late April, and sure enough here it is. She says it is something to do with chiropractic bills or some such. One person they were filing for like $1200, the other was like $10,000 and the last person was for like $65,000. Odds are this is going to take a long-rear end time to get sorted (like, expect at least several months, and possibly upwards of two years), so don't get impatient. They have to request (or subpoena, if the plaintiff is uncooperative) medical records, review them, probably get a doctor to look at the plaintiffs for an Independent Medical Examination, arrange for and hold depositions, reschedule said depositions when the plaintiffs inevitably don't show up for them, etc. And there will sometimes be weeks or months when nothing happens at all. The upside is that like most everyone else is saying, your involvement will probably be minimal. You will talk to the lawyers at least once, and they'll give you a better idea of what to expect than most of us can (since we don't work in Iowa), but you really won't need to do much. This is why you have insurance, and why your insurance has lawyers they favor. Ham Equity fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
dos4gw posted:2) I am not a US lawyer... Over here, in JP court and Small Claims court, a suit almost works against you. The judges aren't licensed attorneys, the claimed amounts cannot exceed $5-$10K in varying jurisdictions, and quite frankly people who do show up in suits are looked at as "uppity", as we like to say here in the south. I've been to JP court in 7 different counties, and I have never seen someone (besides myself) in a full suit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:wait, wait... Suit was filed 2 years ago, or the accident was 2 years ago?! Suit was filed recently I think. I didn't look at the date before dropping it off for my wife to fax. I really should have. The accident was 2 years ago. I should say, I have an insurance license and used to sell it. I know a lot about it and their obligations to me. I've never been on the receiving end of this though, and that is where most of my worry is. I know they'll defend me to the best of their ability (and my policy limit), but I didn't know how much involvement I would have or if I should be sweating bullets about some trumped up medical bill. Thanks for all the advice and I'll keep everyone as posted as I can.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Other IP Goons You can't patent an idea. You can write a good description (and the inventors should because they know more about the invention than anyone else), and that will save you tons of money in terms of agent drafting fees, but you cannot handle writing good claims and navigating prosecution. It's such a ridiculous, esoteric, nuanced thing that has insane consequences if you do it wrong. There are also about infinite ways that you can gently caress yourself over by saying the wrong thing or filing things in the wrong order or or or
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:"The party who files a claim or counterclaim cannot appeal unless the amount claimed exceeds $1,000. No party may appeal a judgment where the amount claimed is less than $250." Ham Equity fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Over here, in JP court and Small Claims court, a suit almost works against you. The judges aren't licensed attorneys, the claimed amounts cannot exceed $5-$10K in varying jurisdictions, and quite frankly people who do show up in suits are looked at as "uppity", as we like to say here in the south. Also, I'm lazy, so if I can get away with the button-down plaid I usually wear to work, that would be great. At this point, though, I'm leaning towards dockers, button-down long-sleeve shirt, tie, dress-y shoes. Ham Equity fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Yeah, this is why I'm kind of torn on the dress code issue. On the one hand, the small claims judges in Seattle are all attorneys. On the flip side, the culture out here is substantially more relaxed than the culture on the East Coast or Midwest, and I don't want to overdo it, come off like an rear end in a top hat. "Dumb down" the suit by wearing a tie with naked ladies on it
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
Bro Enlai posted:"Dumb down" the suit by wearing a tie with naked ladies on it
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:You can't patent an idea. Also, he literally can't practice before the PTO because he isn't patent barred. Farm it out - there's a lot of prosecution firms in Texas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Also, he literally can't practice before the PTO because he isn't patent barred. Farm it out - there's a lot of prosecution firms in Texas. The inventors can act for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:The inventors can act for themselves. The inventors can, but he isn't an inventor as far as I can tell. Edit: and ghost-writing the paper for the inventors to sign would be unauthorized practice, though the PTO has basically said they don't enforce it against unregistered individuals due to lack of authority. However, if he screws up prosecution - which is pretty easy to do - then it makes for a really simple malpractice suit. Kalman fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The inventors can, but he isn't an inventor as far as I can tell. Yeah, very true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
