Datasets:

vblagoje

/

Law-StackExchange-Deduplicated

like 0

What are the legal repercussions of taking a stranger's picture in public?

With Snapchat and Instagram it is all too easy to abuse picture taking and really inexpensive to snap a photo of an unknowing stranger. If you are in public and will only post pictures online without their permission, can the victim take legal action against you? What would be the effect on the photo taker? Will there be punishment for the host company (if it encourages this type of behavior)?

In the United States, You have no expectation of privacy in public . Anything you can see from a public place, you can take a picture of, even if the "victim" is in their own home but has the blinds open. If you are standing on a public sidewalk or street, you would legally be able to take a picture with certain exceptions. An exception to this would be: if with just your eyes you can see into a private home, you can take a picture of that, but if you require a telescopic lense with some sort of IR adapter to "see through" blinds. That MAY be considered illegal. For real world examples of this question, check out PINAC . Another example is "Creepy Camara Guy", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs6iLtl0BAw . This guy basically goes around recording videos of people in public in a VERY obnoxious way. But he is within his legal right. (Note: Video unavailable: "This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.")

Can I sue a company for testing Captcha when unsubscribing from email?

With all the data protection stuff these days I was wondering if it is possible to sue a company for making a user pass a CAPTCHA test when unsubscribing from email. I don't know the law surrounding this issue but the user experience is horrendous: I get an email that I don't want from a company I don't really care about into my personal inbox. They provide a link below, as legally mandated I believe, for me to be able to unsubscribe from their mailing list. I am directed to an external URL where most companies quickly confirm the saved preferences. Why should I need to pass a CAPTCHA when an email was clicked directly from my inbox? This is mostly hypothetical right now, but I am wondering if there are any laws (e.g., GDPR) that would make this actionable.

According to 10 rules for getting email unsubscribes right on Econsultancy, the GDPR says of unsubscribing (my emphasis): There is no specific rule about how companies should allow unsubscribing from email, but the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) does state that removing consent should be as easy as giving it . This means that if businesses try to make it difficult or confusing they may find themselves receiving complaints. So, assuming they do not otherwise hinder unsubscribing in some of the ways described on that page, would having to pass a Captcha test stop unsubscribing being as easy as signing up? Obviously, it can depend on exactly how you sign up. Some processes may have involved a Captcha test in the first place, or validating your email to activate an account: in such cases, it feels like a clear draw. Even if all that was involved to sign-up was to enter your email-address on a web-page, then passing a single Captcha test doesn't really sound like a significant difference. Also, much as I hate "defending" companies that try to flood you with emails, there are some practical reasons for including something like a Captcha test. In your question you say " when an email was clicked directly from my inbox ". However, they don't necessarily know it came directly from your inbox: Depending on the format of the link, it may be possible for a mischievous third-party to spoof requests to the unsubscribe page. A Captcha helps ensure a human actually did the clicking. Even if the format of the link is "encoded" in a way to make it "spoof-proof", it is known that some email clients might "pre-visit" links they find in emails (see, How to stop e-mail clients from visiting links in e-mail automatically? on StackOverflow). One of the reasons for doing this, I believe, is to help protect users from dangerous links in "phishing" and similar emails. However, it can also mean that without some kind of secondary confirmation (e.g. Captcha), people could get unwittingly auto-unsubscribed by their email client. Overall, I would say that a Captcha alone is not sufficient to hinder the unsubscribing process to the point you can hit them with things like GDPR, especially as there are some practical justifications for including one.

State tax domestication

With any judgement the judgement has to be domesticated in the jurisdiction you are trying to enforce it in. So for example, I owe taxes in California. Now, California has a levy on my account, in a bank in California (California routing number but the bank is in new york). Now, I have another account at a bank branch in Nevada at a different bank. In order to levy my Nevada account, can California "get it for free" with their existing judgement, or do they have to domesticate the judgement in Nevada and then serve the levy?

No The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution mean that a judgement in one state is enforcable everywhere in the USA. To enforce the judgement against a foreign asset, you would have to take the California judgement to the foreign court and ask them to enforce it - which is normally allowed.

Can a company adopt a child?

With apologies for the (only somewhat) click-bait title, in an answer to another question (see this answer ) the statement Typically the only thing a legal entity that is not a natural person cannot do is sign a marriage contract. was made. Some commenters disputed this, asking, e.g., Can a business become a (natural) child's legal guardian, can a business have power of attorney over a (natural) person, etc.? This got me curious: Can any legal entity adopt a child? Or does one, perhaps, need two corporations to do this? Of course, the answer to the above may be a simple "no" for trivial reasons, but my question is really closer to asking the looser question: What is the most ridiculous thing a legal entity can do that one would only expect a natural person to be able to do? I'm happy with any interpretation of "ridiculous", here. As pertains to jurisdiction, I've put the tag united-states for starters, but I am interested in other jurisdictions too, e.g., the UK (one commenter mentioned that corporations frequently vote in elections in the City of London).

In the US, adoptions follow state law. Here is the law for Washington state. RCW 26.33.140 says that "Any person who is legally competent and who is eighteen years of age or older may be an adoptive parent". The word "person" does not have a statutory meaning under this title, thus it has its ordinary meaning. There are discussions in case law regarding the "person" status of corporations, but those extensions of the meaning "person" involve extending a constitutional right which refers to a "person" to corporations. A corporation can hold property, enter contracts, and sue and be sued just like a person, and from the earliest days esp. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518, the US courts have recognized that corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. But corporations can't vote or get married. So, in Washington you have to be a person-person. And, presumably in all states.

Gathering bans and Churches

With bans on gatherings due to the virus, can the government close churches or are they exempt due to seperation laws?

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment requires government restrictions on churches to satisfy a compelling government interest, such as preventing massive deaths from disease. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from granting special privileges to a specific religion or to all religions ( Everson v. Board of Education , 330 U.S. 1 – government may not "pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another"). Exempting only religious gatherings (however defined) would be unconstitutional. Restricting all gatherings (including religious gatherings) would be constitutional (subject to the general restrictions being itself constitutional).

Are UK civil partnerships still 'monogamous'?

With civil partnerships soon opening to everyone in the UK, I have been unabe to find whether - like with marriage - you are limited to have one with only a single person? Could some insight with sources be provided on this?

Yes. Section 1 paragraph 1 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 says: A civil partnership is a relationship between two people of the same sex [My emphasis] To show that you can't form multiple civil partnerships, Section 3 says: Eligibility (1)Two people are not eligible to register as civil partners of each other if— (a)they are not of the same sex, (b)either of them is already a civil partner or lawfully married, (c)either of them is under 16, or (d)they are within prohibited degrees of relationship. (2)Part 1 of Schedule 1 contains provisions for determining when two people are within prohibited degrees of relationship. See: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/33/section/1 The recently announced change to allow heterosexual couples to register a civil partnership will presumably just involve deleting "of the same sex" from 1.1 and deleting 3.1(a) Formalizing polyamorous relationships is quite a way off I think (and will be quite a lot more complex).

Can a citizen be denied access to their own country?

With decades of international treaties covering refugees, asylum, diplomats, espionage, and countless other interesting and relevant topics to international politics, is there any international treaty establishing a right to return to one's country of citizenship ? To be very specific, I understand that criminals can be denied freedom of movement, among others, and certain high crimes or political scenarios can result in revocation of citizenship, but is there any treaty establishing an absolute right, provided one remains a citizen of a given country, to enter that country?

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , in effect since 1976 and currently signed by about 179 countries, has in Article 12 Paragraph 4: No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. It's not absolute, as it would allow for a person to be deprived of that right if it weren't "arbitrary". But it's the strongest statement I've found so far.

Is it illegal for police officers to delete video evidence of an arrest?

With how common smartphones are these days, many people film encounters with police officers as evidence in case things go wrong. In stories that make the news, occasionally police dashcam videos show police officers erasing cellphone or dashcam videos captured by citizens, or in some cases destroying the devices themselves. Is it illegal specifically for police officers to delete or destroy video evidence of their own encounters, captured by citizens? Note: Because I'm sure this varies greatly from state to state, I'm asking in particular about New York and California, and the United States as a whole in case any federal law applies

Footage of an arrest is clearly evidence: tampering with it is a crime. Notwithstanding, destroying someone's personal possessions without authorisation is a crime. Accessing a computer (which all modern image and audio recorders are) without authorisation is also a crime.

What can a user do if a service does not enforce their TOS?

With many websites requiring a agreement to a TOS, this usually means that a user is restricted from doing certain things on the site or application, but does the user gain anything out of these agreements like standards that all users must follow? This leads into my next question which is, does a user have a right for legal action for a service not enforcing equally? I was trying to think of an example that didn't involve speech but I couldn't think of one so for example a blog site requires all users to not slander other users based on identity in their terms of service. Two users in this blog get into an argument and one of the users starts attacking one of the other user's identity groups. Moderators on the site deem the speech an attack but do not take any action like removing posts or banning the first user. Does the second user have any action for the lack of enforcement of the TOS on the site?

The Terms-of-Service are a legal contract between the user and the website (or something like that - the actual force of such a click-through contract most people don't really read is disputed in some jurisdictions). This only affects the relationship between these two legal entities. So unless the terms of service explicitly guarantee the user a slander-free environment, the user can't claim that the service provider violated their contract. However, that doesn't mean that the user can not press any civil and criminal charges directly against the user who slandered them or people of their identity.

Licensing an idea to public?

With my research, it looks like a patent doesn't really make much profit from it due to the high maintenance fee. So I'm thinking is it possible to license my idea to public (for free or way less money) so that anyone can integrate into their product while they can't register as their patent. Something like Creative Common for innovations. Is there such a method?

You are correct that it is quite expensive to patent something in U.S. law. Under U.S. patent law, once an idea is publicly published, if no one else has a patent application for the same idea that is pending, the idea enters the public domain and no one can obtain a patent of that idea. The publication become "prior art" with respect to any future patent application which cannot be protected by patent law. Of course, if you publish an invention which you discovered independently, that someone else already has a patent application pending for that will be approved the following week, the fact that you published it after the patent was applied for doesn't prevent the person with the pending patent application from having it approved. The term "invention" rather than "idea" is what I will use for the remainder of this answer, because there are many ideas which may not be patented, while the lion's share of patentable ideas are appropriately described as "inventions." But, understand that as used in this answer, the term "invention" is being used to refer to the concepts and ideas necessary to make the invention, and not to a particular instance of a product made using those concepts and ideas. When an invention is in the public domain, anyone can utilize the invention free of charge without a license. People who use the invention are not even required to acknowledge that you invented or discovered it. An invention is also not eligible to be patented if more than a year has elapsed since the first sale of a product using it. But, in that case, the invention can still be protected as a trade secret until it is voluntarily disclosed in some fashion to someone who is not subject to a non-disclosure agreement. (I say voluntary, because the fact that, for example, an unauthorized corporate spy sees the trade secret doesn't end the status of the invention as a trade secret.) Some inventions, are effectively publicly disclosed and published the moment that anyone looks at it closely. The patentable element of other inventions are invisible to an end user, or to observer of an end user. For example, if the invention involves something in the interior of a device, or the invention involves something not visible to the naked eye (e.g. a process for synthesizing an industrial chemical from other chemicals where the chemical formula of the ingredients and end result can't be determined without a microscope or analytical chemistry tests), merely showing someone a product made using the invention will not put it in the public domain. It is generally legal to reverse engineer or independently come up with an invention which is merely a trade secret. It is not legal to use a patented invention or process, even if it is not directly copied and is instead reverse engineered or independently discovered, during the lifetime of the patent. There is no straightforward way to put an invention into the public domain while retaining any right to acknowledgement that you invented it or otherwise exercise control through a licensing agreement without patenting it.

Is there an "official time" in the EU, and if so, which is it?

With regard to the Brexit today, I was asking myself when exactly it goes into effect. It should be 31st January, 2020, 23:59:59, but which time zone? This leads me to the question, if there is an official - or default - time zone in the EU or even worldwide when a contract states a start or end date? Is it undefined unless the contract specifies it? P.S.: Not sure if this is more a political question..?

Different countries are in different time zones. (Some even extend over multiple time zones, but none of the current EU states do). When it is important and not obvious, you specify the time zone. Brexit is at 11pm in the U.K., midnight in Germany, France, Netherlands and many others, and probably 1am on Feb 1st in Greece. For local situations, it will be the local time zone. If there’s a contract between a company and a customer in New York to do something at 3pm, with nothing else specified, nobody will get away with saying they meant Pacific Time.

Can a case get thrown out because of "jury nullification?

With regard to this question, a patent lawyer told me that if one of the other jurors tried to teach the others his view of patent law, and they followed him, rather than the judge, that would be a form of "jury nullification." He said that that's why lawyers would often challenge "expert" jurors. And there was a possibility that the case might be overturned. Has a case ever been thrown out in the United States by a judge or on appeal because of "jury nullification?" If so, what were the circumstances?

The term "jury nullification" gets thrown around a lot, especially by non-lawyers. But your question doesn't really seem to be about jury nullification. There is a well-established procedure in the federal courts of the United States, and similar structures in all state systems I'm familiar with, that allows the judge to overrule a civil jury if it finds that no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict they did. In the federal system, this is formally known as a "renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law," and is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 50. It's universally called, by lawyers, a JNOV, or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. This is common and well-established in civil cases, such as most patent cases. It isn't commonly granted, but jury nullification--or, more frequently, jury screwups or misunderstandings severe enough to justify it--are not very common either. Jury nullification usually refers to criminal verdicts, and almost always to criminal verdicts of "not guilty." These the Court cannot correct by imposing a guilty verdict without the jury, and these are the only cases, in my opinion, properly considered as "jury nullification" cases.

Why is Apple not at fault for accepting Qualcomm "bribes"/kickbacks

With regards to the following: EU hits Qualcomm with €997m fine for abusing its dominance I have several questions about this piece of news: How is this different from a simple business deal, where a company could provide a cheaper alternative or subsidise the deal? How come Apple are not at all at fault in the eyes of the EU for this? Surely this amounts to accepting a bribe or at least anti competitive behaviour by them? How is this different from a company paying a provider to only use their service/product? Which I believe happens fairly regularly in many industries.

Because Qualcomm has a monopoly in the market for cellular communication chips, and Apple has not. Qualcomm was acting in an anti-competitive way, excluding other sellers from that market. Apple didn't act in an anti-competitive way. Apple doesn't prevent anyone from selling cellular communication chips. And you seem to misunderstand "bribe" and "kickback". If an Apple employee did a deal with some company, and instead of picking the best value company picked a less good one because it pays him money, that would be a "bribe" or "kickback". The point is that a deal would be made that benefits the employee and the other company at the expense of Apple, who would be getting less than they paid for. That is not the case if Qualcomm pays money to Apple itself or gives Apple a rebate.

What part did the supreme court play in codifying the rights of veterans at a constitutional level?

With respect to the rights of veterans, what part has the supreme court played in codifying or striking down laws that were deemed to be constitutional\unconstitutional at either the state or federal level? With the scope limited to decisions made on or after 1900.

The Supreme Court hasn't really played much part in codifying veterans' rights at the constitutional level, because veterans do not really have any constitutional rights beyond those the rest of the public enjoys. They are entitled to certain benefits and protected from certain types of discrimination, but those rights come from statutory law, not the constitution. There are lots of cases (e.g., Kisor v. Wilkie , 139 S. Ct. 2400, (2019) ) interpreting veterans' statutory rights under those laws, and there are plenty of cases (e.g. Goldman v. Weinberger , 475 U.S. 503, (1986) ) addressing the rights of active-duty members of the military, who are subject to all kinds of restrictions that would be unconstitutional if they were applied to civilians. But generally speaking, there seems to be a general agreement that being a veteran gives you no greater or lesser constitutional rights than the average citizen.

Does Executive Privilege override 5 U.S.C. App. §8H (c)?

With respect to the testimony of Acting Director of National Intelligence McGuire before the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. House of Representatives on September 26, 2019, that as a member of the Executive Branch, Executive Privilege prevented him from sending the now infamous "Whistle-blower complaint to the Congressional Intelligence Committee's. By what legal theory does Executive Privilege override the plain wording of statute that: "(c) Upon receipt of a transmittal from the Inspector General under subsection (b), the head of the establishment shall, within 7 calendar days of such receipt, forward such transmittal to the intelligence committees, together with any comments the head of the establishment considers appropriate." This question is limited to the Directors responsibility to Executive Privilege and not other legal reasons opined by the Office of Legal Counsel in DoJ. Thanx

Executive privilege is a constitutional doctrine rooted in the separation of powers. Because it’s based on the Constitution, Congress cannot limit it by statute any more than Congress could limit the President’s authority to veto laws.

Are there any legal theories under which New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation state primary law could be upheld or struck down federally?

With the 2020 Democratic primaries underway, the role played by the early states (particularly Iowa and New Hampshire) is again under scrutiny. Let's suppose that in 2028, one of the parties decides to give another state a chance to go first. New Hampshire's Secretary of State looks at the state's election laws, and notes that they require him/her to hold their presidential primary at least 7 days before any other state's primary: The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a date selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous. ... The purpose of this section is to protect the tradition of the New Hampshire first-in-the-nation presidential primary. So New Hampshire holds its primaries first anyway. The party's national committee decides to play hardball, and says that the New Hampshire delegates will not be seated at the national convention if New Hampshire jumps the queue. (This was done to Democratic delegates from Florida & Michigan in 2008, for example, after those states held an earlier primary than the Democratic National Committee wanted them to.) What happens next? Are there any legal theories under which the state of New Hampshire could sue to enforce the seating of their delegates at the national convention? Would such an action need to happen at the state level (in New Hampshire), in federal court, or somewhere else entirely? Or are political parties private organizations who can make their own rules about who they allow to vote at their conventions? Ignore, for the sake of this question, the political aspects of whether any party would be willing to play hardball with the state of New Hampshire over this issue. Feel free to bluntly correct any misconceptions implicit in this question.

