|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:I guess I'd consider one-upping him and replying telling him that I only consent to a trial in an Admirality Court. Absolutely, you can't let your supervening salvage rights slip away. Let him know that the principals of Hanseatic stare decisis are clearly in your favor.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 10:07 |
|
|
Bad Munki posted:demand a copy of his "berth" certificate while you're at it. Lost it at this
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 06:47
|
|
|
What kind of stance or legal basis does the photographer have to sue me for training costs? Just a reminder that there was only a verbal contract (where some points of understanding between us are in conflict) and that I was not paid during the time of training ("internship"). I have not signed a NDA or non-compete either (which seems to line up with his paranoia and will to sue me for the future damage he believes I will undoubtedly do). This paragraph on the website of a California law firm seems to indicate that he cannot because a judge would likely find the training period invalid: "Generally, the more a trainee job resembles a traditional job, the less likely it will be upheld as a valid education-in-lieu-of-pay arrangement. To increase the chances that trainee jobs will be upheld, employers should make sure that the jobs consist mainly of substantive training work, rather than just menial or administrative tasks. Trainees also must be enrolled in educational and/or vocational programs that are relevant to their training work (e.g., newspaper interns must be presently enrolled in journalism programs) at the time the work occurs. Employers likely cannot enter into valid trainee relationships with people who either are not presently in school, or who are not enrolled in classes and/or programs that are unrelated to their training work."
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Subjunctivitis posted:What kind of recourse does the photographer have for me immediately quitting the internship (i.e. without notice)? Indentured Servitude (also known as 'slavery') is still illegal. You didn't have a contract, and even if you did, you ceased to perform, and he ceased to compensate you for your performance - thats called mutual rescission. Finally, contracts for personal services are unenforceable by specific performance, meaning he cannot force you to perform your end. The Photographer is being an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
You really shouldn't worry. The guy seems like a prissy rear end in a top hat, who thinks he can bully you with harsh threats. I could explain to you the littany of reasons that his claims are baseless, ranging from the Statute of Frauds, to failure of consideration, but. Its late, I'm tired. You have nothing to worry about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Indentured Servitude (also known as 'slavery') is still illegal. You didn't have a contract, and even if you did, you ceased to perform, and he ceased to compensate you for your performance - thats called mutual rescission. What about tenant farming? I mean The Intern was conceivably sheltered within the building The Photographer owned/leased/squatted in, shouldn't The Intern have to compensate The Photographer in some way for his room and board? Jeez how can a Photographer even expect to make a living in this crazy socialist utopia
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:What about tenant farming? I mean The Intern was conceivably sheltered within the building The Photographer owned/leased/squatted in, shouldn't The Intern have to compensate The Photographer in some way for his room and board? Jeez how can a Photographer even expect to make a living in this crazy socialist utopia Share-Cropping...
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Suppose you're negotiating on your own behalf against a business and they assume you are a lawyer. You are not a lawyer and do not claim you are a lawyer, but do not correct them when they say something like "You're a lawyer, you know how this goes." Could you have any problems resulting from their uncorrected assumption? buzzsaw.gif posted:I agree with this statement in general. However, unless you are providing legal advice or services to the other party, that other party just simply made a mistake. A material mistake of fact, left uncorrected by a party to an agreement who knows of the mistake and is benefiting from the mistake, is not only grounds for rescission of the contract, but also grounds for a cause of action for fraud. Against you. Don't do this, its stupid. Let me put it to you this way: We wrote the rules that get people in trouble for pretending to be one of us - do you really think we would make the consequences "no big deal"? blarzgh fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Jun 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
buzzsaw.gif posted:wow, yes; as the first reply said: you need a lawyer and additionally you probably need to incorporate. Imagine I'm a complete legal noob, why would I need to incorporate, and what's the best way to do this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 23:56
|
|
ROCKET SCIENCE
|
illectro posted:Imagine I'm a complete legal noob, why would I need to incorporate, and what's the best way to do this? Your state or province will have its own rules on how to incorporate and you should speak to a lawyer about the best form of incorporation available in your jurisdiction for your purpose. The reason you incorporate is to protect your rear end. Your have your corporation offer your services or whatever it is you do. Your corporation enters into contracts with youtube or your sponsors or whoever. That way if anything goes wrong, they have to sue your corporation rather than you personally. That way you, and your personal assets are protected. I say this with the caveat that there are ways to get around this, which is why you need to talk to a lawyer about the specifics, but the general idea is that the corporation will help protect you. How do you think ceos and rich rear end shareholders get away with no consequences when their company does something horrible? Incorporation, that's how.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