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. I know I'm late, but in Canada artists can get an injunction to prevent people from interfering with their "moral rights" in their artwork. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_v._The_Eaton_Centre_Ltd. bub spank fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Jun 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:The inventors can act for themselves. Baruch Obamawitz posted:This is wrong, insofar an assignee can name one or more inventors as having power of attorney (nevertheless, don't go pro se as a patent newbie) Well, I'll be dipped in poo. I've never had to deal with assigning power of attorney to a joint inventor. Lesson learned and thank you. patentmagus fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Jun 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Other IP Goons I've addressed the licensed practitioner issue in a different post. Since you're an attorney, why are you going limited partnership instead of LLC? As for outsourcing the pieces, find a patent agent or a freshly minted patent attorney. Experienced patent attorneys will probably outright refuse to work that way. We've all tried it and it is a pain in the rear end, takes more time, and we end up putting our reputations and malpractice premiums at risk for work we don't control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Yes, the inventors can, but they were also going to create a holding company and assign the IP to it. As soon as the holding company holds all rights, then the inventors aren't representing themselves. It's like any other corporation's legal representation. It has to be represented by a licensed practitioner. This is wrong, insofar an assignee can name one or more inventors as having power of attorney (nevertheless, don't go pro se as a patent newbie)
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
So I'm growing up in the world and it looks like I'm about to score the place of my dreams! It's a two bedroom apartment in the DC metro area that I can actually afford on my meager salary. The catch is that I will be assisting with caring for the property in exchange for a cheaper monthly rent. The one thing holding me back is some of the wording on the lease. Legalese gives me a headache and so I'm hoping someone here will be able to provide some insight before I sign my life away. I would really appreciate it if someone could help me review and reword the following section in the drafted lease with the end goal being: I won't be out on my rear end if my work isn't up to par with the owner's standards. Below is the wording I am concerned about, specifically the section which I am copying in BOLD (bolding is mine): "2.b. The resident(s) agree to provide services as described in section 2.a above and outlined in table 2.b.i below. Resident(s) agree to provide a minimum of ten hours of assistance related to the tasks indicated in table 2.b.i. Residents also agree and acknowledge responsibility of providing primary care to equine while owner is out of town. If the RESIDENTS do not keep up the terms of this agreement or do not perform the task in a satisfactory manner (determined by discretion of owner) the RESIDENTS shall be liable for breach of contract and will be required to vacate the premises immediately as the breech occurs. The RESIDENTS will be liable additional months’ rent if termination occurs as the result or request of early release or breech of the contract." When I explained to the potential landlord that this wording concerned me, she gave me the go-ahead to send over a drafted version that I would be comfortable with. But now I'm drawing a blank. I mean, I think that she put this clause in the lease because there are animals onsite (hence the part about "equine care") and she wants to protect them and herself in the event of neglect. While I don't foresee this being an issue, I want to protect myself from being kicked to the curb if my assistance doesn't meet the "owner's satisfactory standards". Does anybody have some sage advice in rewording this section?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Not what you asked about, but "Resident(s) agree to provide a minimum of ten hours of assistance" over what time period? The life of the contract? Or per week? Might want that in there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
IAmNotYourRealDad posted:I would really appreciate it if someone could help me review and reword the following section in the drafted lease with the end goal being: I won't be out on my rear end if my work isn't up to par with the owner's standards. That's a scary looking lease to me. Rewording that goes beyond what I would consider reasonable for the attorneys in this thread, because it is so specific it looks like giving legal advice (at least to a layman like myself) My first advice would be to walk away and keep looking. Mostly because the lease is scary, but secondly because horses are expensive, and if that horse gets sick and you are in responsible care of it you are on the hook for it. If you won't walk away, I would look to strictly delineate your responsibility and liability, especially with regard to care for the horse. Stuff like, if you overreact and call a vet and nothing is wrong, you are not responsible for the vet bill; if you don't spot subtle signs of something wrong and the horse sickens or dies, you are not responsible; stating that you are not a trained or certified equine caregiver or groom; any training you receive is at the direction of the owner and any deficiency in training is the fault of the owner, etc. For repairs and upkeep, replace the "owners discretion" with something like "what a reasonable layman would consider adequate." unless you have some sort of qualifications such as journeyman carpenter or are a licensed contractor. I just am guessing that if what you copied is so off-putting, the rest can't be much better. I'd keep looking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 18:45
|
|