Analysis. This question has never been squarely resolved by case law. An analysis would look to the U.S. Constitution (the pertinent parts of which are restated below) and case law under it, to determine if Congress has the authority to enact such a law or not including whether laws currently on the books affect it. Caucuses and primaries are used by political parties as part of their process for determining their Presidential nominees, and the only constitutional acknowledgement that they exist, or are subject to federal regulation is in the 24th Amendment. Political parties also have a 1st Amendment freedom of association interest in choosing their nominees as they see fit, subject to reasonable regulation in an area of law that is not well spelled out in case law. On the the other hand, caucuses and primaries are government regulated, mostly at the state level, because their results have an officially recognized role in Presidential elections under state laws regulating elections for Presidential electors, and primaries are generally conducted at state expense by state and local government officials, rather than by political parties acting autonomously. And, states have wide expressly granted discretion regarding how they conduct Presidential elector elections subject to the authority of Congress to prohibit various kinds of discrimination in the conduct of elections and to set the date of Presidential elections (a right that Congress has chosen not to strictly enforce allowing early voting, for example). New Hampshire does have the authority to say what a political party must do to have its nominee recognized on its general election Presidential ballot, and when it will conduct its state primaries. But, it does not necessarily have the power to determine whether or to what extent a national political party will consider the results of that primary in the process of selecting its nominee for President. The Democratic party, for example, would probably be within its rights to award no delegates to its national convention based upon New Hampshire's primary election participants based upon the New Hampshire primary election, and to instead award New Hampshire delegates solely as "superdelegates" who serve ex-officio, or based solely upon an entirely privately funded and operated Presidential caucus it held in New Hampshire at a date of its choosing. The flip side is that New Hampshire might be within its rights, probably, to decline to put a Democratic party national convention chosen nominee on its Presidential elector ballots, a retaliation, although arguably that would deny the rights of its citizens to vote in the Presidential election over which the federal government has more regulatory authority. The exact details of any situation leading to litigation would matter a lot, and it isn't possible to predict with any great certainty how a challenge would come out, although it is possible to articulate what provisions of the U.S. Constitution (and with more research, what court cases (maybe a dozen or two are arguably pertinent), federal statutes and state statutes) would be pertinent to the decision. It is possible to advocate for an outcome within the range of legally relevant authority, but, in practice, a negotiated compromise that would not push up against the hard constitutional limits of the constitution, relevant statutes and cases would almost surely be reached before it came to that point. For example, while New Hampshire might arguably have the right to refuse to put the Democratic nominee on the ballot because it didn't consider the results of its first in the nation primary in choosing its nominee, I very much doubt that New Hampshire officials would actually go that far, if push came to shove. On the other hand, if Congress passed a law stating that the District of Columbia shall hold the first in the nation primary, as it is probably expressly authorized to do under the 23rd Amendment, that federal law would probably pre-empt New Hampshire's law on the point. Relevant Provisions Of The U.S. Constitution As Amended Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution might be relevant. It states: The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution might be pertinent, it states in the pertinent part that: The Congress shall have power . . . To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Even more directly, Article II, Section 1 which states, in part, that: The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows: Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. . . The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States. Article VI states in the pertinent part that: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution might apply. It states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution might apply. It states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Sections 1, 2, and 5 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution might apply. These sections state: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. . . . Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. . . . Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution might apply. It states: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution might apply. It states: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The 23rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution might apply. It states: Section 1. The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is the only one expressly recognizing the existence of primary elections, might apply. It states: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution might apply. It states: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Collectively, these sections of the U.S. Constitution give the federal government considerable legislative authority to regulate state elections for federal offices.

Could SCOTUS ban the pointing of guns at jurors?

With the Rittenhouse fiasco were a prosecutor pointed an assault rifle at jurors. Could SCOTUS give guidance as to how the issue of fire arms in the court room should be handled? And more specifically could SCOTUS regulate in what manner in which firearms are pointed. (Specifically not at jurors) Would SCOTUS be able to govern such an issue or does that fall outside it's jurisdiction? I would be interested in what manner SCOTUS has influence on issues of a more practical nature in regards to lower courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to set everyday procedural rules in state court, although it can mandate processes that flow from the constitution. In criminal cases, this allows it to regulate courtroom conduct that is prejudicial to defendants. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, has prohibited keeping criminal defendants facing trial in a cage in the courtroom as is common in many jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. The Rittenhouse case took place in state court, over which the U.S. Supreme Court has limited authority in such matters. On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court has broad authority to establish court rules in the federal courts and could adopt rules in those courts if it deemed fit, and if its proposed rules were not legislatively vetoed by Congress.

How unique does a name need to be in order to have it trademarked?

With the amount of information and ideas on the Internet, it is difficult to come up with words (even fabricated ones) that haven't been used in some context before. Let's say that in the course of creating a corporation, the person filing the paperwork searches the Internet for their proposed business name (and trademark). There are likely some search hits: a college project from a few years back, a fictional weapon from some online novel, or a project name from an abandoned (and never trademarked) system from a small company. Does the entity incorporating move on to even more obscure names, or are they safe using their chosen (and rare and untrademarked) name?

A business name is not a trade mark. A business name is a unique name within the relevant jurisdiction that identifies a business. Any person (including corporate persons) can conduct business using their own name - business names are only used when conducting business in a name other than your own. For example, John Smith can work as a carpenter and bill as "John Smith" but if he wants to bill as "John Smith Carpentry", he needs a business name. Trade marks identify specific goods and services provided by a business. They must be sufficiently distinct within a jurisdiction that the goods and services cannot be confused with the goods and services of another business - for example "Guns n Roses" can be the trademark of, say, a band but also be a trade mark owned by another person for their chain of firearms/flower stores.

Is it legal for a non-lawyer to help another party with their California arbitration case?

With the cost of lawyers being exorbitant in most cases, what alternatives are there for people who are willing to pay a reasonable amount for help navigating the process of arbitration? Presumably I can hire anyone to provide information and assistance, but, in the case of California arbitration, can a non-lawyer legally provide advice or counsel?

You can legally hire anyone you want, because the legal restriction is on the person being hired. Unauthorized practice of law is illegal in California (and elsewhere). The statutory leverage is here , which imposes penalties for the unauthorized practice of law. It is possible that you can find a law-breaker who will "help" you. The difficult part is finding a law-obeyer who can be of any use to you: the difficulty stems from the lack of a sharp definition of "practice of law". It may may or may not be illegal for a non-attorney to inform you that an arbitration agreement is binding (etc.). If providing such simple factual information is deemed, in California, to be practice of law, then only an attorney licensed in California can legally provide that information. You would need an attorney familiar with case law pertaining to UPL to give a competent judgment regarding what level of information a person can legally give you regarding arbitration. It's simpler, therefore, to just hire an attorney to deal with your arbitration issue.

What happens if a country refuses to take its citizens back?

With the covid-19 pandemic Argentina decided to establish limits for the return of its citizens and some of them could return to the country 5 months after this decision, and they had to remain for that time in foreign countries. As far as I know many countries let you stay in their borders for 6 months if you arent a citizen. What can happen if a country decides not to allow return to a large amount of citizens like this, which measures can be taken against citizens in the foreign country with a decision like this? Would they acquire a status of refugee or something or would they be considered criminals?

A question like that is impossible to answer in general, but your question includes some incorrect assumptions. Many countries try to prevent visitors to become de-facto residents through repeated visits. For instance, the Schengen area limits visitors on short-stay visa to 90 days out of every 180-day rolling window, and the UK seems to give their immigration officials more discretion on every re-entry. Many countries give political asylum to people who are persecuted in their home country. A pandemic, or generally bad living conditions, do not count as persecution . Many countries give refugee status to people who have to flee war or disaster in their home country. The default case for these rules is a person who is in danger and wants to travel to a safe country. Then there are rules for force majeure when a person in the country is forced to overstay through no fault of their own. How that is handled usually depends on how cooperative the visitor was at securing a timely return or a visa extension. During the early days of the pandemic, there have been blanket extensions in some countries. As travel re-opened, these have run out. One of the differences between the last three bullet points is how long the stay is permitted. Political asylum tends to be for the long term, refugee status lasts until the end of the disaster, and a force majeure exception might just last a few days. So if this is not just a hypothetical question, contact a lawyer or the immigration authorities where you are now. Generic answers on Stackexchange cannot replace specific, professional advice.

Is a US company obligated to lay off visa holders first over citizens?

With the current big tech firing frenzy I'd like to know if a US company must prefer the US citizens over working visa holders during mass lay offs? Let's say if there are 2 software developers but one is an immigrant, a working visa holder and the second is a citizen. They are both at the same level, professionally. Must the American companies prioritize citizens in keeping them hired and let the foreign nationals go? I know when a company sponsoring working visas they must prove the need and show they aren't able to source workers inside the US prior to getting the visas for the foreign candidates. So logically, it might follow that they should also priorities the citizens in case of mass lay offs. Can a company be sued by a citizen for keeping the foreign national if he can prove the wrong doing? Is there any reference in working visas(i.e.H1B) application saying something that in case of mass lay offs these conditions can happen?

There is no law in the US that mandates hiring preference for US citizens over others. Such a preference would be "national origin discrimination" , which involves treating people (applicants or employees) unfavorably because they are from a particular country or part of the world, because of ethnicity or accent, or because they appear to be of a certain ethnic background (even if they are not). Preferring US citizens entails dispreferring others, such as some of those who come from another country. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment based upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. An employer is however allowed, indeed required, to obey any overriding federal law, for example they can refuse to hire a person who has no legal right be being employed because their visa does not allow employment.

Are there international treaties preventing states from taxing property transfers out of it?

With the goal of discouraging companies and high net worth individuals from leaving the country to save taxes by taxing wealth leaving the country by a multiple of the taxes due per year if they stayed. With "state" I mean a sovereign state which nationally can do whatever it wants, I'm only asking about international treaties/laws. Purely hypothetical question, sorry if this shows a lack of basic understanding on my part. To me it seems like that would be qualitatively similar to the transaction tax some people have been proposing.

I am not aware of any such treaties (although some free trade treaties such as the treaties forming the EU may have that effect among members nations). Limitations on removing assets from a country aren't that uncommon. Many countries have them and more have had them historically. There is a small sub-field within economics that examines the effect of such restrictions.

Can a company vary its prices for individuals based upon their race, gender, or sexual orientation?

With the growth of the technology industry and lack of skilled computer professionals, there's been a rapid rise in the number of for-profit providers of short term courses in various computer science disciplines. Examples include General Assembly, Galvanize, and Maker's Academy, among several others. Many of these providers offer lower rates to individuals if they are of a certain race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation. As a result, the price for the programs could be lower for one person over another just because of a difference in, say, their race. See https://www.coursereport.com/resources/the-definitive-list-of-programming-bootcamp-scholarships I'm no attorney, but I suppose that such discriminatory pricing is permitted because these companies are considered not to be providing a public accommodation. Moreover, many of these companies claim to scholarships rather than lower tuition. Finally, they claim to have a legitimate reason for offering these scholarships -- to increase certain populations' numbers within the tech field. So this could all be within the law. But when I consider any of the following made up hypotheticals in other industries, I shudder: Kroger automatically gives a 10% discount coupon on vegetables only to Black customers, and not to Hispanics, to increase healthy eating among blacks. Apple gives a $100 gift card with purchases of iPhones only to Asian American customers, but not to individuals of other races. Reason offered is to increase wireless connectivity among Asian-American population. Buffalo Wild Wings gives white diners, but not anyone else, a $10 gift card for every time they dine at the restaurant. Reason offered is to increase interest and participation in televised sports among white women, whose rates of interest lag those of men of all races. And now it seems to me that it's grossly unfair to charge two individuals different prices for the same product solely on the basis of race, gender or similar characteristics. So I was wondering if there's anything legally wrong with the tech bootcamps' pricing policies.

Discriminatory pricing is a real thing. See this BuzzFeed video on discriminatory pricing as an example on how men's and women's products cost differently, even if the men's product consumes more raw material yet still costs less . However, it's illegal for hotels to charge different rates for their rooms, or for restaurants to charge unfairly or give preferential treatment; they are "public accommodations" protected under the various Civil Rights Acts. However, colleges are exempt from current laws, and it's not just tech colleges; even traditional colleges require different SAT scores for entry based on race and/or gender, and also charge different tuition. They are private accommodations and are therefore generally allowed to do this. For example, you'll have a much harder time getting in to Harvard if you're of a particular race, even if you can afford the tuition, simply because you'll be expected to have a higher SAT score. There was a class action lawsuit in California over this (the students were above 4.0 GPA, yet denied entry based on race), and as a result of law changes afterwards, California institutions can no longer do this. This is not the situation in the rest of the country, as no Federal law yet exists that protects minorities, gender, sexual orientation, etc, in regards to higher education. Also, sometimes merely proving a gap exists might not be noticeable, as companies are also starting to display pages on their websites based on data-mined information about visitors, possibly including information that would otherwise be discriminatory if it were done in person, and hiding the information from the general public. Discrimination is a difficult beast to tame, and until the law is introduced that all products and services must be offered to all consumers at the same price regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc, businesses will continue to find ways to discriminate in legal ways.

Is spoken R2D2 language illegal?

With the help of http://www.r2d2translator.com/ , I try to communicate with users of my android app. For example "warning", results in lots of bleeps that hopefully could be picked up by remote planets. Are my actions illegal by any terrestrial laws?

A language, even a conlang, is not protected by copyright. A specific recording or text could be subject to copyright protection, but that site isn't obviously doing that. An analogous case arose in Paramount, CBS v. Axanar, where Paramount attempted to claim copyright ownership of the Klingon language (Paramount apparently saw the wisdom of the counterargument, which is why I use the past tense). A legal brief is here , explaining why that premise is "meq Hutlh". In the case of Droidspeak, it is unclear what the basis of the "translator" is. Klingon stems from published grammar and dictionary (plus typeface) created as a work for hire, so there are limits to how much of the grammar and dictionary you can copy. We might assume that Droidspeak was similarly specified, and that this website implements the specification: anyone can then generate Droidspeak utterances, if they have the technical know-how. In that case, there is no copyright protection. Or we might assume that the sound derives from actual copying from the movies – that would be copyright infringement. (That is, original sounds are edited out as "letters" and automatically recombined by the program). A third possibility is that the squawks just resemble the movie squawks (and would not be infringing). So the answer depends on what the translator actually does. From the perspective of the person using the translator, the main concern would be whether a particular use is consistent with the terms of service. In this case, there are no terms, so you may do whatever you want with their tool (as long as you can legally do the thing without the website). You could translate, record and post a Droidspeak version of the Gettysburg Address (but not Old Man's War ). They might later add a TOS that prohibits that. Your innocent use of the site would not open you to vicarious liability.

Status of U.S. attorneys in US DOJ (2021)

With the new President Biden and his administration in the U.S., I see news stories that the Biden administration is asking 56 Trump-appointed and Senate confirmed U.S. attorneys to resign from their positions at the DOJ. How does this work? Do they have to resign if asked? If one does refuse to resign, will their life as a prosecutor be difficult?

The DoJ under the executive branch has attorneys, judges are under the independent judicial branch. US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, so in the worst case they can be fired and some were by the previous administration. It is common for US attorneys to resign at a change of administration, but an administration can press for resignations as in the 2017 dismissal of Obama appointees (where some "solicited" resignations were not accepted). Ultimately the attorney can be fired, as Geoffrey Berman was (fired for different reasons).

Regulations concerning non-commercial lithium ion battery transportation

With the proliferation of lithium ion-batteries for small-scale energy storage projects, non-commercial transportation of significantly large batteries (in the few kWh range, much larger than the few hundred Wh limits currently set for non-regulated batteries) will become much more common. What regulations pertain to this type of non-commercial transport in the U.S.? How does this change once the batteries are installed in a trailer, RV, boat, or other transportable vehicle? My specific situation is that a repair shop is requiring HAZMAT certification for whoever picks up a replaced Tesla battery pack that I wish to (personally) transport elsewhere. Is this a governmental regulation in general if, say, I was to (personally) transport the pack or its components in the future?

Transporting Lithium Batteries Lithium batteries are regulated as a hazardous material under the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT's) Hazardous Materials Regulations ( HMR; 49 C.F.R., Parts 171-180 ). The HMR apply to any material DOT determines is capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when transported in commerce . Lithium batteries must conform to all applicable HMR requirements when offered for transportation or transported by air, highway, rail, or water. Is this a governmental regulation in general if, say, I was to (personally) transport the pack or its components in the future? The HMR is a weighty tome so there may be more information to add to properly answer the question, but in the meantime this appears relevant: (d) Functions not subject to the requirements of the HMR . The following are examples of activities to which the HMR do not apply : (6) Transportation of a hazardous material by an individual for non-commercial purposes in a private motor vehicle, including a leased or rented motor vehicle. UPDATE: I have reviewed the HMR and there does not appear to be anything else of direct relevance to the question

Is there any law that prevents organizations from outsourcing?