illectro posted:Imagine I'm a complete legal noob, why would I need to incorporate, and what's the best way to do this? Incorporation creates a separate legal entity, the corporation that will conduct the business activities, carry the expenses, and receive the income from your activities. One of the main advantages is limited liability. That is, if something happens and someone sues for a bunch of money, they can only sue the corporation and its assets, not you personally. This limits the risk you are exposed to with your business. The flip side is that there are rules on ensuring the corporation has enough money and that there are a lot of requirements involving keeping your corporate money separate from your money. The best way to incorporate is to find a local attorney. They'll be able to help you choose the best form of incorporation and handle all the process for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
buzzsaw.gif posted:wow, yes; as the first reply said: you need a lawyer and additionally you probably need to incorporate. Yea, and the attorney you go get to help you navigate these contract offers will help you with this, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
NB you might not need to formally incorporate if you have a birth certificate because then you will already have been incorporated and when people deal with your name, they are actually dealing with a legal fiction. By creating a birth certificate, whoever wrote it was acting as an agent for the state and thereby severed the joint tenancy between your corporeal and incorporeal form. This used to be a big secret but over the last few years it's become more and more well-known. Basically what I am saying is that you might not need to spend money on incorporating because a company is ultimately just a liability shield, and you can refuse to contract with other people/the police/the IRS unless you have accord and you can withhold that. Google admiralty courts if you want to understand more about it. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 08:18
|
|
|
dos4gw posted:NB you might not need to formally incorporate if you have a birth certificate because then you will already have been incorporated and when people deal with your name, they are actually dealing with a legal fiction. Ahahahahaha get out of the legal megathread you crazy moron. e: I guess it's possible you're joking or something but seriously this is the worst advice to give someone ever. John McCain fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 08:44
|
|
|
Roughly 10% of the recent posts in this thread are people running the sovereign citizen joke into the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:Roughly 10% of the recent posts in this thread are people running the sovereign citizen joke into the ground. Yes but that happens in a chain of posts mocking a crazy person, it's not cool to screw with someone asking a genuine question and in the midst of getting a good answer. e: wait.... dos4gw posted:I'm a UK based barrister so I might be able to give you some general advice. dos4gw posted:Take this with a pinch of salt because I am not a lawyer, at least not a practising one (got caught out on some bullshit technicality) but hope this helps!!! Storytime! Alchenar fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 09:04
|
|
|
Did we just get trolled? Just in case this isn't a master level troll, do not, under any circumstance, follow this advice. xxEightxx fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
I'm looking to file for a trademark for an entertainment website similar to The Verge or Huffington Post... the website to file says I should hire an attorney but I wanted to know how much I should expect to pay for that and what we should go over so I don't waste my own time. If you guys know some default information that'll help me on my way without an attorney that be even better as I don't have a lot of money to spare. Location: New York City
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
FAOD yes I was joking. It might have been a bit unfair to screw with someone asking a genuine question but I can't apologise as there would be a risk of creating accord between us as I do not want my corporate veil to be pierced. Seriously though guys, google admiralty courts - it's all true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:I'm looking to file for a trademark for an entertainment website similar to The Verge or Huffington Post... the website to file says I should hire an attorney but I wanted to know how much I should expect to pay for that and what we should go over so I don't waste my own time. If you guys know some default information that'll help me on my way without an attorney that be even better as I don't have a lot of money to spare. Piggybacking onto my own post.. would you guys consider a service like http://www.trademarkia.com/trademark/trademark-service-price.aspx Or are places like these considered a rip off?