With the recent Covid-19 situation and everything, organizations have realized that remote jobs are indeed a viable option. So, hypothetically the organization could say let's just outsource everything that can be done remotely to a country where this can be done for cheap. So, is there anything that prevents them from doing so?

Generally, no In fact, it’s done routinely. As an Australian I am aware of many Australian companies with China based manufacturing, Philippines based call centres, India based software developers and Thai based construction engineers (not necessarily the same company). There are certain industries with legal impediments like security for defence industries and privacy for health businesses.

Why does the government incentivise marriage?

With the recent U.S. Supreme Court cases allowing gay marriage, and the government never stopping people from getting married who couldn't have children, the last vestiges of the "marriage is for raising children" argument have gone by the wayside. What is the government's interest in marriage? What is stopping me from finding a poor college student, marrying him for the tax incentives (and him me for the health insurance), and breaking it off when it is no longer financially or emotionally convenient? I ask from both a practical standpoint (can I do it) and a philosophical standpoint (if I tried this and it were challenged all the way to the supreme court, what would the likely out come be).

What is stopping me from going and finding a poor college student, marrying them for the tax incentives (and them me for the health insurance), and breaking it off when it is no longer financially or emotionally convenient? Nothing, go for it. Breaking it off, i.e. getting a divorce, leaves questions of who gets what assets - you will need to consult local laws for your jurisdiction and consider whether a prenuptial agreement is necessary to keep you and your partner honest. But assuming both parties are honest and don't try to cheat each other, there's no reason the arrangement you describe wouldn't work. Why politicians create incentives for it may be more of a question of politics than of law. Practically speaking, the incentives may have been imagined at a time when procreation was the purpose of marriage and the incentives were aimed at promoting that. It may continue to exist out of mere political inertia - nobody wants to be the politician that takes away tax benefits from the constituency.

Are NDA's that include illegal activity legally binding?

With the recent outpouring of sexual assault allegations, I've been hearing the phrase "Non-disclosure agreement," thrown around quite frequently. Suppose a woman is sexually assaulted at work, and is given an NDA to sign. Can the company legally require her not to disclose the conduct of an illegal activity? I remember reading that contracts cannot be legally binding if there is a requirement of criminal acts, am I wrong to assume this for NDA's?

The validity of the NDA is not an easy question, but a related one is more clear. A lawyer in the U.S. in most states is not permitted to threaten criminal or administrative action (e.g. reporting someone to immigration or tax officials), to gain advantage in a civil case. You can unilaterally bring criminal charges or take administrative action, but it is deemed to be unethical and against public policy to refrain from bringing criminal charges or taking administration action to gain civil advantages. An NDA of the type described arguably violated the same public policy and might be invalidated as a result. Put another way, there is a privilege to make certain reports to public officials without legal consequences and such an NDA might violate that privilege. Some of these privileges found in what are called "whistle blower" statutes specifically prohibit this kind of agreement as to some specific kinds of illegal conduct, but not others. There isn't a general rule. This said, it is not black and white. For example, a private NDA can't prevent someone from testifying under subpoena, but can prevent someone from voluntarily testifying in the absence of a legal compulsion to do so such as a subpoena. Suppose a woman is sexually assaulted at work, and is given an NDA to sign. Can the company legally require her not to disclose the conduct of an illegal activity? I can imagine this example coming out different ways in different jurisdictions. For example, some states have a legal duty (rarely enforced) that requires people to report felonies, and an NDA in this case would contradict that affirmative legal duty, while others do not. Another source of gray in the analysis is that there is a difference between not reporting a sexual assault that actually happened, and, as part of a larger settlement, executing an affidavit stating under penalty of perjury and under oath that a sexual assault didn't happen. The first is potentially an NDA that is void as a matter of public policy. The other, in principle, is a settlement that the person signing the affidavit can only enter into if it is true. There is nothing, in general, wrong, about requiring someone to confirm that certain representations are true as part of a business transaction or contract and allowing the contract to go forwards only if certain facts are true. The gray gets deeper, because whether a sexual assault happened or not is not always a subjectively black and white clear issue of pure fact. (It is subjective because an affidavit or affirmation is made to the best of the declarant or affiants' knowledge and belief, not as a matter of objective fact.) For example, someone may not have perfect memory of what happened, or there could be doubt over the question of whether the perpetrators acted recklessly (the Model Penal Code intent requirement for sexual assault) or merely with criminal negligence (which would not be sexual assault under the Model Penal Code). A statement made under oath about whether a sexual assault happened to the best of your knowledge, thus, might be a mixture of factual issues (A penetrated B at a certain date and time) and legal or not perfectly factually known ones (A acted with X intent regarding consent during that act). So, in a case where there was some room to argue either way about how to characterize what happened and about what actually did happen, there might be some room for a settling party to make a non-perjured statement consistent with the settlement and then to agree not to a true NDA, but instead to not make statements which, if the affidavit is true, would be false. In a plea bargain in a criminal case, one can plead "no contest" without agreeing that the crime factually happened, but that isn't really possibly in the context of an affidavit about what really happened, with an NDA limited to not disclosing the incident since it was already agreed as a matter of sworn fact that there is nothing to disclose that rises the level of a crime.

Can benefits be charity?

With the recent tax related charges against the Trump organization for various fringe benefits they have been giving top employees I have seen some counter claims I have questions about. The big one I have been seeing is that some are claiming that the act of paying for the school of various employees is charitable giving. My question is twofold, could this be considered charitable donations and if not is there any kind of donation that can be given to an employee that could?

This is a duck You can label it a chicken if you like but you won’t fool anyone who knows about ducks. A charitable donation comes with no expectation of a quid-pro-quo. Paying a school in return for them educating someone is not charity.

How strong would a cable company's case be against Google for allowing users to find illegal streams through search?

With the recent trend of cord-cutting, cable companies are suffering with low ratings, especially on NFL. I understand that not all of it is due to illegal streaming but even a single streaming result can be shown to be a detrimental impact on their business. Google has tried to remove or downgrade stream results but still they show up. How strong would, say ESPN, case be against google if it tries to sue?

They'd have a big hurdle to clear. According to 17 U.S. Code § 512 (c): (d)Information Location Tools.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider— (1) (A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing; (B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or (C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material; (2) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and (3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity, except that, for purposes of this paragraph, the information described in subsection (c)(3)(A)(iii) shall be identification of the reference or link, to material or activity claimed to be infringing, that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate that reference or link. So long as these conditions are met, Google is immune. So, what is ESPN going to argue? Are they going to argue that Google had actual knowledge of infringement? Are they going to argue that Google received a financial benefit directly attributable to the streaming? Are they going to argue that they sent a DMCA notice to Google and the links were not then expeditiously removed? Or are they going to argue something else entirely?

Why can't Robert Mueller give the report to congress?

With the recent vote to hold William Barr in contempt of congress, I have one main question. Why can't Robert Mueller just give the report to congress? It's obvious that I don't understand the full scope of what's going on, but in my view, congress is...congress. How do they not have the right to demand information from the Justice Department when they have the responsibility to handle impeachment?

Mueller was appointed under Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 600 , which provides at § 600.8(c), Closing documentation , that At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel. The use of the word "confidential," read along with § 600.9 , indicates clearly that the disclosure of the report lies in the discretion of the Attorney General. Section 600.9 says: § 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General. (a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action - (1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel; (2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and (3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued. (b) The notification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be tolled by the Attorney General upon a finding that legitimate investigative or privacy concerns require confidentiality. At such time as confidentiality is no longer needed, the notification will be provided. (c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.

Can the Vice President vote themselves into positions of power?

With the retirement of Stephen Breyer from the Supreme Court, and Biden's promise to nominate a Black woman to fill the vacancy, some of the most far-fetched speculation about the nominee has involved Kamala Harris. The Senate is currently evenly split with Kamala Harris's vote breaking the tie. If, in this hypothetical, Biden actually nominated her, and the Senate was tied when voting to confirm her, would she be able to cast the tie-breaking vote to put herself on the bench? Does a judicial nominee's power to do this not infringe upon the separation of powers? Or, if it does not, how is the Senate providing ‘advice and consent’ when a judicial nominee is ultimately the one who gives their consent when the Senate can't agree without the VP? A similar question arises when there's an Electoral College tie, and the Senate is tied, which would allow the incumbent VP to vote themselves back into power if they're standing for re-election. Does the Constitution permit such a flagrant power grab?

The US Constitution Art. 1 §3 cl. 4 says The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. No clause of the Constitution limits how a person can vote in the Senate (or the House). Congress has not enacted any legislation that addresses this question, and nothing in the Constitution empowers Congress to limit the right to vote. Art 1 §5 cl. 2 says Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. That is, the Senate can set up rules for how it will conduct business. The Senate is not empowered to exclude a member's right to vote, they with a supermajority they can expel a member (or convict and remove a vice-president, given an impeachment from the House). It should also be remembered that the VP is not a member of the Senate, the VP has a limited right to vote which is granted by the Constitution, and which cannot be taken away except by constitutional amendment. Harris would therefore be empowered to vote for herself, under the tie-breaker clause.

Is AI child virtual porn illegal in the US?

With the rise of AI art generators capable of making explicit and nsfw content free of charge, I worry about the ethical and moral boundaries that come along with it. In particular, it is possible to create obscene virtual porn depicting children. I have read this "Virtual Child" Pornography on the Internet: A "Virtual" Victim? and this... Citizen's Guide To U.S. Federal Law On Child Pornography I am particularly interested in this particular example: Bob uses such a service to indulge in a fantasy. He uses a list of known child actresses to generate obscene sexual 'art' featuring one of them. Is a law being broken? In the case of yes, who is responsible? Is the owner of the site providing the service committing an offense because they host the service and presumably train the AI, or is it Bob because he entered the tags being used to generate the 'art' which used the likeness of an actual child film star? Is this AI generated form considered to be featuring a depiction of a real child?

Let's clarify the point: the material is most likely illegal per se In the laws of many jurisdictions, the definition of child pornography extends from depicting sexual acts with a minor to depicting sexual acts with an apparent minor. As an extreme example: in Australia, drawn sexual comics with Anime aesthetics are banned wholesale , and England and Wales similarly made photorealistic and even more abstract styles of such material illegal. AI art would fall somewhere under those. In other countries, like the US or Japan, legality is based on the material not being obscene . Obscenity often is a somewhat subjective test, like in the US the standard for a time was "I know it when I see it" (Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)), but was refined into the Miller Test in 1973: Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , reaffirmed. A work may be subject to state regulation where that work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex; portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Pp. 23-24. The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Roth, supra, at 489, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary. Pp. 24-25. The test of "utterly without redeeming social value" articulated in Memoirs, supra, is rejected as a constitutional standard. Pp. 24-25. The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a "national standard." Pp. 30-34. In a totally different definition, japan has its Penal Code of Japan Section 175 reads (in translation) much more like a subjective test, which is often called out to demand conformity (and censor bars): Chapter XXII, Article 175. Distribution of Obscene Objects: A person who distributes, sells or displays in public an obscene document, drawing or other objects shall be punished by imprisonment with work for not more than 2 years, a fine of not more than 2,500,000 yen or a petty fine. The same shall apply to a person who possess the same for the purpose of the sale. Who is in possession of illegal material? This depends: IF the AI was trained on illegal material, the makers of the AI had in their possession material of which possession is illegal. IF the hosting company stores the material generated by the user, and it is of the banned type once evaluated, then the company where the image is hosted might be in possession. In the US, due to Section 230 (of Title 47) , the hosting company however is blameless for user-generated and user-stored content. The User is fully to blame. The User, by properly downloading the file actively gets into possession of illegal material, which would make them liable for that Just having the file in the browser cache does not always suffice in the US but courts might evaluate the evidence differently

Why Should Anyone Form Official Club Organizations Anymore?

With the rise of Facebook, and the "Groups" it enables it's users to create and join, I worry that the traditional club is now obsolete. A friend of mine formed a local car "group" on Facebook because he didn't want to pay dues for the local official club. Before he formed the group, which he expected to do things like "spirited" driving events, as well as other social events, he spoke to a lawyer to find out about his potential liabilities. The lawyer told him that because everyone was at his "events" voluntarily, and no one was paying dues, he held no liability whatsoever. I know that the local official car club that I am a part of has club insurance for our events, and we require dues to be paid each year (a very small sum). I don't know what the insurance actually covers, but if you can get away without being liable simply by not having dues, then are there any advantages to forming or joining an official club? Can Facebook group members legally receive discounts or gifts from organizations like the parts department of a dealership that likes the group? Is a Facebook group truly immune to legal action? What does club insurance typically cover anyway? Is a Facebook group immune to shutdown attempts by an official organization (eg. could the Porsche Club of America force the shut down of an unaffiliated Jonestown, MA Porsches Facebook group)? Are there any other benefits to an official club organization that I'm missing? EDIT I'm not sure what terminology to use here, so I made some stuff up. Specifically, I got questions about "Official Club Organization". I'm using this to describe an organization that is legally affiliated with and supported by the Manufacturer of the cars. An example would be the Porsche Club of America.

I think the question answers itself : what's being put forward as a problem (that official organisations can cover their members' liability at events) is actually their main advantage. Liability doesn't go away - assuming your friend's lawyer's advice was accurate, it might have been better phrased as "liability will be on the participants". I'm not sure it's entirely right (though it might just be overly specific) in the way it's been reported - if there was anything that could be considered incitement to, or encouragement of, unlawful activity, there may be an additional liability on the person whose name is attached to the group, and possibly the platform used (though this is a young area of law at the moment). What's covered by the insurance will be dependent on the policy, so that's not a question that The Bloke On The Internet can answer. In terms of discounts, I don't see any reason these couldn't be offered on a social media group - or that there would be a significant difference between a social media group, an official or unofficial website, or coupons published in a magazine or distributed in flyers on a street corner. It's worth bearing in mind that distributors don't do this out of kindness - it's just advertising. If an official club, or the associated manufacturer (the owner of the brand), believed there was quantifiable loss - primarily financial, but possibly reputational - there may be grounds to demand any unofficial group cease and desist, irrespective of where (social media, websites, physical premises) they had a presence. But perhaps the greatest advantage (though I'm drifting off topic for this SE) for an official group is that it can use whichever medium it considers most useful at the time, or a combination of several. One tied to a specific social media platform will always be limited in its longevity.

Leasing of community land

With the spirit of protecting community lands from private investors and other government actors, The Kenyan Constitution (2010) demanded for a community land law. This law was formulated in 2016 as the Community Land Act 2016 . The unregistered community lands are held in trust by the county governments on behalf of the community. Currently my pastoral-nomadic community are trying to register their community land as per the CLA, 2016. Section 6.8 of the Act provides that the county government is prohibited from Selling , disposing , transferring , or converting for private purposes unregistered community lands. This particular region and community in subject is being faced by county government threat of entering into agreement with NGOs and a wild life conservation organization to somehow LEASE the unregistered community lands before the community acquires their title. My question is does LEASING fall in the category of these terms provided in the act: Selling , disposing , transferring , or converting for private purposes ?

My question is does LEASING fall in the category of these terms provided in the act: Selling, disposing, transferring, or converting for private purposes? None of these words are defined in the 2016 Act . I cannot speak directly for Kenya, but legal systems based on British common law often refer to relevant and comparable legislation for interpretation, meaning and their Parliament's intent when such things are not clear. For instance, the interpretation section of the Kenyan Land Act 2012 includes: “transfer” means the passing of land, a lease or a charge from one party to another by an act of the parties. The 2012 Act also states: “lease” means the grant, with or without consideration, by the proprietor of land of the right to the exclusive possession of his or her land... On the face of it, leasing does appear to fall within the meaning of transferring . However this is an incomplete answer as there may well be provisions specific for nature conservation that I, as yet, am unable to find. I suggest that your community considers seeking legal advice from a lawyer who specialises in this area.

Is it "wrong" to copy a photo from an article (with photographers name and link to article) on the web and tweet it?

With the word "wrong" (in the question title) I am referring to whether something is either a breach of copyright or otherwise considered "bad" behavior. The behavior here would be copying a photo from a free article in a foreign language newspaper and tweeting it. The tweet itself would not be in same language as the original but it would include a link to the original article. If the photo is less than 10% of the original article (meaning that this is not a question of duplicating the original article), is this illegal or otherwise considered inappropriate?

Copyright exists in the photo in its own right. Copying it without permission is a breach unless it constitutes fair use/dealing in the tweeter's jurisdiction.

Covid-19 and the possibility of an officer infecting you

With this Covid-19 pandemic in full swing and police illegally writing citations, what are my rights if I am illegally stopped and the officer is not maintaining our social distancing? In theory the officer could potentially be putting my life in danger by being a host of the the Covid-19.

If you are illegally stopped by the police, any subsequent action against you may be overturned on appeal. You have the right to remain silent, and the right to refuse a search, though if you are arrested, that trumps your desire to not be searched. (That's for a personal search, a warrant would be needed to search your vehicle, though). However, you do not have the right to resist arrest if you feel that a stop, citation or arrest is illegal. The is true with or without a pandemic. You suggest that officers are violating the governor's orders regarding "social distancing", but don't explain in what way and how that bears on an interaction with you. Here is the March 19 order, and this is March 31. You should note that law enforcement is an essential service. You should also note that the orders distinguish between recommendations and actual orders (look for "should" = recommendation versus "shall" = order).

Does entering Peace Arch Provincial Park count as physical presence in Canada?

With travel across the US-Canada border being highly restricted (even citizens/PRs need to quarantine for two weeks on arrival), many Canadian permanent residents living and working in the US near the Canadian border may have difficulty meeting the residency requirements of being in Canada for 730 days in a five year period. (Being in Canada for any part of a day counts as a whole day in Canada) One can enter some (very limited) parts of Canada legally though. For example, one can enjoy 9 hectares of Canada by entering Peace Arch Provincial Park , which just reopened today , and many married couples separated by the border got to see and hug each other. Would someone living near such parks be able to meet the Canadian permanent residency requirements by going to such parks every day? Assume that one can provide evidence e.g. photographs with timestamps, and social media checkins. Assume that one is also be willing to mount a legal challenge should the Canadian authorities deny that entering the park counts as physical presence in Canada.

Exact wording might matter here, so I looked up the law. It says "a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation with respect to a five-year period if, on each of a total of at least 730 days in that five-year period, they are physically present in Canada". Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 28(2)(a). If you visit the Canadian side of the park, you're "physically present in Canada". It would therefore appear that this would meet the requirement. I am by no means an expert in Canadian immigration law, though.

Private license within copyleft

Within a copyleft license is it possible to have a clause that would grant exclusive rights (=private license) for the same content to a company? I mean something liky CC-BY-SA plus "company X is being given license to do ...". Is it possible to incorporate this into a single license? Or is it better to incorporate the license for the company within terms of service? I want to cover that the company will also have "private license" to the derivatives of the content. EDIT: Learned abozt what "exclusive" rights are and I do not want that. Otherwise the question remains the same.

Think about what a licence is ... A licence is a contract which basically says “I, the copyright holder, won’t sue you for copyright breach if ...”. The conditions after the “If” can be anything you like. Clearly, you can give away as many licences on the same or different terms to any number of people. Some people may be covered by more than one licence but so long as they comply with the terms of any licence they are immune from your wrath. However, you can only give away exclusive rights once - that’s what exclusive means. So for your particular question: no, you can’t give one person exclusive rights and then give anyone else any rights. it doesn’t matter if different licences refer to each other or not.

Is the District of Columbia a "territory"?

Within the boundaries of the United States there were at various times "organized incorporated territories", that were not a part of any of the states and whose governments were organized by acts of Congress rather than by a state constitution drafted by statesmen within the state and enacted by the voters of the state, and that, unlike the states, had no voting representatives or senators in Congress. (Somewhat like the three territories of northern Canada today, I think?) Is the District of Columbia simply an instance of that phenomenon, or is there some essential difference?

Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 17 states that "The Congress shall have Power" To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings which then happened in 1 Stat. 130 (1790). It is there referred to as "a district of territory" but more often simply as a "district". Unlike territories, its existence for its actual purpose as seat of government is specifically enabled by the Constitution. Then via 2 Stat 103 (1801), DC was politically brought within the control of Congress, so that residents were no longer residents of Maryland or Virginia. In this act it is consistently termed a "district".

Under ADA, are size or weight disabilities?

Within the context of the US ADA, are a man or woman's size or weight considered disabilities? What is the threshold? For example, could a 7' 2" male weighing 300 pounds be considered disabled? In the business context, does an employer or a business have to accommodate a man so sized? For example, with adequate workstation for their job. Or if traveling on public transportation, with seating which accommodates their stature, leg length, etc.? Could a 450#, 5' 10" woman be considered disabled, and what is the range of accommodations that might be required in a business, employer or even perhaps academic environment be? Could a 4', 88# woman be considered disabled and would their employer or a business providing them services be expected to make reasonable accommodations?

Under 42 USC section 12102 disabilityis defiend as: (1) Disability. The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual (1) (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; (1) (B) a record of such an impairment; or (1) (C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3)). This is qualified by section 12102(3)(A) which reads: (3) Regarded as having such an impairment. For purposes of paragraph (1)(C): (3)(A) An individual meets the requirement of “being regarded as having such an impairment” if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under this chapter because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity. Subsection (4)(A) provides that: (A) The definition of disability in this chapter shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under this chapter, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter. The ADA Amendments Act of 2008, (Pub. L. 110-325), listed among its official purposes in section 2: (b) (3) to reject the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Sutton v. United Air Lines , Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) with regard to coverage under the third prong of the definition of disability and to reinstate the reasoning of the Supreme Court in School Board of Nassau County v. Arline , 480 U.S. 273 (1987) which set forth a broad view of the third prong of the definition of handicap under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (b) (4) to reject the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams , 534 U.S. 184 (2002), that the terms “substantially” and “major” in the definition of disability under the ADA “need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled,” and that to be substantially limited in performing a major life activity under the ADA “an individual must have an impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives”; (b) (5) to convey congressional intent that the standard created by the Supreme Court in the case of Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams , 534 U.S. 184 (2002) for “substantially limits”, and applied by lower courts in numerous decisions, has created an inappropriately high level of limitation necessary to obtain coverage under the ADA, to convey that it is the intent of Congress that the primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether entities covered under the ADA have complied with their obligations, and to convey that the question of whether an individual’s impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis; Under these provisions the definition of a disability is to be 'broad" and evidence that it does in fact limit major life activities, or has been regarded as a disability, or has been the occasion of discrimination, will normally be enough to have the condition treated as a disability under the ADA. In an article "The Long and Short of Height Discrimination under the ADA " from Lexis/Nexis the authors mention the case of Barbara Joy McElmurry Barbara Joy McElmurry, 4'10" tall, worked for the Arizona Department of Agriculture as a lab technician fighting the Asian citrus psyllid. Her job consisted of screening traps set by her co-workers in the field. Over time, tension developed between McElmurry and her supervisor, Mary Garman. After McElmurry threatened to file harassment charges against Garman, the supervisor accused her of sabotaging lab results and demoted her to field work. McElmurry demurred, protesting that at 4'10" she was too short to drive the vehicles necessary to do field work. Garman, however, forced the demotion. Ultimately, McElmurry was injured in the field, and Garman terminated her. ... The district court refused to dismiss the disability discrimination claim, concluding that McElmurry had stated enough in her complaint for her disability discrimination claim to proceed to discovery: McElmurry, however, has alleged that her height is outside the normal range. She stands around 4'10". The Department has claimed that height can never be a disability…. The Court is unable to make such a conclusion on the very limited record before it on this Motion to Dismiss. It is plausible that "short stature" could, in some contexts, "substantially limit[ ] one or more of the major life activities of an individual." The article goes on to say: Typically, height is not a disability protected by the ADA. As this case illustrates, however, the ADA (as amended in 2009) is now sufficiently broad such that an employee can plausibly argue that a host of normal physical characteristics can become protected disabilities if they fall "outside the normal range." In Height Discrimination in Employment by Isaac B. Rosenberg (2009). published by W&M Law Student Publications, [footnotes shown here in {braces} when not omitted] the author writes: [ Pages 927-8 ] Height-based discrimination claims may also prove viable under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”).159 The ADA generally prohibits discrimination “because of” one’s disability. Just like Title VII plaintiffs, an ADA plaintiff must first make out a prima facie case under either a disparate treatment theory or a disparate impact theory.{See Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez , 540 U.S. 44, 49 n.3 (2003) (observing that the courts of appeals have applied the McDonnell Douglas framework in ADA cases)} Under either theory, however, the first and typically fatal hurdle has been establishing one’s “disability.” { Sullivan , supra note 146, at 942 & n.123 (discussing a 2003 study that found only 2 percent of ADA cases were won by employee plaintiffs and that barely half made it to consideration on their merits); see generally ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325 §§ 2(a), (b), 122 Stat. 3553, 3554 (2008) [hereinafter “ADAAA”] (expressing dismay that Supreme Court decisions construed the ADA too narrowly thereby eliminating protection for many individuals whom Congress intended to protect).} } The ADA defines disability, in part, as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of [an] individual” or “being regarded as having such an impairment.” This section examines how short stature fits (or does not fit) within each of these definitions. The first part looks at height-based claims under an “actual impairment” theory. Although most courts have wholly rejected “actual impairment” claims premised on short stature, a fresh look at the regulatory scheme in light of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”) suggests that such claims may have merit after all. The second part considers height-based claims under the “regarded as” prong. Although “regarded as” claims premised on height have largely failed, such claims may prove increasingly viable after the enactment of the ADAAA. ... The EEOC has further clarified that “‘impairment’ does not include physical characteristics such as eye color, hair color, left-handedness, or height, weight or muscle tone that are within ‘normal’ range and are not the result of a physiological disorder.”{29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, App. § 1630.2(h) (2008)} A plain reading of this language would suggest that the definition of “physical impairment” includes either (1) a normal deviation in height that is the product of a physiological disorder, or (2) an extreme deviation in height that may or may not be caused by a physiological disorder.{See EEOC Interpretive Manual , supra note 91, § 902.2(c)(5) (“[N]ormal deviations in height, weight, or strength that are not the result of a physiological disorder are not impairments. . . . At extremes, however, such deviations may constitute impairments.”} ... [ Page 930 ] In Mehr v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. , {81 72 F. App’x. 276 (6th Cir. 2003).} for example, the 4’10” female plaintiff filed EEOC charges alleging, inter alia , discrimination for “being short.” She later recharacterized her action as an ADA claim, asserting short stature as an impairment. The Sixth Circuit denied her claim as meritless because it interpreted the regulations as excluding from the definition of “impairment” all “physical characteristics that are ‘not the result of a physiological disorder.’” ... ... Despite the regulation’s plain language, and notwithstanding the EEOC’s recognition that “[a]t extremes . . . deviations [in height] may constitute impairments,”190{ EEOC Interpretive Manual , supra note 91, § 902.2(c)(5).} federal courts have not considered this [normal limits] theory in deciding height-based claims under the ADA. The article goes on to discuss how such claims may be more successful under the ADA's 2008 amendments, but does not list any cases in which such claims have been sustained. The amendments were very recent when this article was published, and few if any such cases had yet been brought under the amended ADA.

Is it true that the Chief Justice granted royal assent to the Online Streaming Act?

Within the first minute of this video it is asserted that, although the royal assent to Canadian legislation is normally granted by the governor general, in this case of the Online Streaming Act it was somehow done by the chief justice, Richard Wagner. In a quick search with search engines, I find no corroboration of this assertion. I know that normally the governor general does this, and obviously the king can do it if he wants to (and on a few occasions that's been done), but I'd never heard of the chief justice doing such a thing. What's the story here? Have there been previous cases of the chief justice rather than the governor general granting royal assent to legislation? Under what circumstances is such a thing done? How is this authorized by the constitution?

Royal Assent can be signified by one of two modes : (1) "in Parliament assembled"; or (2) "by written declaration." It was the latter mode by which Assent was signified on April 27, 2023 : On Thursday, April 27, 2023, the Right Honourable Richard Wagner, acting in his capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, signified assent in His Majesty’s name to the bills listed below. Assent was signified by written declaration, pursuant to the Royal Assent Act, S.C. 2002, c. 15.... Several justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to the Governor General are deputies of the Governor General: see their commissions in The Journals of the Senate, 44th Parl, 1st Sess., November 25, 2021 . (Note that their commissions currently exclude from them the power of "signifying Royal Assent in Parliament assembled," the first of the two listed modes of Royal Assent above.) The power to appoint deputies comes from the Constitution Act, 1867 , s. 14 and the Letters Patent constituting the office of the Governor General . Section 14: It shall be lawful for the Queen, if Her Majesty thinks fit, to authorize the Governor General from Time to Time to appoint any Person or any Persons jointly or severally to be his Deputy or Deputies within any Part or Parts of Canada, and in that Capacity to exercise during the Pleasure of the Governor General such of the Powers, Authorities, and Functions of the Governor General as the Governor General deems it necessary or expedient to assign to him or them, subject to any Limitations or Directions expressed or given by the Queen; but the Appointment of such a Deputy or Deputies shall not affect the Exercise by the Governor General himself of any Power, Authority, or Function. Letters Patent, s. VII: And Whereas by The British North America Acts 1867 [ Constitution Act, 1867 ] to 1946, it is amongst other things enacted that it shall be lawful for Us, if We think fit, to authorize Our Governor General to appoint any person or persons, jointly or severally, to be his Deputy or Deputies... Now We do hearby authorize and empower Our Governor General... to appoint any person or persons... to be his Deputy or Deputies... This is also mirrored in the provinces, where the Deputy Lieutenant Governor is typically the Chief Justice of the province. Royal Assent is reported in the Canada Gazette, the official newspaper of the Government of Canada. There are many other examples of Royal Assent being signified by the Chief Justice , acting in his or her capacity as Deputy of the Governor General.

As a French citizen owning an Estonian company, can I be sued for that company activity by another French company under French law?

Within the following situation: I have the French nationality. I have an Estonian company, created as part of the e-Residency program. This company purpose is doing "web scraping", collecting public data from a French website and selling that data. (Note that this is an example and slightly inaccurate, please don't focus on the legality of scraping in France and Estonia) Web scraping is supposedly legal in Estonia Am I at risk of being sued by the French company under French law ? Or would Estonian law apply here ?

An Estonian company can be sued under French law for violating French law in France, and so can its officers, no matter what their nationality or where they reside. So yes, you could be sued in France as an officer of the company. If you have assets in France, a French judgment against you will be easier to enforce than one against someone who has no assets in France. This is, similarly, not about nationality but about the location of your assets. A suit could also be pursued in Estonia. If the activities in Estonia are contrary to Estonian law then you could also be sued in Estonia as an officer of the company. We frequently have questions about "which law applies" for cases that span multiple jurisdictions. The general answer is that all law applies. An activity in multiple jurisdictions must comply with the law in every one of them. If you are doing something that is prohibited (or even that possibly might be prohibited) in either Estonian law or French law, you should take professional legal advice. Unless you can find a lawyer who is qualified in both countries, you will need two lawyers.

Can a judge or prosecutor be compelled to testify in a criminal trial in which they officiated?

Without considering why a party in a criminal trial might want to do so, are there any obstacles to subpoenaing and examining any of the following people as witnesses during the trial? ETA: Not as eye-witnesses to the alleged crime, but rather as witnesses to the criminal process. A judge who has acted in some capacity in the case on trial, but who is not presiding . For example: (A) the judge who arraigned the defendant. (B) a judge who recused himself from the case. A lawyer working in the prosecutor's office that is prosecuting the defendant. If context is necessary, one reason I can imagine a defense might want to examine these people before the jury is to call into question the motives and methods driving the prosecution of the defendant.

The answer to this question will be almost entirely informed by the why that you've asked us not to consider. If the prosecutor or judge is a witness, the defendant should be able to call them, but that also means they would have to withdraw from the case under either Rule 3.7 or Canon 3 . If the defendant believes the prosecution is tainted by some improper motive, the defendant may raise that objection under Crim. R. 12 , but he must do so pretrial. I can't think of any circumstances where the defendant could question the judge or prosecutor in the jury's presence.

Is it possible the free contracts I find online are actually superior to the ones lawyers are paid to write?

Without going into details - you could figure them out if you really tried :P - I often deal with people wanting a contract to cover a rather obscure situation. It is one where most states don't have precedent yet, but of the few that do some states don't respect these contracts and at least one does. The net result is that in most cases we don't really unknown rather or not a contract will be respected until/unless it ends up in court but my advice is that it's always better to have one in case it will be respected then to have none if a situation comes up where you end up in court. Yes I'm aware of the obvious danger of a contract that may not be respected, but it's a situation that's happening anyways, often does happen without issue, and the contract is just meant as a backup. People will be doing this rather or not a contract exists. I do try to stress to everyone the potential risks and the fact that contracts are on average more likely not going to be respected then respected even as I tell them I think it's better to have something then nothing. I have found a few places that have provided free standard contracts for this situation online, and looked through them to find the one I felt was best written. I've also seen a number of people who went to a lawyer for a contract and got one written for them. Looking at the two types of contracts, the free and the paid ones, from my mostly-layman perspective the free ones actually look substantially better. They tend to be longer, better cover potential issues, and have more fallback statements; which is to say they have three or four slightly different ways getting to approximately the same end goal so that if one line is deemed unenforceable there are still other lines that the court may rule enforceable and thus ensure the main point of the contract stands. For most of these contracts I see they are for a state that I know does not have precedent for these types of contracts. I imagine things may be different if one is in a state that does already have a precedent. Then again so far precedent seems to be "yes we respect them" or "no we don't" with little nuance so I imagine even in a state with precedent you are no worse off with a free contract; worse case you think you have a backup that won't be respected but people should already be going in knowing that's a possible outcome. In short, even ignoring the expense, It seems like people are better off not going to a lawyer because the free contract is the better one. I imagine the reason for this is that a lawyer can't be bothered to become an expert in such an obscure situation required to figure out all the edge cases they may want to cover, and knowing both that the contract is unlikely to be tested and ultimately will usually end up being just as likely to be respected, or not respected, rather they throw together a quick generic one or go all out trying to make the best contract they can so they go for the quick easy contract as a 'good enough' solution. Whereas the free ones online are written by experts in the field who have really tried to create the best contract they possible can. I'm wondering two things, is my layman perspective correct and the free contracts likely are better to use then the very generic paid ones I see. Second if the free ones may be superior is it common that this sort of situation comes up, that you can find prewritten contracts that have more effort put into it then a randomly selected lawyer is likely to put into one? Or is it only because of the lack of precedent that using one contract regardless of your state might make sense? Slightly off topic bonus question, assuming the free contracts really are superiors why aren't paid lawyers using them as a basis for creating paid contracts rather then writing inferiors ones themselves? I always see these contracts made available but without explicitly spelled out licensing agreements that I can find, is it going to be presumed a lawyer can't charge for a contract they get from somewhere else, even if they vetted and potentially modified it?