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:Piggybacking onto my own post.. would you guys consider a service like Depends. Do you want a mark you could actually enforce or just one you could threaten to enforce? Anything those guys come up with is going to be pretty terrible if a real lawyer wants to rip it apart, but if you just want to cease and desist people it's plenty. Why do you want a trademark, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Depends. Do you want a mark you could actually enforce or just one you could threaten to enforce? Anything those guys come up with is going to be pretty terrible if a real lawyer wants to rip it apart, but if you just want to cease and desist people it's plenty. If I want to create a website like The Verge or Engadget do you believe its in my best interest to trademark my name? Legit question, not some sarcastic bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:If I want to create a website like The Verge or Engadget do you believe its in my best interest to trademark my name? You're going to need substantial money to build a good website like either of those, and if you're investing that kind of money then yes, you should get a trade-mark. Why do you think you need to get a trade-mark right now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:You're going to need substantial money to build a good website like either of those, and if you're investing that kind of money then yes, you should get a trade-mark. Don't know because I actually can't find a lot of good websites that tells me what the heck it's all about or when is the best time to apply for something like that. I am seriously in the dark about this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:I'm looking to file for a trademark for an entertainment website similar to The Verge or Huffington Post... the website to file says I should hire an attorney but I wanted to know how much I should expect to pay for that and what we should go over so I don't waste my own time. If you guys know some default information that'll help me on my way without an attorney that be even better as I don't have a lot of money to spare. At my old firm, we did trademarks for around $550. Filing fees are like $200-$250 something, on top of that. That was Texas, though. [edit] Maybe check out LegalZoom.com for a simple trademark. As far as "starting your own business/website", thats a whole different can o' worms, with tons and tons of other considerations. When I do an LLC or Partnership for someone, I spend at least an hour going over their business plan (that they have already put together) and another hour or two going over how they should run it to satisfy all the legal requirements on a day to day basis. Its not really fair to ask a goon to just explain it to you. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:Don't know because I actually can't find a lot of good websites that tells me what the heck it's all about or when is the best time to apply for something like that. I am seriously in the dark about this. you can trademark just about anything thats a name, marking, or slogan. Hell, it was Pat Reilly I think that trademarked the term "Three-peat" when he was coaching Michael Jordan, after he heard it during a pre-game speech.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
Is Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films still the landmark sampling case in the United States? Australia has taken a different tack for the time being with "a substantial part" being the guideline, but there are worries that they'll follow the US eventually. Has anything else developed in regards to sampling in the US? edit: And before you say anything, yes I have researched Admiralty courts in regards to copyright law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:Don't know because I actually can't find a lot of good websites that tells me what the heck it's all about or when is the best time to apply for something like that. I am seriously in the dark about this. Have you tried uspto.gov? More specifically http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/index.jsp Regarding legalzoom and tradmarkia, they're kind of a waste when it's so easy to just file for the mark yourself. The time to file is pretty much as soon as you know what mark you want to register. As for enforcing the mark, that's another matter. Pick a "fanciful" name. One that doesn't describe what the web site is or does. For example, "somethingawful" is a great name. Be sure to read whatever the trademark examiner sends back to you. I bit of literacy and googling should see you through. For people walking through the door, I charge five or six hundred dollars plus application fees. I also give them a warning that there will be more fees if we have to fight for the mark. For clients that have been with me for a few years I usually just do the registration with them during a meeting, lunch or a beer. Electronic filing with the USPTO really is that easy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
I wish I were a trademark litigator 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:I wish I were a trademark litigator I wasn't suggesting that they trademark "somethingawful." sigh
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
LordPants posted:Is Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films still the landmark sampling case in the United States? Australia has taken a different tack for the time being with "a substantial part" being the guideline, but there are worries that they'll follow the US eventually. Has anything else developed in regards to sampling in the US? Its still good law, if thats what you mean. No court has overturned its holding, or modified it. To us, a "landmark case" is one that changes the law on a subject matter dramatically. A case is always a "landmark" case, no matter what happens after.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 14:34
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:I wasn't suggesting that they trademark "somethingawful." I think he meant "$500 for a trademark app? Beats the poo poo out of doing municipal court tickets for possession, or answering discovery requests."