It is possible that a free online contract is superior to one specifically written for your situation, and it is possible that the opposite is true. It is more likely that a curated paid contract is superior, if (a) it is drafted by an attorney who is experienced and specializing in that area, (b) you discuss your goals with the attorney, (c) the issue is complex and jurisdiction-specific. It is more likely that the free contract is superior if (a) the attorney you hire doesn't listen to you, (b) doesn't know the area (e.g. specializes in DUI cases and has never touched a contract), (c) if there is already a well worked-out standard contract form (leases and real estate sales contracts come to mind), (d) deals with a very stable area of law where there is negligible state-to-state difference and (e) isn't powered by ChatGPT.

UK Law - Working Contracts

Without going into specifics too much. I work on a contract that obviously sets out a specific job description for me and a set amount of hours. However, my team leader is sending me to cover people who are off, who perform a different set of tasks than myself and in a different area, including duties I have never been taught. They are saying because my contract says 'other reasonable duties' this covers me performing these tasks. It's also worth mentioning that the people I am covering work a shift pattern of 4 on, 4 off... and they are not entitled to breaks (I've never heard of this before, but basically something to do with they can eat whilst it's quiet - it's a security-related job). When I cover them, I am not entitled to a break, which kind of annoys me because I do not have a break to go to the shop, and I only find out I am going to this post when I arrive at work. If I were to know beforehand I could prepare a meal to take. I'm curious to know if it's even legal to send me to cover someone's job who is different to mine, and also operate on a separate contract.

Yes, it is legal. "Other reasonable duties" covers a very wide ground. You might get more helpful approaches over on workplace.stackexchange.com.

Whistling copyrighted music on youtube

Without going into too much detail as to the why's and wherefore's of the question (I'll put it at the bottom, question first), I am curious about the copyright laws regarding whistling copyrighted music in a youtube video. It wouldn't be the focus of the video, but it would be a passing part of the video. I'm wondering about the ability to monetize such content. As for why I'm curious about this, I've recently been thinking about starting a youtube channel. I have no delusions of grandeur, and I don't want to be presumptuous, but it serves to be prepared. I tend to whistle, and without trying to sound cocky, I'm quite good at whistling music. The channel would be man-cave workshop type content, among other things, and I would like to include bits where you can hear me whistling or singing along with the music that I'm listening to (the video music would be non-copyrighted, but I would quiet it to hear the whistling or singing). It would be short snippets, no more than 5 or 10 seconds, and you wouldn't hear the music that I'm hearing because I use headphones. If I ever got to a point where I could monetize my channel, would this prevent me from doing that?

Yes it's illegal. Just like singing/whistling happy birthday in public (used to be) illegal. You could be sued for untold amount of damages that could ruin your life forever (in theory). If you whistle a mashup remix then it's legal as long as it's different enough from the original that you can't tell that they are the same song anymore. Yes anyone can sue you if you piss them off. Disney doesn't sue all the people who sing covers of their songs because it's bad for business to piss off your fans, but they can sue if they feel like it. This is more common sense than anything else but I suggest you look into fair use copyright law since there is a lot of misconception about it. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/

Should I stay schtum?

Without going into too much detail, my partner has made accusations against me to the police for which I am currently on bail while they investigate. I feel frustrated that his accusations are bogus but I do not have a voice. I've sought advice from a solicitor and been advised to stay schtum. But I feel that the whole thing could be nipped in the bud sooner if only my side of events were heard. Is there anything I can do?

I've sought advice from a solicitor and been advised to stay schtum. Enough said.

Can a YTPMV reupload be taken down by the original YTPMV uploader who has voluntarily removed it from the platform?

Without going too deeply into the specifics... One of my favorite YTPMV’s was taken down (by its own creator for some reason) from the YT platform. It was a YTPMV of one of Eminem’s songs. The YTPMV creator definitely did not get permission from Eminem or his team. After reuploading the video to YT using the Wayback Machine, the YTPMV creator, not Eminem or his team, is telling me to take down the reupload because it is “their” work, and they want it removed entirely from YT. The video is entirely made of copyrighted content butchered and edited together into a musical parody. The video uses old Nintendo CD-i animation, with instrumentation and parodical lyrics from one of Eminem’s songs, and a watermark of the uploader’s previous username in the top right. Can this user force me to take down the video? All visual and audio content in the video is 100% owned by other individuals and companies that certainly did not give him/her permission; only the arrangement of the clips and snippets is original. I would fully understand if Nintendo or Eminem would make me take down the reupload. But does the original YTPMV uploader (who is now erasing it) have any basis for ownership of the video, or sufficient grounds to remove my reupload?

I think you're misunderstanding how copyright can be split among multiple people. In this case, the work is definitely protected by copyright, by everyone who made a substantial contribution. The work can be distributed if and only if they all agree, i.e. both the creator from the question and Eminem. If there's no such agreement, the work cannot be distributed. Essentially, they all have a veto. Here, the creator is legally in the right to veto this particular distribution. Even Enimem can't distribute it. OP certainly can't.

Can Wizards of the Coast Deauthorize OGL 1.0a?

Wizards of the Coast, in their draft Open Gaming License 1.2 include the following notice: NOTICE OF DEAUTHORIZATION OF OGL 1.0a. The Open Game License 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. This means that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after (effective date). It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content. This is related to OGL 1.0a section 9 ( found here, for instance ): Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. Is Wizards able to do this? I mean, obviously they can say that they deauthorize it, but does that have any legal weight? Supposing that they publish this notice as is, must all derivative works of say, D&D 3.5, be published under OGL 1.2?

Yes, they can The 1.0a licence is a contract that was offered for acceptance to the public. Anyone who has accepted that offer for a particular product has entered a binding contract with WotC. However, WotC is under no obligation to continue making that offer and they have explicitly revoked it - no one can accept it from the time the offer was revoked. This is contract law 101. Must all derivative works use OGL 1.2? No Only those derivatives of copyrighted works that are not fair use/dealing must use the licence. Game rules are not subject to copyright, however, game “lore” and trademark is. There is no bright line separating one from the other. If you want to be safe, use the licence. If you want to live on the edge, hire an IP lawyer.

Is D&D homebrew necessarily a derivative work of the SRD?

Wizards of the Coast, makers of Dungeons & Dragons, fifth edition, has made a subset of the game's core rules (known as the System Reference Document or SRD) freely available under the copyleft-ish Open Gaming License Version 1.0a . The intention is to allow third parties to develop additional content for the game by "open sourcing" the base rules and allowing people to use those rules in works that must also be licensed under the OGL. However, what if one wanted to compose a supplementary work for the game ("homebrew", such as a new player race, new class or subclass, or new spell) and wanted to license it under something else (say, a Creative Commons license)? If the supplementary work didn't copy any elements of the SRD but did make numerous references to its concepts, would that be allowed under fair use, or would the work count as a derivative work of the SRD and thus have to be licensed under the OGL? Examples of typical statements that could be found in such a supplementary work include: Ability Score Increase. Your Constitution score increases by 2, and your Strength score increases by 1. You can cast the mage armor spell once and regain the ability to do so when you finish a long rest. You have advantage on Strength and Dexterity checks made to escape a grapple. Whenever you cast a spell that deals acid, fire, cold, lightning, or thunder damage, you may replace all instances of that damage type in the spell's description with one other type from that list. You can speak, read, and write Common and one extra language of your choice. Whenever another creature casts a cantrip within 30 feet of you, you may use your reaction to make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with a DC of 10. If you succeed, you learn that cantrip and can cast it as a warlock spell until you next finish a long rest. Note that none of these tell you what things mean or how to do them, leaving that up to the SRD. In short, does referring to a work's concepts in a new work in this way cause that new work to be considered a derivative of the first?

Game mechanics are not normally covered by copyright protection. boardgames.SE Q: What aspects of a game are not protected under copyright?

Do NY travel restrictions apply every time?

Wondering about the NY travel restrictions: if I were to complete the self-quarantine requirement etc, and then leave NY (to a place very nearby, Jersey City NJ) and come back to NY the next day, would I be required to go through the quarantine process again?

No, you will not be required to quarantine. The quarantine requirement only applies to travelers arriving from non-contiguous states (i.e., states not bordering New York). From the detailed guidance for quarantine restrictions , as of November 3, 2020: Quarantine Criteria for Travel All travelers entering New York from a state that is not a contiguous state, or from a CDC Level 2 or 3 Travel Health Notice country, shall quarantine for a period of 14 days, consistent with Department of Health regulations for quarantine, unless: For travelers who traveled outside of New York for more than 24 hours, such travelers must obtain testing within 72 hours prior to arrival in New York, AND Such travelers must, upon arrival in New York, quarantine according to Department of Health guidelines, for a minimum of three days, measured from time of arrival, and on day 4 may seek a diagnostic test to exit quarantine. For travelers that meet the criteria above, the traveler may exit quarantine upon receipt of the second negative test result. Contiguous states are Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont. Travelers from these states are not subject to this guidance. Travelers who leave New York State for less than 24 hours do not need to obtain a diagnostic test before departing and do not need to quarantine upon return. However, such travelers must fill out the traveler form upon entry and must obtain a diagnostic test on the fourth day after arrival in New York. (bolding mine)

If legal code numbers ever get revised

Wondering if code numbers such as 31 U.S. Code § 5330 ever get revised. So one day it is like this: Title 31 › Subtitle IV › Chapter 53 › Subchapter II › § 5330 › (a) › 1 And the next day it becomes: Title 35 › Subtitle I › Chapter 10 › Subchapter II › § 5330 › (a) › 3 That is, they either shift it around like that, or they adjust the local position like this: Title 31 › Subtitle IV › Chapter 53 › Subchapter II › § 5330 › (b) › 3 Or if it can never change because there is no concept of "versions" of the code (I'm not sure).

The US Code can be reorganized. This page gives details of the structure of the US Code. As an example or renumbering, current 42 USC 5186 was first created as section 416 of Public Law 93-288 , and 42 USC 5183 was enacted as section 413. Public Law 100-707 enacted various renumberings, so section 416 of the act was redesignated section 419, and section 413 was redesignated section 416. It is useful to know of the distinction between positive law titles and non-positive law titles. Some titles in the US Code are themselves federal statutes (positive law titles), and some are editorial compilations (non-positive law title). Title 10 (Armed Forces) was directly created by act of Congress, and Title 42 (The Public Health and Welfare) results from many specific acts. Non-positive law titles are prima facie evidence of the law, and positive law titles are legal evidence of the law – the difference rests in how authoritative one is vs. the other. Generally, it doesn't matter, unless there is an error in compiling a statute into the code (which has happened: US Nat. Bank of Ore. v. Independent Ins. Agents of America , 508 U.S. 439).

Minecraft EULA for mods

Word on the street is that it's against the EULA to sell Minecraft mods. I took a look at the actual EULA , which they use California/corporate/cutesy/condescending language to say that they don't want you making money off of Minecraft, but list a specific exclusion to that (ads on videos of Minecraft content), and then apparently have some other document that somehow says that you can accept donations but not do sales of mods, which a lot of people refer to, but I can't find a document explaining. There seems to be several details different in what I am reading vs what people are proselytizing about the EULA, so I have questions that are all interrelated. I came across the story of Physics mod , where a dev quit their job to work on the mod full time and it sounds like Microsoft pulled some strings to have their Patreon account banned. That's why I'm scratching my head about all this after doing some preliminary research. On what legal basis can Microsoft restrict the sale of mods that they even explain that they don't own in their EULA? This seems strange to begin with, and such a basis would have to be world-wide, which seems to make it even stranger. World-wise legal commonalities are very few and far between, since some people are slaves, some subjects, some citizens, and some a mix of all of those. Isn't their only course of remedy to ban your account? If your account is banned, then the EULA doesn't apply, so you can sell mods, right? How can you own a mod, but immediately, permanently, and irrevocably, give it away to the entirety of the internet? Logic would dedicate that whomever is telling you what to do with "your" mod actually owns it, in this case, Microsoft. Which would mean that you don't own it, Microsoft does. Given these points, a mod developer could have a public account that got banned, as a sort of honeypot, and then use 1 or more anonymous accounts, or borrow someone else's, if they want to play or test their code. That doesn't happen, or doesn't happen very often. Why not? Microsoft focuses heavily on "not sharing the game" when talking about mods, a distinction that I don't understand. Especially when mods by definition modify the game. The game binaries are available free of charge for anyone and everyone to download, and it's only after launching them that you can log in, so it seems there is 0 incentive to share a copy of the game. Yet they focus on this to the point it's occasionally part of the launcher screen. Why is this concept so intertwined with a completely different concept (making and distributing mods)?

Copyright is the reason Microsoft owns the copyright to the Minecraft code. That gives them exclusive rights to make copies and derivative works . A mod is a derivative work. Further, copyright is near universal because of the Berne Convention, the countries in blue all respect each other’s copyright: So, you can only make a derivative work if you are Microsoft, have Microsoft’s permission, or fall into one of the copyright exemptions which aren't relevant here. The EULA is the permission Microsoft gives and they set the terms on what you can and can’t do. If you make a mod without following the terms of the EULA then that is a copyright violation and gives Microsoft the ability to sue you and prevent you from distributions the mod. Copyright in an infringing derivative varies by jurisdiction but in the USA, there is no copyright in the work - so, yes, Microsoft do not own it (but they can prevent its distribution) but neither do you . Copyright laws allow Microsoft to not only prevent you from distributing the infringing mod, they can prevent anyone from distributing it - that’s how the get people like Patreon to shut down accounts.

Single or divorced, how long ago

Work related injury, their doctor wants to know if I am single or divorced, how long ago was I divorced, how many children, how old are they, every surgery of my life. I hurt my shoulder. Marital status is a moot point. A surgery 40 years ago has zero impact. They are fishing?

Work related injury, their doctor wants to know if I am single or divorced, how long ago was I divorced, how many children, how old are they, every surgery of my life. I hurt my shoulder. Marital status is a moot point. A surgery 40 years ago has zero impact. They are fishing? All prior surgery is a pretty ordinary request and is relevant. It makes it possible to better determine the cause of injury and no surgery within 40 years is more good than bad to you. Whether you are single or divorced, how many children you have and how old they are is only relevant if you are dead, because in that situation, it determines who has a right to bring a wrongful death action or receive worker's compensation benefits in connection with your death. Since you are not dead, and this is not your treating physician (who might want to have emergency contact information, or to explore family health history), it is hard to see how this would be relevant. He may be attempting to explore if there is another potential source of payment for the injuries which is not appropriate to ask, or for witnesses who can be interviewed to confirm or dispute your injuries. The only exception which could be relevant, which would make number of children and their ages relevant, would be if the injury would impact something that is also impacted by childbirth (e.g. a C-section). When you got divorced, if you got divorced, is pretty much never relevant.

What to do if a Company terminates your contract before 1 week of joining date?

Working in Malaysia I got a job offer from one of the famous MNCs 1 month ago under another Company's payroll. I got the offer letter and all the documentation is complete. I resigned from my current Company and my EP is canceled too. The documents for new EP has already been submitted by the new Company. 1 week before the joining date, I was informed that the project is canceled. Now I am stranded. Can I sue the Company?

If you had a contract guaranteeing employment for six months and it was cancelled without cause, you could sue the new employer for breach of contract for six months of wages and relocation/loss of benefit damages, less any mitigation of damages you could accomplish by finding alternative employment.

Does posting a photo of a couple on a website require permission from both people in the photo?

Working on a unique concept website, I am questioning how legal it is and what sort of disclaimer would need to be present in the T&C to remain protected. Basically, a user pays a fee and is allowed to post a message and a picture that will all be public on the website, and available for all. The picture is of the user and his/her partner. Nothing sexual, nothing offensive, nothing shaming (if so, deleted and refunded.) My question lies in the user is allowing us to put his picture up, but what about the other person on this picture? We count on the user to make sure the other person is fine with it, but how can we protect ourselves?

I am not a lawyer but my understanding of the law is that in the USA there is no need to get permission from anyone to post a photo unless: You did not take the photo. Then you need permission from the person who took the photo. It doesn't matter if the photo was taken with your camera; only the actual photographer matters. Your terms of use should specify that the author has permission to post the picture from the copyright owner. OR Your use of the picture is appropriating name and likeness. In that case you need the permission of the people in the photograph. To learn more, Google right to publicity. Depending on the website this may or may not affect you.

Is using web platform currency considered gambling?

Working on a web startup in which users receive platform currency by watching content. Later they can bid on spots in the site to post their own content, but only one out of all bidders gets the spot. Now here is the trick: the winner is determined randomly and the only proportional influence is the amount he bid (basically the more the better chances). Since gambling is determined by these 3 properties: chance consideration (paying something to play) a prize Does my project fall into these? Especially since the platform currency has no value outside of the platform , same for the prize. And there is no possibility to convert it to anything else or buy it . Don't want to cross no no-no lines. I couldn't find a similar example on the web (closest being zynga poker which is somehow not gambling). So maybe some of you have encountered a similar situation and know the answer?

By your definition, it’s gambling chance: you said prizes are drawn at random consideration (paying something to play): eyeballs on a screen is something of value a prize: advertising is something of value being offered as a prize Whether it’s illegal gambling depends on local law.

Public domain or not so "public domain"?

Works created by the U.S. government's institutions are in the public domain within the U.S. territory - not around the world. However if the U.S. government institution with such clarification on their website that covers most of the content, CREATES a publication and posts it and calls it "public domain" without further clarification that it is only within the U.S. territory. They put it out so everyone can access it from all around the world and they even write "this is a public domain work". Would that be then considered world wide public domain despite the fact that their copyright page which is their general policy for all works states that it follows the U.S. laws about copyright? Definitely in my opinion they have published this work as simple and clear open public domain. I do not think that users of such works are guilty. What might happen is that the government then sues this institution and says "this was not allowed". In that case the institution stepped over their authority. However considering that universities and other educational institutions have a high degree of autonomy, maybe they did nothing wrong after all. Many people around the globe use these works in question. People from Germany, U.K. even China and Japan. The institution knows about this from my understanding. Whether there was some dispute or agreement about it, I don't know yet?! What do you think, did anyone violate the law here? The users of such works or the institution?

By definition , A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties. It doesn't matter what the nature of the "institution" is, what matters is the author's status. Note that an independent contractor may own the copyright, so it depends on the details of the arrangement. The US Government's position is that the copyright exclusion for works of the U.S. Government is not intended to have any impact on protection of these works abroad (S. REP. NO. 473, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 56 (1976)). Therefore, the U.S. Government may obtain protection in other countries depending on the treatment of government works by the national copyright law of the particular country. Copyright is sometimes asserted by U.S. Government agencies outside the United States This is based on the Senate Judiciary Committee Report when this provision was introduced, esp. p. 56 : The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. Works of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted, and there are no valid policy reasons for denying such protection to United States Government works abroad. Section 8 of the statute now in effect includes a saving clause intended to make clear that the copyright protection of a private work is not affected if the work is published by the Government. There is no need to restate this principle explicitly in the context of section 105: there is nothing in section 105 that would relieve the Government of its obligation to secure permission in order to publish a copyrighted work, and publication or other use by the Government of a private work could not affect its copyright protection in any way. A government work could be publicly licensed for use in other jurisdictions, but statutory public domain does not exist in this case.

Will software ever enter the public domain?

Works enter the public domain after ... years from publication. But most software these days is not sold but "licensed" (per EULA). So the recipient never received said "software", he's just using someone else's work (kind of like me using Google search, its code never enters the public domain). Does that mean that code is considered to have never been "published"?

Works enter the public domain after ... years from publication. In the United States, this is incorrect for some works and incomplete for the rest. Currently, most works are copyrighted for the life of the author plus 70 years; publication date doesn't affect the copyright term. Works made for hire (such as code written for Google by an employee), anonymous works, and pseudonymous works are copyrighted for 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation , whichever is shorter.

What legal measures do venture capitalists employ to protect their investment in a startup?

Worst case founders can just run away with the money. They can also kick the VC rep from the board since they own majority share.

Shareholder protection laws The basic defense against "just run away with the money" is the laws that prevent a shareholder paying out "common company" money to themselves personally at the expense of minority shareholders. If the company under their control violates the rights of the minority shareholder(s), they are entitled to compensation from the majority shareholder(s) and/or the company, and they can and will sue them for that. Furthermore, any accounting irregularities, misrepresentations, faked reports, etc done during that process may easily push it from a mere civil claim into criminal charges. Investor agreements and company bylaws "They can also kick the VC rep from the board since they own majority share." will be prevented by an investor rights agreement and modifications to the company charter and bylaws that mandate (for example) that a particular board seat will be controlled by that VC, and that this board seat will have a veto right over certain types of decisions - so the majority can't do whatever they want. The majority shareholders will also generally have a binding contractual agreement that they must vote in a particular way in certain aspects. Due diligence A key part of most investment is due diligence review of the company current situation - the founders would be expected to agree to an invasive, thorough audit of their operations by the investors. This will include a review of any legal clauses, liabilities, etc. In addition, often the founders (personally) will be expected to sign so-called representations that affirm these details, and that they have disclosed all material aspects, and that they'll be personally liable for misrepresentations and omissions. In case of outright fraud (taking the money and running away) this will also be evidence in a criminal case that some misrepresentation was not just an accidental omission but an intentional act. Tranches and clawback provisions It's not that uncommon to have money disbursed in tranches conditional upon meeting certain provisions, and for any money that goes directly to founders it's not uncommon to see clawback provisions that state that the consequences of any misrepresentations will be taken out of these funds, possibly with large part of that money held in escrow for some time to cover that.

Lottery iOS App

Would Apple allow an app where you can purchase a lottery ticket through PayPal and go into the chance to win, with the winners money going to a PayPal account? What are the legal considerations when it comes to lottery apps in Australia?

In NSW and all other Australian jurisdictions lotteries and other games of chance are regulated. See https://www.liquorandgaming.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/gaming/competitions/games-of-chance.aspx In general, lottery type games can only be run for the benefit of charities or by registered clubs. Free entry games can be run as trade promotions. Straight lotteries are restricted to the State or specific enterprises licenced by the State. The legal considerations of what you are proposing is that you will be fined or sent to gaol.

What would happen if there is an attempt by police to deceive a judge to get a warrant?

Would I be correct in saying that police have a duty to fairly represent the facts to a judge when they attempt to get a warrant to search premises? Is there some sort of oversight in regard to how warrants are issued? Or is the oversight having your lawyer contest the validity of the search at your trial? If a judge thinks the police are, either through neglect or incompetence, withholding information that would keep a judge from issuing a warrant what would happen then? Is this grounds for a policeperson losing his or her job or can a judge just then choose not to issue any further warrants with that department, making there job just that bit harder?

You are correct. A judge may only issue a warrant when it is supported by an affidavit, in which the officer seeking the warrant swears under oath to the facts supporting the warrant. Lying on the affidavit would constitute perjury. But judges very frequently just rubber-stamp the warrants without meaningfully reviewing the affidavits, so the primary form of oversight would be the defendant's Fourth Amendment challenge asserting that the warrant wasn't supported by probable cause. If a judge does review the warrant application and finds the officer's statements not to be credible, he can refuse to sign the warrant, and he is free to also carry that credibility determination to subsequent warrants sought by the same officer or other officers in his department.

Legal issues with a company called Elon selling 'musk' cologne

Would I get in legal trouble in the US or UK for starting a company called Elon and selling 'musk' cologne? I know that College Humor made a joke about this a few years ago, but this is an actual business idea. I have already bought the domain name elons-musk.com.

Your question actually concerns a trademark issue and not a copyright issue, because it involves the name used in association with the sale of a specific product or product line. In isolation, "musk" is a generic term for certain fragrances and cannot be trademarked. There is also U.S. case law (one involved a lingere shop called "Victor's Secret" run by a fellow named Victor from birth, if I recall the facts correctly, the held that someone can use their own personal name not adopted for business purposes in the name of a business they run personally, even in the fact of a strong, nationally known trademark in the same subject matter area that could be confused with the famous trademark. So, under U.S. law, this would probably be allowed, although it might draw a challenge. I don't know the parallel caselaw in the U.K. (FYI, Victoria's Secret is an Ohio company started with a small storefront in London which exists just to give it an exotic address for marketing purposes until it got big.)

Will Queen's Counsel automatically become King's Counsel upon the accession of a male Head of the Commonwealth?

Would Jane Bloggs QC become Jane Bloggs KC overnight? Or would current silk simply be able to apply for the new title, as occurred in some jurisdictions when the title of Senior Counsel was introduced? References sourced in any jurisdiction in which the title of Queen's or King's Counsel is recognised would be appreciated. Contemporary sources from the accession of Edward VII (1901) would be interesting too!

This question on Quora says, Although the title is now one of status and prestige without any expectation that the appointee will actually act as counsel to Her Majesty, the appointment still appears to be referred to as an “office” (see Vote Bundle Text (990511-06) ). If regarded as an “office”, then the appointment of QC/KC would not be affected by the demise of the Crown. This is because the Demise of the Crown Act 1901 dispenses with the need for the fresh appointment of any office upon the demise of the Crown. So no new letters patent would have to be issued. and Take for example Sir Robert McCall, pictured below, who took silk in 1891, under the reign of Queen Victoria – thus making him a QC. Subsequently, when Victoria’s reign ended, he became a King’s Counsel, adopting the postnominals KC. There seems to be no record of a new letters patent being issued. This question on Quora says, Kings Counsel all immediately became QCs when Queen Elizabeth became Queen. and notes one exception By default, when the gender of the monarch changes, EVERY past reference to Queen becomes King at once, or King to Queen as appropriate. Her Majesty the Queen ordered that the King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery should continue to be called the King’s Troop in memory of her father. This article relates to the death of King George VI and is probably the best authentic account available if what actually happened: In London’s High Court, King’s Counselor Harold Shepherd had just finished cross-examining a defendant when the news came. The court adjourned. Ten minutes later, the lawyer resumed the floor as Queen’s Counselor. Painters at another London court set to work painting out the sign “King’s Bench” and replacing it with “Queen’s Bench.”

Does being overturned on appeal have consequences for the careers of trial judges?

Would a 95% rate of being overturned on appeal have any effect on a judge's career?

canada The mere fact of being frequently overturned on appeal would only have reputational consequences and secondary effects on career advancement (not suggesting these are minor effects). But being overturned at a rate of 95% suggests that the judge might not be conducting themselves with integrity or not being diligent in the performance of their judicial duties. These are two core ethical principles set out by the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC). (However, the CJC is clear that these principles "do not set out standards for defining judicial misconduct.") Depending on what is leading the judge to such a high rate of appellate intervention, the underlying cause may warrant removal. The possible reasons that the CJC can recommend a judge to be removed are listed at s. 65(2)(a) to (d) of the Judges Act : Where, in the opinion of the Council, the judge in respect of whom an inquiry or investigation has been made has become incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of the office of judge by reason of (a) age or infirmity, (b) having been guilty of misconduct, (c) having failed in the due execution of that office, or (d) having been placed, by his or her conduct or otherwise, in a position incompatible with the due execution of that office, the Council, in its report to the Minister under subsection (1), may recommend that the judge be removed from office. For some examples where the CJC recommended removal of a judge, see: the Report to the Minister of Justice re: Paul Cosgrove (2009) (in which the CJC declined to consider whether serious incompetence could be a ground for removal; instead basing the recommendation for removal on serious misconduct that was damaging to the administration of jusice and the public's confidence in the judiciary); the Report to the Minister of Justice re: Robin Camp (2017) .

Would a Surrogate Parent's Right to Abortion Supersede Parental Rights?

Would a Surrogate Parent's Right to Abortion Supersede Parental Rights? Under the Hague Convention, Parental Rights are determined via the last shared and well-settled intents of the parents. (At least some U.S. Circuit Courts.) In Quebec, Parental rights are exercised jointly. So, if there is a right for parents to "pursue life", would a right to abortion still remain for a surrogate parent?

Pursuant to well-established law in the US, the person carrying the fetus (conventionally, the mother) has the right to an abortion. Doing so might be a breach of contract. Some jurisdictions flat out ban surrogacy contracts (Arizona, D.C), perhaps even penalizes (Michigan, NY), or declares void (Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska). In California, surrogacy contracts are legal and enforceable. One possible challenging scenario is that the mother refuses a requested abortion, the other is that one or both of the intended parents seek to block the mother from getting an abortion. The former case in the case of Melissa Cook , where there was an attempt made to reduce the number of pregnancies from three – Cook carried the fetuses to term despite a contrary request from the intended parents (no action was filed to attempt to force an abortion). There has apparently been no attempted case to force a mother to carry a fetus to terms because of a contract (i.e. order for specific enforcement). Under present US law, the woman carrying the fetus has the exclusive right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. No statutes or case law suggest that a surrogacy contract will override that right, and some laws explicitly deny the ability to force a mother to have an abortion (Utah Code Ann. §78B-15-808(2) & (3), Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §160.754(g), Fla. Stat. Ann. §63-213(3)(b)). A mother could be sued for breach of contract if she terminates a pregnancy – the intended parents may have suffered a financial loss from that decision, but that depends on the state.

Does the SEC apply to overseas investments?

Would a US company issuing private stock outside of the USA have to comply with SEC regulations?

There are several ways that a company can be subject to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The basic threshold is involvement in interstate commerce in the United States, which is a very low one and is probably satisfied simply by incorporating in the United States and having U.S. shareholders. In general there are also practical reasons to avoid having a large number of investors in a start up company, even when exemptions for securities laws permit you to do so. A U.S. company that is privately held and does not make a public offering is not required to have its securities registered with the SEC, but is still subject to SEC regulation through Regulation D and Regulation 10b-5. A foreign company which does not offer to sell shares in the U.S. and does not list its shares for sale in the U.S. will generally not be subject to U.S. regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, although it might be deemed to be offering shares for sale in the U.S. if it has any significant number of U.S. shareholders. Obviously, however, foreign companies are subject to the securities laws of the places where they are organized and do business. It can make a public offering of securities (not necessarily stock) in the United States. This happens due to Section 5 of the 1933 Securities Act. A public offering is pretty much any offer to sell a security made via a general circulation publication, a mass mailing list, the Internet, or by telephone cold calls, that is not pre-screened to include only "accredited investors". It can be listed on a U.S. stock exchange (e.g. the NASDAQ or the OTC market). This is due to Section 12(a) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. This says: SEC. 12. (a) It shall be unlawful for any member, broker, or dealer to effect any transaction in any security (other than an exempted security) on a national securities exchange unless a registration is effective as to such security for such exchange in accordance with the provisions of this title and the rules and regulations thereunder. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply in respect of a security futures product traded on a national securities exchange. It can be a U.S. company with more than a certain number of shareholders and more than a certain asset value, even if it has never made a public offering. This is due to Section 12(g) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. This says: (g)(1) Every issuer which is engaged in interstate commerce, or in a business affecting interstate commerce, or whose securities are traded by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce shall— (A) within 120 days after the last day of its first fiscal year ended on which the issuer has total assets exceeding $10,000,000 and a class of equity security (other than an exempted security) held of record by either— (i) 2,000 persons, or (ii) 500 persons who are not accredited investors (as such term is defined by the Commission), and (B) in the case of an issuer that is a bank or a bank holding company, as such term is defined in section 2 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841), not later than 120 days after the last day of its first fiscal year ended after the effective date of this subsection, on which the issuer has total assets exceeding $10,000,000 and a class of equity security (other than an exempted security) held of record by 2,000 or more persons, register such security by filing with the Commission a registration statement (and such copies thereof as the Commission may require) with respect to such security containing such information and documents as the Commission may specify comparable to that which is required in an application to register a security pursuant to subsection (b) of this section. There are numerous exemptions set forth in Section 12(g)(2). Once you are subject to registration, you can only avoid it by falling below 300 investors, pursuant to Section 12(g)(4). The Securities and Exchange Commission has considerable authority to tweak these thresholds by regulation. Private offerings of securities by U.S. companies must comply with Regulation D which creates safe harbors for companies that are not required to register as a publicly held company but are required to make certain private disclosures. Regulation D is a coordinated regulation issued under the 1933 Securities Act and Section 12(e) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Every sale of securities by a U.S. company or to a U.S. person is subject to the requirements of Regulations 10b-5 under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. This is a basic anti-fraud requirement. Some securities exempt under federal law are still subject to state securities regulations which are called "Blue Sky Laws". Tax law also limits your entity form if you have many owners. An S-corporation is not permitted to have more than 75 owners (with special rules for counting owners). Special rules apply to publicly traded partnerships . And, there are securities, tax and non-tax rules that apply to certain kinds of business trusts such as REITs and mutual funds, to state regulated banks, and to mutual insurance companies.

Could a contract prevent someone from talking to the authorities?

Would a contract (such as an NDA or non-disparagement agreement) be enforceable if it prevents a person from talking to the authorities such as: the police the labour board starting a lawsuit responding to a subpoena I noticed a common phrase in contracts is "You aren't allowed to do x y z unless required by law". For example from here Receiving Party's obligations under this Agreement do not extend to information that is...is disclosed as required or ordered by a court, administrative agency, or other governmental body. Or another example from here : Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall preclude Executive from making truthful statements that are required by applicable law, regulation or legal process. What is the point of such statements? Without them would it be breach of contract for the signer to do something they are legally required to do? Or is the intent of such statements to limit the amount of term found to be unenforceable?

No enforceable contract can contain illegal clauses and work Contracts can not remove some rights and never can bypass obligations. Talking to the police at times is a requirement by law, as is taking to the labor board. Responding to a subpoena is legally forced by the court. An NDA might limit the amount what you can say, and a contract might limit who you can sue, but can not ban you from suing at all. In germany , a contract that tries to curtail such requirements would be Sittenwidrig and make all clauses that try to limit the rights fully Void and nill ab initio - in fact, it can be used as evidence against the drafting party that they tried to do so. So to stay legal and keep the clause working in the limited fashion where it is not demanded, the clause cuts the contract to explicitly exclude such situations.

Does FOIA apply to computer code?

Would a federal government agency be required to comply with a FOIA request for (unclassified) computer source code (specifically for a mobile app)?