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I think he meant "$500 for a trademark app? Beats the poo poo out of doing municipal court tickets for possession, or answering discovery requests." I love trademarks, but I don't think a man can live on trademarks alone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:I love trademarks, but I don't think a man can live on trademarks alone. This was proven to me by the failure of what I thought was a pretty awesome business where I had landed a job, assuming it got off the ground (it didn't)
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
Dogen posted:This was proven to me by the failure of what I thought was a pretty awesome business where I had landed a job, assuming it got off the ground (it didn't) It would be a nice little business if all you had to do was collect the fee, file the app, and show the client the door. Instead there's all the intake, docketing, and tracking. Those are just the costs after the advertising and marketing have worked. Hopefully they haven't disappeared in five years when the section 8 declaration comes due 'cause then you have to track them down. Trademark alone really doesn't make for a good business. That's why I try to treat it as a client development and retention thing. At least you get to read fun prosecution histories like: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=76315793&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=documentSearch
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
Quick (and likely stupid) legal question for the legal goons. This is in Oregon. My brother is stupid and purchased something online which he states did not make it clear that he would be automatically charged after the "free trial period" for some natural supplement. He entered his billing information for the cost of shipping, $4.95. After 30 days he noticed he was charged again, this time $89.95. When he e-mailed them asking for a refund, they responded with the ToS from another page on their site which does state they will automatically charge you and that you have to e-mail them to cancel. I suggested he just print out both of the different ToS pages, go to his bank and initiate a chargeback since the company was unwilling to help. After I made that suggestion my brother was reading the ToS more closely and sees that it says they will "file suit in federal court" if you attempt to reverse the charges. I have never seen a "real" company phrase things in this way. Are they just blowing smoke up his rear end? Further, suppose he does chargeback and he does get a legal threat, have cases been one against individuals in these circumstances? My suggestion was that if it happens, pay a lawyer to simply draft up a response and that should be the end of that. He is a poor college student that can't really afford the charge to begin with, so a lawyer may be out of the question, if it is, would it be best to just eat the cost as a learning experience? My understanding of the chargeback process is: 1. Card holder initiates chargeback. 2. Bank reverses the charge and sends a note to the company. 3. Company may then dispute the chargeback and say it's a legitimate charge. 4. If the bank agrees with the company, they'll put the charge back onto the card, otherwise they tell the merchant to gently caress off. At least, that's how things roll where I work in our billing department; but then again, I don't work for a lovely company, so their tactics may be totally legal, albeit lovely. edit: relevant section of ToS: lovely assholes posted:editing ToS as my question has been answered and it can be used to detective. Winkle-Daddy fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Jun 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
That sounds more like a shot across the bow for people who intend to order things and then reverse the charges fraudulently.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:That sounds more like a shot across the bow for people who intend to order things and then reverse the charges fraudulently. My question is more, if the ToS/product is a subscription trap, are those Terms of Services actually enforceable? Could they really sue someone for doing a chargeback? Does it constitute fraud? Like I said before, my experience (on the other end) with chargebacks are basically if a customer charges us back, we shut down their account and blacklist the card. Then we will tell the bank it is a legitimate service that they agreed to purchase and sometimes the bank decides in our favor, sometimes it doesn't. But it seems pretty unheard of to try to go beyond talking to the bank, no? I've seen some posts online of people saying they got a "legal threat" from merchants over chargebacks, but I've yet to find any details of those lawsuits online which leads me to believe it is only a threat. (Not this specifically, just this kind of wording in the ToS).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
Winkle-Daddy posted:My question is more, if the ToS/product is a subscription trap, are those Terms of Services actually enforceable? Could they really sue someone for doing a chargeback? Does it constitute fraud? A chargeback is fraud is if the cardholder kept something that didn't belong to them. It's usually the CC company that picks these out and tells the merchant and their customer, the cardholder, how it's gonna go down - but yeah I've never heard of a business escalating it past that point even though I'm sure it's happened. The way I read this little blurb, they're telling people they reserve the right to investigate chargebacks (a right they do have) and will happily sue anyone who has used that mechanism to defraud them (which is certainly fair) iff they've proven fraud, which they may or may not be able to do depending on exactly what it was your brother agreed to and the enforceability of that agreement. My malfunction here is that fraud requires intent, and I'm pretty sure a company that uses a subscription trap as a business model won't be able to successfully prove beyond a balance of probabilities that your brother intended to steal anything, even if it might look to them like he did when he agreed to receive a product allegedly worth $90 for five bucks and to pay for it if he was satisfied with it after a period of time. They are probably banking on him being either too ashamed to admit that he got suckered or too timid to fight back, and they're likely to be prepared for a pro se argument. A polite letter from his lawyer inviting these people to take their miracle-gro and go gently caress their couch should solve this problem nicely. flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 10:07 |
|
|
flakeloaf posted:A chargeback is fraud is if the cardholder kept something that didn't belong to them. It's usually the CC company that picks these out and tells the merchant and their customer, the cardholder, how it's gonna go down - but yeah I've never heard of a business escalating it past that point even though I'm sure it's happened. Thanks! I appreciate it and will tell him to talk to a lawyer about what may or may not happen should he chose to go this route.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 18:18
|
|