If the software is a work of the federal government and not, as is usually the case, a licensed copy of contractor-provided software, it is most likely in the public domain . There should be records pertaining to the system, including system authorization under the RMF (NIST 800-37 et al). The actual source code would probably be a record, but depending on the nature of the program, may be excluded under some of the various exclusions pertaining to internal processes, national security systems, banking industry confidential info, or exclusions required by other laws, etc. In particular, 44 U.S.C. 3555 (f) may be of interest: (f) PROTECTION OF INFORMATION.—Agencies and evaluators shall take appropriate steps to ensure the protection of information which, if disclosed, may adversely affect information security. Such protections shall be commensurate with the risk and comply with all applicable laws and regulation This, under FOIA exception 3 , authorizes agencies to deny requests which might compromise computer security. One could argue (with strong arguments for and against) that the source code might contain undiscovered/undisclosed errors which could compromise the security of the system while that system is in use. If you are really interested, as mentioned in earlier comments, your best bet would be to ask. Depending on your interest, you might look for any and all records pertaining to the procurement and development of the system, including source code if available. This might get you information about the contractor who developed the system, for example.

Handwritten "Copyright 2021 Joe Doe" copyright notice on a handwritten 30-page work, published only on social media

Would a handwritten "Copyright 2021 (My First and Last name)" copyright notice, be valid and have it's standard legal aplication in USA as well as in EU, for me - an author form Slovenia (EU), if I write it in handwritting on a handwritten 30-page original literary work of nonfiction, which I would publish only on social media, in the form of a collection of 30 pictures of scans of handwritting? The work would not be catalogued, registered or published anywhere else so I assume that if it would be censored by the platforms - deleted, I would not have a link to an active published refference to the work, and don't know how could I persue my case in court, should it come to that, however my research so far has given me the impression that such a copyright notice is the best international protection and deterence symbol agianst infringement on the rights, and even to use in a court of law. (My current project just has to be in handwritting...) Grateful for any help.

In the united-states since the effective date of the 1976 Copyright Act, all copyright notices are optional, and copyright does not depend on any notice at all. The same is true in every country that adheres to the Berne Copyright Conventions, which is almost every country in the world, and includes all countries with significant publishing industries. Even before the 1976 act, when a notice was absolutely required, a hand written notice was just as effective as a printed notice, provided that it was legible. Many painters, for example, included (and still include) hand-written copyright notices near the painter's signature, and these were effective. In the US, one cannot file a copyright suit unless the work involved is first registered. If the work was not registered before the infringement occurred, statutory damages are not available (in the US) unless the work is registered within 3 months of publication. For non-commercial works, statutory damages are often the only way to get any significant damages. The original handwritten work, whether posted to the net or not, is still protected by copyright, with or without a notice. A notice is not a substitute for registration. Neither is a post on social media. Proving who created a copyrighted work is not usually a major issue in a copyright suit, and worrying overmuch about ways to establish this is often a waste of tiem and effort. The issues are more often: Was the work copied; if so who copied it; was it infringement, fair use, or use under a license; did some other exception to copyright apply; what damage was done to the copyright owner; what advantage did an infringer get? A copyright notice does largely eliminate the defense of "innocent infringement" in which an infringer claims not to have known that the works was protected. If proved this can greatly reduce damages under US law. A handwritten notice will have the same effect on that defense as a printed one.

Would this be infringement?

Would a journalist who copied another journalist's work substantially be accused of copyright infringement? Are journalists able to use the 'fair dealing' as per U.K. law to make use of one's work without suffering repercussions? What if the copied work was incorporated in an article for his employer?

That would depend on just what is meant by "copied another journalist's work substantially". One may not, under UK copyright law (or indeed under any copyright law) simply copy the words and phrases used by someone else, even with trivial changes, to avoid the effort of composing one's own words to express an idea or describe and event. a close paraphrase will generally be considered an infringement of copyright. However, copyright does not protect ideas. A journalist may describe an event, basing the account on the3 accounts of other journalists. As long as the new account does not directly copy or closely imitate the source accounts, it will probably not be treated as an infringement of copyright. The "fair dealing" in UK law is a narrower exception to copyright than the US concept of "fair use". According to the Wikipedia article : Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), fair dealing is limited to the following purposes: research and private study (both must be non-commercial), criticism / review / quotation, and news reporting (sections 29, 30, 178); as well as parody, caricature and pastiche (section 30A) and illustration for teaching. So unless the use by the second journalist fits one of those categories, fair dealing will not apply. If the copied content is incorporated into a commercially published article, it fairly obviously is not for the purpose of "research and private study" or "illustration for teaching". It might well, however, be for "news reporting" or one of the other fair dealing purposes, and the detailed facts of the matter would be used to determine if this was a case of fair dealing or not. Article 2 paragraph (8) of the Berne Copyright Convention says that: The protection of this Convention shall not apply to news of the day or to miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information. Section 30 paragraph (2) the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says: Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement. Taken literally these provisions would seem to mean that there is no copyright at all on news reports in the UK. I do not believe that that is a correct interpretation. I think that those refer to not attempting to prevent the use of copyright from precluding the reporting of actual events, where a previous report is a matter of "bare facts". I don't have any case law on how Section 39 (2) has been applied.

Is it a requirement that jurors of a state prosecution be residents of the state that brought the legal proceedings?

Would a jury of your peers preclude jury members of neighboring states from deciding on your guilt? Is there any geographical consideration of who and what is considered your peers? I'm asking specifically for state cases, I'm assuming on a federal case they could probably get jurors from all over.

For federal prosecutions, the Sixth Amendment gives defendants a right to trial “by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” This hasn’t been applied to the states, but I believe every state in fact requires jurors be at least residents of that state (states sometimes go farther and require that jurors be from the same county).

Is citizenship a requirement for jury duty?

Would a permanent resident be asked to do jury duty, or must a juror be a citizen? What are the rules of who is eligible for jury duty? Are there people in the US who go their whole lives and never do jury duty or is it usually the case that a person does it at least once in his/her lifetime?

For federal trials, 28 USC 1865 (b) states that the judge shall deem any person qualified to serve on grand and petit juries in the district court unless he (1) is not a citizen of the United States eighteen years old who has resided for a period of one year within the judicial district There are similar requirements in other states, for example in Washington, RCW 2.36.070 which includes being a citizen as a mandatory qualification. There are typically also age and residency requirement, requirements for competency in English, mental capacity also felon-exclusion provisions and charges-pending exclusions. The qualifications are jurisdiction-specific. Many people never serve on a jury, indeed many are never called to serve on a jury. There is no reliable count, but polling indicated that around 1/3 of adults have served on a jury.

Is Monopoly protected by copyright & trademark?

Would a person need to licence the copyright in order to make and distribute a Monopoly video game?

Monopoly is a trademark of Parker Brothers. You would need to get permission to use that trademark. The artwork of the game is copyrighted and cannot be duplicated without violating that copyright. In general, the labels meaning phrases like "Go to Jail" and "New York Avenue" are probably copyrighted and some court decisions have decided that labels are a copyrightable element. However, there is some gray area. The game mechanics are not copyrightable and can be duplicated. What this means is that if you clone the game and use new labels (like new property names and card titles) then you are probably fine. You would have to make a novel board design. If you clone the game, but use the game's labels, then you could potentially lose in court. Of course, remember that corporations will sometimes sue just to intimidate people, even if they have a losing case. Just because your clone is non-infringing doesn't mean they won't sue you. It costs them money to sue people, so if your clone is obscure or not used by many people it could fly under the radar and be ignored by the company. If your clone was a success and became widely used, that would significantly increase the chance you could get sued. In most cases a company will threaten infringers before they sue them, because it is a lot cheaper to threaten somebody than sue them. Therefore, you could make your clone and just plan on discontinuing it if they threaten you. Of course, there is a small risk they would sue you anyway. If you made no money then you are probably safe because it would be a lot harder for them to argue that you commercially damaged them if you made no money.

Would a prisoner be allowed to practice law and represent other inmates in court?

Would a prisoner be allowed to practice law and represent other inmates in court, and shown in For Life (2020) ? According to the story, when he got to prison, he went to work for the paralegal association, representing inmates in the internal cases, inside prison. That got him unlimited access to the library. From there, college and law degrees online. Then he took the vermont bar, which is the only state where you can sit for the bar exam with a degree from a non-accredited law school. Then, he applied to have his license accepted reciprocally in new-york . Some bigwig sponsored him for the bar.

Maybe. There are two questions presented. The first is whether someone who is in prison for a felony may be admitted to the practice of law. There is not a categorical prohibition on doing so. Instead, a character and fitness committee in each state to which an applicant seeks admission (even if it is a reciprocal admission) considers an applicant on a case by case basis. Usually, people with a felony conviction that is being served or is recent are not admitted to the practice of law, but it is not a blanket prohibition, so that could happen, although it would be highly unusual. The second question is whether someone admitted to the practice of law in good standing who is incarcerated in prison would be allowed to do so by prison officials. The work the inmates are allowed to do is largely in the discretion of the prison warden at a particular institution. It isn't inconceivable that a prison warden could allow an inmate to do this subject to significant limitations on scope of practice, but again, it would be highly unusual. Some factors that might encourage a prison warden to allow it would be that: (1) the state has to pay another lawyer to represent inmates in some kinds of cases if the fellow inmate does not at greater expense per hour to the state, (2) it might promote rehabilitation and garner good press, and (3) the prison warden might reasonably guess that an inmate represented by a fellow inmate is less likely to prevail on the merits than an inmate represented by another lawyer and might prefer that outcome. The leading treatise on the subject of lawyering by inmates, with and without full or limited admission to the practice of law, is the Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual .

Do sex specific apps violate any anti-discrimination law?

Would a private business that only intends to serve one sex or another be in violation of anti-discrimination law? if so which one? I can think of a handful of examples of businesses that cater to clients of one sex or another: Men's barbershops Gynecologists Women's Gyms Single-sex sports clubs I assumed that these types of consumer discrimination would be illegal under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 but it doesn't include anything about sex no business serving the public, even if it's privately owned, can discriminate because of a customer's national origin, religion, color, or race. Understandably, there are employment protections against such discrimination but are there the same protections for consumers?

You are correct that the federal law does not prohibit sex discrimination in "public accommodations", the category that includes your examples. State laws tend to be more restrictive, see for example Washington's RCW 49.60.215 which declares that It shall be an unfair practice for any person ... to commit an act which ... results in any distinction ... except for conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons, regardless of race, creed... sexual orientation, sex... PROVIDED, That behavior or actions constituting a risk to property or other persons can be grounds for refusal and shall not constitute an unfair practice. The definitions allow for a few exceptions as to what kind of place is so restricted, most notably a facility "which is by its nature distinctly private", nor "any educational facility, columbarium, crematory, mausoleum, or cemetery operated or maintained by a bona fide religious or sectarian institution". Here is a paper that summarizes the situation with women'-only clubs. For example, New Jersey law has the exception that nothing herein contained shall be construed to bar any place of public accommodation which is in its nature reasonably restricted exclusively to individuals of one sex, and which shall include but not be limited to any summer camp, day camp or resort camp, bathhouse, dressing room, swimming pool, gymnasium, comfort station, dispensary, clinic or hospital, or school or educational institution which is restricted exclusively to individuals of one sex... So it depends on the state, but most states prohibit any sex discrimination in public accommodations.

Would having a lodger be considered letting?

Would a restrictive covenant for letting on a property prohibit lodgers?

It would come down to the exact wording and context of the restrictive covenant, but probably yes.

Would a one-way ticket to Mars be legal?

Would a ticket or employment contract involving a one-way trip to Mars, with the full knowledge that the astronaut will die on the Red Planet (if not before), be legal under US law? Or would it run into the limits of contracts and issues around euthanasia, etc.? Assume, if needed, that the organization on the other side of the contract is SpaceX , or Mars One .

An important question would be the imminence of the death upon arrival. If the traveler had no means of life support upon arrival this might be problematic. This looks a lot like a defective product death or euthanasia for someone who is not terminally ill, unless some legitimate scientific benefit is conferred by making the trip manned, in which case it would need human subjects research approval. More generally, in this scenario, the motives and purposes involved would matter. If the travel was simply going to continue his or her life on Mars and had some means of surviving that plausible might work for a sustained period of time, then it would be far less problematic. This looks more like a one way ticket to some survivable but unpleasant destination on Earth. Consider replacing Mars with Antarctica or the Sahara desert in this scenario and considering how it would be evaluated in that situation.

What is illegal about illegal street racing?

Would an arrangement between two (or more) parties to get from point A to point B in the fastest way possible without breaking any laws and the fastest party would receive a price pool made up of equal deposits by all parties -taxes be considered illegal street racing?

The usual law which pertains to (outlaws) racing is stated in terms of comparing speeds, and the speeds do not have to be above the legal limit. Washington law confuses people because it has the exception that any comparison or contest of the accuracy with which motor vehicles may be operated in terms of relative speeds not in excess of the posted maximum speed does not constitute racing Some locations (esp. Kent WA) have ordinances prohibiting presence in a street-racing area (there is a list ), with fines for observers up to $1000. Simultaneously testing alternative routes (e.g. "I'll take 405, you take the back roads") is perfectly legal. The question of gambling is not so clear (it involves local law which is more variable). Skill is involved in the aforementioned activity. A sports pool may be legal, but there are many conditions on such a pool which make it unlikely that a "race" would qualify (for betting without a license). Since Washington law is fairly specific, I would assume that they interpret the lack of permission to have an pool on the outcome of a race as an activity requiring a license, though I can't find an explicit ban.

Reproduction of phrases from characters for reuse

Would be there any legal issues if phrases said by characters in a video game were reproduced for reuse, with or without modifications? Words and (very) short phrases are not subject to copyright so that may be OK, but I want (some) confirmation. Example: In Hearthstone, the charcter Anduin Wrynn says this: "The Light shall bring victory!"

US Copyright Office Circular 33 says (on page 2): Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans, are uncopyrightable because they contain an insufficient amount of authorship. The Office will not register individual words or brief combinations of words, even if the word or short phrase is novel, distinctive, or lends itself to a play on words. Examples of names, titles, or short phrases that do not contain a sufficient amount of creativity to support a claim in copyright include ... Catchwords or catchphrases Mottos, slogans, or other short expressions I strongly suspect that The Light shall bring victory! is short enough to be considered a catchphrase, motto or slogan. Also, if I am not mistaken, a very similar phrase occurs in the "Wheel of Time" series by Robert Jordan, and in the "Dark is Rising" sequence by Susan Cooper. Such common coin is probably not original enough for copyright protection. Even if the phrase is considered protectable, use in a different creative work would quite likely qualify as fair use, depending on the details of how it was used.

Calling for the suspension of due process by a president

Would calling for the seizure of guns from unnamed citizens and the suspension of due process in doing so constitute treason?

Treason is basically the only crime explicitly defined by the Constitution. According to Article III, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. So, no. What this hypothetical president is calling for is unconstitutional, is almost certainly grounds for impeachment, and may even be criminal, but treason it ain't. And that's assuming he actually does it. Simply calling for it, without acting (or directing others to act) to bring it about, may well be protected by the First Amendment.

Is creating and hosting a phishing site illegal?

Would creating and hosting a phishing site imitating a site like Facebook or LinkedIn to show one person how realistic phishing scams can be (with that person's permission) be illegal in the US, specifically California?

Phishing schemes are generally speaking unlawful as they are designed to harm others economically through fraud. If you are involved in creating a site knowing that it will be used for that purpose, you may have liability as a conspirator in a fraudulent scheme if the plan to engage in fraudulent phishing activity is carried out. Mere hosting of a site, without involvement in establishing its content, is probably exempt from liability under Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act .

Dodging police bullet illegal?

Would dodging, or otherwise itentionally avoiding, being shot by the police be considered resisting arrest? Mainly regarding U.S. law, but interested if any other law adresses this.

Prior to Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) , common law allowed police to use deadly force to effect the arrest of a person suspected of a felony. Even though SCOTUS there held that such a practice violates Fourth Amendment civil rights, I was surprised to find that in some states it is still lawful for police to use deadly force to effect an arrest ! Let us examine the most extreme case, which is that the police can legally shoot at you to effect your arrest. As explained here, you are always allowed to resist "excessive force." If you make it to court, these qualifications (e.g., "necessary" and "excessive") are ultimately decided based on what a "reasonable person" would have believed in the situation. So if a cop shoots at you, and you "dodge" the bullet, it is possible for you both to be found not guilty of any crime. I.e., the cop can be found to have acted "reasonably" because he believed you were a violent felon and shooting you was the only way to stop you. And you can be found to have acted "reasonably" because you believed you were being subject to excessive force. While this is an interesting hypothetical, in practice of course by the time a cop is shooting at you you are almost certainly going to be charged with resisting arrest. Or, if the cop fired in self-defense (rather than to effect an arrest) you will be charged with a number of far more serious crimes (starting with felony assault, reckless endangerment, and going on from there...).

Autoresponders and GDPR - do they comply with the law?

Would it be GDPR compliant to have an autoresponder request opt-in permission? For example, a customer makes an enquiry by sending an email to the company in question. The company in question then sends the customer an automated email confirming receipt of their enquiry and inviting them to join a mailing list via an opt-in button.

Would it be GDPR compliant to have an autoresponder request opt-in permission? Yes. This case is specifically covered by Article 6 (1) b: processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract Here the "contract" is the agreement to be on the mailing list.

Is it legally acceptable to make a videogame adaptation of a gameshow?

Would it be allowed if I adpated the game shows ideas into a virtual based game and still use its original name. It is not a stand alone game its more of a single server however I could to set it up where I could accept donations or someone could purchase in game vanities. So my question is, 1 is it legal to even host a server based off the game show?, 2 If yes then am I allowed to accept donations from players if they were to donate? Also for reference I wanted to make a Garry's mod server based off of Big Brother

No. The name of the show and many other elements of the show would be protected by trademark and quite possibly by copyright as well. Your work would be a derivative work of the television show in all likelihood and hence barred by copyright law. Unless the game is patented, basic concepts and ideas embedded in the game cannot be protected as intellectual property, but you would have to divorce the concepts from the implementation in the show a great deal to prevent it from being a derivative work for copyright purposes.

Why can judges not set aside jury verdicts of acquittal?

Would it be correct to say that the reason why judges do not have power to set aside a jury verdict of acquittal in a criminal case is precisely that that would violate a right to a trial by jury? Would there be other reasons besides that?

Criminal conviction by a judge after acquittal by a jury would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment. A criminal conviction involves both a finding of fact and the application of the law, and a judge (unless this is a bench trial) doesn't find facts, he makes judgements of law. Overturning an acquittal after a jury trial would thus be in essence a whole new trial (moreover one where the defendant was not given a renewed opportunity to defend himself).

14th Amendment and citizenship

Would it be fair to say that the 14th Amendment had the effect of simplifying laws pertaining to citizenship in the U.S.A.? Can the contrasts between the nature of citizenship before and after the 14th Amendment be briefly summarized?

The primary intention of the 14th, and its largest effect, was of course to confer citizenship on blacks, particularly the former slaves. But it also constitutionalized the rule of "birthright citizenship" (aka jus soli ), and removed any bars based on national origin or ethnicity. Prior to the 14th, naturalization was a federal matter, and Congress could make what rules it pleased. But citizenship for natives was a matter of state law, or largely of unwritten common law, although after Dred Scott v. Sandford , 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) blacks who were former slaves or whose ancestors had been slaves could not be made citizens. The common law of England had long held that anyone born in the domains of the king was a subject, and the US followed that rule generally, in most states without ever reducing it to a statute. But state legislatures had the power to change that rule if they chose to. In March 1790, Congress passed “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” which established that children born to American men abroad or at sea were still considered “natural born citizens.” It also provided rules and procedures for those who immigrated to become citizens, providing: That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within . . . the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen.” Such would-be citizens had also to prove possession of “good character” and swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution. The details were changed from time to time, but the general nature of the requirements remained unchanged all through the 18th and 19th centuries. In the 1844 New York case Lynch v. Clarke , a court held that a daughter born in New York state to Irish parents was considered a U.S. citizen, even though her parents returned to Ireland. [B]y the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. . . . The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. The only standard which then existed . . . was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. So that rule ( jus soli ) was not in practice changed much by the 14th, but it was made explicit and unchangeable except by later amendment. Laws on naturalization remain subject to Congressional action, and have been changed at various times. See also this question here and its answers.

Under what conditions could a police force enlist the help of a minor?

Would it be illegal for a fourteen year old to assist the police in solving a murder in New York City? What kind of red tape would the department need to navigate in order to enlist their help?

There are various ways in which a minor cannot assist a police investigation, and it might be useful to say in what ways any civilian could do so (TV shows notwithstanding). A civilian cannot conduct a custodial interrogation, nor can most of them gather physical evidence (so that a proper evidence log is maintained including relevant information on method of collection, the evidence isn't contaminated etc. – stuff that requires a modicum of training). They cannot execute a search warrant. On the other hand, anyone can provide information that is useful to the police, and it can be done without giving your name or indicating that you are a minor. A minor can serve as a witness at a trial, and it can be helpful to police to know that they have a witness to a crime. A minor can also be used the same way an adult is used, as a confidential informant. There is not a lot of data on that practice given the confidentiality of juvenile records, but there is an article to read ( "Juvenile Police Informants: Friendship, Persuasion, and Pretense" . The article does suggest that parental consent may be necessary in some cases (such as wearing a wire to a drug transaction). There is a law in Washington requiring every county's prosecutor to have a local protocol for using informants, and there should be guidelines developed by a work group, however the results (if any) of that group's meetings are not available on the internet. It is possible that there are specific restrictions on the use of minors as informants in some jurisdiction. The article explores the subtle distinction between "informant" and "friend", applied to minors. California has a law that limits the use of minors – none under 15, those above with approval of a judicial officer and parent, though those 13 and older can be used as bait in a cigarette or alcohol sales case. New York does not have a blanket prohibition against using a minor as an informant, but there may be relevant guidelines for a particular department.

Distributing my own sexual photographs as a child?

Would it be illegal to distribute sexual photographs of myself as a child for free or in exchange for money given that I am an adult now?

The US child porn law is Chapter 110 of Title 18 . It refers to a "minor", defined as anyone under 18. Sexually explicit conduct is defined, which you can read about. Regarding distribution (not production), 18 USC 2252 (A)(1) identifies as an offender anyone who knowingly transports or ships using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mails, any visual depiction, if— (A) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) such visual depiction is of such conduct; "Affecting interstate commerce" is a term of legal art that means "doing, at all", which relates the law to the Commerce Clause and givers the federal government jurisdiction. There is a big interstate trade in child porn, and absolutely restricting distribution of child porn is part of what's necessary to regulate this form of interstate commerce (see Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) : "affecting interstate commerce" can be found even when a farmer grown wheat for home consumption). There is no overriding of the law in case the minor is now an adult, and there is no overriding of the law if the producer, purchaser or distributor is the child in the porno. The core prohibition is 18 USC 2251 , and distribution is covered in (d)(1), which defines the person to be punished as one who knowingly makes, prints, or publishes, or causes to be made, printed, or published, any notice or advertisement seeking or offering— (A) to receive, exchange, buy, produce, display, distribute, or reproduce, any visual depiction, if the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and such visual depiction is of such conduct; or (B) participation in any act of sexually explicit conduct by or with any minor for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct;

Illegal to sell textbook notes?

Would it be illegal to sell notes that I have made using my own reading and understanding of a textbook and nothing else (like nothing from lectures of classes (they were all online so there were no lectures)). I'm assuming it would be illegal if I were to copy images from the textbook but if my notes were snippets of the singular textbook and what I find to be important information, of which are mostly notes that I've written verbatim, would that be illegal and considered as a condensed version of the textbook? If so, if I were to cite the textbook would I then be able to profit from my notes?

Your re-explanation of the subject matter is your own literary product, which you have the exclusive right to profit from and distribute. You may copy portions of other works as part of such a work, under the fair use provisions in the US, which would allow you to copy a limited amount of the text for illustrative purposes. There is a ballpark figure of "under 10%", under the "substantiality" factor. On the other hand, you cannot freely copy "the heart of a work", in case the heart of the work is less than 10% of the whole work. It also depends on what kind of a work the original is (science textbook vs. literature).

Would it be legal for a bystander to use force to prevent an abortion in Texas?

Would it be legal for a bystander to use deadly force to prevent a doctor from committing an abortion in Texas?

No. Under Texas Penal Code Title 2 Subchapter A , one of three three conditions must be true to use the defense-of-others defense, that the person against whom force is used unlawfully and with force entered the person's residence, vehicle of business (not applicable), or attempted to forcibly remove the person from same (idem), or attempted aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Abortion is not statutorily murder in Texas, even if it is illegal.

Using student directory photos

Would it be legal for me to download all of the student images that appear in my university's directory and post them on a website? The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects students' education records such that an institution may only release information found in a student's records with permission of the student. However, the one exception is directory information; institutions are free to release a student's directory information unless the student explicitly restricts its access. Since the university has given me access to the directory information some of its students, doesn't that imply that these students have not restricted access to their information and that I may freely partake?

As someone who is not a lawyer, but is familiar with FERPA and university policies as a former instructor, I would be more than willing to bet that you signed or otherwise agreed to some type of Terms of Service before being given access to that type of service. There are almost certainly numerous things you signed to become a student, as well as various policies you agreed to in first gaining access to the computer services, which would apply here. I can tell you with certainty that the school where I was a student had a policy that I agreed to that they would make certain information available to other students unless I chose for it to be restricted. However, my university did not have any photos of students that were viewable by other students in a directory. That said, there were also times I participated in extra-curricular activities where I was required to sign release forms giving the school the rights to video tape, record, and photograph me, and to do what they wished with those things. So, with that in mind, I suspect that's partly due to FERPA restrictions, but also largely due to their own privacy policies that go beyond what FERPA requires. All in all, I doubt they would be okay with you using their photos for your own private use - student privacy is something that is taken very seriously.

Would it be legal to hold this sign up outside the White House or another government building?

Would it be legal for me to hold up this sign in front of the White House, the Capitol, or the SCOTUS building? MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN

Yes The case you want to know about is Cohen v. California : A young man was arrested for wearing a jacket with the words "Fuck the Draft" and SCOTUS decided, that that was First Amendment-protected speech and the arrest illegal. The phrase מנא מנא תקל ופרסין is in Akkadian or Aramaic language but Hebrew script (as opposed to the Akkadian Cuneiform) and can be transcribed as Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin. It is also known in German as "Menetekel" or in English as the "Writing on the wall". It stems from the biblical episode of Belshazzar's feast . Literally, the text would be read as "counted, counted, weighed, distributed". Its meaning elaborated in Daniel 5 is generally understood as "Your days are numbered; Your days are numbered; You have been measured and found wanting; Your kingdom will fall and be divided". While stemming from religious texts, in the depicted situation it is more likely meant as political speech, and in that fashion indistinguishable from a flag . It also does not call for imminent lawless action - the so-called Brandenburg Test after Brandenburg v Ohio - and thus remains in the protected speech area. Remember, that even preaching genocide can be First amendment protected , as long as that line of imminent lawless action is not overstepped. As this phrase does neither, it is protected speech.

Can I use a recorded phone call as evidence in a federal court case if I'm a participant in the conversation (in two single-party consent states)?

Would it be legal for me to record a phone call, without the other party’s explicit knowledge or consent that it was being recorded beforehand, as long as I, a participant in the conversation, consent to it being recorded, to use as evidence in a federal court case if both calls were made in single party consent states (i.e., from Texas, Connecticut, South Dakota, etc)?

There are two distinct legal questions lurking in this question. One, in a conversation on the phone between someone in a single party consent state and a two party consent state, is it legal for the single party consent state participant to record the conversation. Second, assuming for the sake of argument that the recording was made illegally, it is admissible in evidence in a civil lawsuit in federal court. I'll answer only the second piece. There is not an automatic exclusionary rule to exclude the admission of evidence illegally obtained by a private individual in a federal civil lawsuit in the way that such evidence would be automatically excluded from evidence in a criminal case if it was obtained illegally by law enforcement. Instead, the court applies a balancing test on a case by case basis, weighing the circumstances that render the obtaining of the evidence illegal against the probative value of the evidence to establishing a disputed evidentiary fact in the case. The federal judge has fairly wide discretion to admit or exclude illegally obtained evidence in a federal civil lawsuit.

Reproducing content from catalogues

Would it be legal in the U.S. to reproduce the content of catalogues of certain stores, with my own design and formatting, while directing people to those stores? Would there be a difference between publishing online or not? Would there be a difference whether sourcing from the web or not? Part 2: If it is legal, would it also be legal to charge for the reproduced content?

The content of these catalogs is almost certainly copyrighted by the companies who produced them. Using that content without permission is going to be a violation of the copyright laws in the USA and many other places. I don't see how any interpretation of fair-use applies to your stated scenario.

Is it illegal to have an app that allows 2 friends to “bet” on a sporting event if money is not involved?

Would it be legal in the US to have an app that allows 2 friends to “bet” on a sporting event if there is no exchange of money? Instead, the users would simply accumulate points if they win the bet? Also, there would be no notion of odds. Finally, Players could choose to “bet” on the promise of doing something, like washing the winners car.

Gambling is the wagering of something of value Worthless tokens, like “points”, are not something of value so that’s not gambling. Car washing and other chores are things of value (a market for them exists) and so this is gambling. That said, gambling is not necessarily illegal. Some jurisdictions make certain types of gambling illegal in certain circumstances . For example, it’s illegal to run a two-up school outside a licensed casino, except on Anzac Day when they can be held in any licensed hotel or club. You would need to know what laws apply to gambling where your “2 friends” are. That said, most jurisdictions are unlikely to be interested in prosecuting private wagers otherwise every elementary school child would be in jail for saying “I bet you ...”

Clicking ads as a form of protest or boycott

Would it be legal to click on ads on the internet, as a form of protest or boycott, making the advertisers waste time, money, or resources for something that you are not actually interested in? What exactly would make it legal or illegal, and why? Would there be a difference if such a thing was done by a single person privately, or if it was promoted publicly? Some examples of what I mean: John Doe hates McDonald's, for whatever ethical reason (maybe he's against junk food, meat, etc.). He therefore decides to click on every McDonald's advertisement he comes across (links, banners, YouTube ads, etc.). Note that McDonald's probably spends money every time somebody clicks on one of those ads, and that John Doe is not interested in buying anything from McDonald's. John Doe hates McDonald's. He decides to do what is described in point #1, but he will also promote such behavior, hoping that more people will do the same. The goal is to get as much people as possible to boycott McDonald's by clicking the ads. John Doe hates online advertising in general, for whatever ethical reasons (maybe he thinks that it is based on an unethical business model, it degrades the internet, etc.). He decides to begin clicking on ads at random, whenever he feels like it, even though he's not interested in the advertised product at all. He also decides to start a movement called JDCA (John Doe Clicks Ads) to promote such behavior, maybe even suggesting that programmers should write plugins to automate such behavior. Jurisdictions I'm interested in: US and EU.

No, it's not illegal... Ads are shown as a contract between the site that hosts it and the advertising company. The contract does not stipulate that customers need to buy something, in fact, the contract can't force the customer to buy anything! At best, the contract can pay the hosting site based on the ad being shown, clicked, or any sale made after it. ...but you will do exactly the opposite Advertizement is made to put your own brand into the head of people. In fact, most ads don't have any effect on people. As I am writing this, ads for a kid TV, travels to Turkey and the primetime films for the weekend on the TV-station I have on are shown. I have no intention of consuming any of these advertised products. Impact of a campaign is measured by two metrics: people reached, and people responding. People reached is measured in clicks. People responding is measured in changes in earnings or sales. Clicking the ad increases the reached rating. If the rating is bad, the ad campaign is just ineffective... which leads to the most paradoxical thing: Bad advertisement and good advertisement both lead to more advertisement - bad to level out the missing response, good to maximize the response. By clicking on the ad you just funnel more money to the ad industry. When does it get illegal? [DDOS] The only way it would become illegal is if John Doe sets up a computer - or rather a botnet - and has that network click the ads thousands of times per second. Google can handle easily 83,000 searches per second , twitter gets more than 9000 tweets that are distributed to millions of people, Tumbler and Instagram handle together about 2500 posts per second. In fact, every second, more than 100000 Gigabytes of traffic run through the net. To have an impact on one site, you need to be truly a large number of calls... and then it is called a DDOS . DDOS is illegal under the CFAA , in this case 18 UC 1030 : (a)Whoever— (5) (A)knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; (b)Whoever conspires to commit or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section. In the UK, you'd break the Computer Misuse Act of 1990 section 3 , because denying someone else service via DDOS is unauthorized, clearly unauthorized, and prevents access to any data (the website) on any computer (the server): (1)A person is guilty of an offence if— (a)he does any unauthorised act in relation to a computer; (b)at the time when he does the act he knows that it is unauthorised; and (c)either subsection (2) or subsection (3) below applies. (2)This subsection applies if the person intends by doing the act— (b)to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer But can a DDOS be protest? [NO!] Anonymous attempted to petition to make DDOS a legal form of protest in 2013 . The petition got 6,048 of the 25000 signatures needed to warrant an answer by the white house - unlike people in 2016 asking for a Death Star . At least it prompted Joshua I. James to write a research paper about the proposal in March . He too points to the CFAA and Section 5A, especially the sentence I quoted above. Among a lot of stipulations, he points out that internet protest in the shape of a DDOS would need to follow the same rules as a legal protest on the streets - which for example demands that entrance to businesses can't be blocked, and one is not allowed to harass employees and customers. According to the general rules for legal protest as given, there are still a number of challenges. First and foremost, entrances to businesses should not be blocked. In terms of DDoS, if sustained denial of service takes place, then access (entrance) to the server (business)is effectively blocked. This means that, at a minimum, sustained denial of service should be considered as a non-legal approach to protesting. Thus, he concludes sustained DDOS is per se can't be a legal protest, and even a non-sustained DDOS would impact people using the site in a way they will deem harassing - which means that even a non-permanent DDOS can't be a legal protest. And then comes the final blow: DDOS, unlike a real protest on the streets, can't, by its very nature, inform people of why there is protest, even if it were a form of protest! This means that nobody knows it is meant to be a protest and not a normal DDOS, and as it can't convey what the action is about, it can't be a proper protest.

For non-commercial research purposes is it legal to collect images using Google and Bing?

Would it be legal to collect images from Google and Bing and then use them within non-commercial research. These images would never be redistributed and during the research be converted into data that cannot be reversed engineered into the old image. (or any image of sorts)

It looks like copyright infringement, unless you can defend your use as fair use. But you would have to defend such usage in court, therefore you should hire an attorney specializing in copyright litigation to get a more detailed analysis. The nuisance value of getting sued might dissuade you; but who would sue you? Probably the photographer(s) / artists: it's not clear what Google and Bing have to do with this. On the one hand, you aren't just copying a little bit of the protected work, you're taking the whole thing. On the other hand, the nature of your use (non-commercial research) is in favor of fair use, idem effect on market and the "transformative" nature of your work.