Stack Exchange
log in

David Siegel

 Discussion on question by dsollen: Wo…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
David Siegel
Jan 6, 2023 18:00
I suspect state law does not regulate this one way or the other, but I have not checked.
 

 Discussion on answer by David Siegel:…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
David Siegel
Oct 20, 2022 20:39
@Kevin No. wikis of the sort described in the question are not parodies. But the are, or at least can be tools of commentary and criticism, and are no less entitled to extensive quotation in service of those purposes than TWDG was. If quotes are merely descriptive, then the case for fair use may be weaker, but that is on a case-by-case basis.
David Siegel
Oct 20, 2022 20:39
@supercat I don't know of any case in which such a statement by an author was later claimed to be a license. My guess is that it would not be treated as a license without explicit words granting permission. Copyright transfers must be in writing, but licenses need not be. Moreover, a license may be revocable unless it is explicitly stated to be permanent, (or of fixed duration) and all licenses under US law are revocable during the 5-year period starting 35 year after creation (or in some cases after publication) of a work. An implied license would probably be revocable.
David Siegel
Oct 20, 2022 20:39
@Someone If the copyright was properly registered, as is highly likely for a commercial game, statutory damages would be available. These do not require any proof of actual financial damages. Statutory damages can be in any mount between $750 and $150,000 per work infringed, although willful infringement must be proved for damages over $30,000. Also, a creator/holder who claims the rep of the work has been damaged by a low-quality fan fiction work, might be able to establish sizable damages. But statutory damages would be the likely remedy in such cases.
David Siegel
Oct 20, 2022 20:39
@supercat Some creators or holders chose to ignore fan fiction when they might sue. Some even license it. Some issue takedowns in some cases, some in almost all. Few proceed to sue if a takedown is complied with, but they lawfully could. The choice is entirely that of the copyright holder whether to sue. In many cases a suit might cost more than plausible damages. In some cases a fair use finding is likely enough to make a suit risky.
David Siegel
Oct 20, 2022 20:39
@supercat No, there is not. The presence or absence of an objection by the copyright holder (who may or may not be the creator) is irrelevant in US law, except that if the holder does not object, there will be no suit and thus no occasion for a court to rule on whether a use is a fair use. So in discussing the law of fair use, an objection is always assumed. Except in the case of sculpture where special laws apply, the creator has no legal right to object if s/he is not the holder. That would be different in the EU and elsewhere. (Moral rights.)
David Siegel
Oct 20, 2022 20:39
[...] @supercat This is not the place for discussing what changes to the law might be improvements. For the moment the law is as it is, and does not make the distinction between the types of works you seem to be suggesting. Owners may object where others find objections to uses reasonable or not, but a person making fair uses may do so regardless of any objections. This is not an abuse of the fair use concept, but an essential part of it.
David Siegel
Oct 20, 2022 20:39
@supercat The flexibility of "fair use" is n intentional legislative choice, based on the case law under the old US copyright law of 1900. There is no presumption that a copyright owner will not object to some kinds of uses. Rather the law says that any use which qualifies as fair use ids a social benefit, and the owner has no right to object. A fair use is not infringement. Infringement liability is not avoided even if an infringer takes down an infringing copy promptly. Permission not granted must be deemed refused, ther is no middle ground. [...]
David Siegel
Oct 20, 2022 20:39
@Kevin "Fair use only goes so far." That is not really correct. There is no fixed upper limit on the amount that can be copied under fair use. In the case of The Wind Done Gone (Suntrust) many entire scenes were copied verbatim, but fair use was found. There have been many cases where an entire work, such as a painting, or a film, was copied, and fair use was found, when the copying was done in connection with commentary. Extensive copying of gs\ame elements in connection with commentary on the game might (or might not) be found to be fair use. There is no telling without a court case.
 

 Discussion on question by JosephCorre…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
David Siegel
Oct 20, 2022 19:10
@ichael Hall "Every law written is an attempt to codify a moral and/or ethical standard." Nonsense Some laws do that. There is no moral/ethical std in what income levels pay what tax rate, what roads have what speed limits, What license exam a barber must pass, whether a will must be notarized, whether an electronic sig valid on a contract, how many liquor licenses a town may have , whether trademarks shall last 3, 5, or 7 years before being renewed, what the minimum lot size for a single family home is. or any of the huge number of important bu morally neutrls set by law. ,
David Siegel
Oct 20, 2022 19:10
Yes. I believe it will be called "theft of services" or some similar term.
 

 Discussion on question by abukaj: Why…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
David Siegel
Oct 13, 2022 09:32
@Trish Questions of international law and law of war are still questions of law and are on-topic here.
 

 Discussion on answer by kisspuska: Ca…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
David Siegel
Oct 12, 2022 06:39
@kisspuska What goes in the "expandable part" of the comment thread is automated based on comment size, age, and upvotes. Mods have no control over it. They can move comments to chat, however.
 

 Discussion on question by Some Guy: I…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
David Siegel
Sep 22, 2022 21:22
@kisspuska The OP did not "propose"anything. The OP ask4ed whaty the law required and permitted which is throughly on-topic here. If this question is closed on that basis, I will re-ask it myself.
David Siegel
Sep 22, 2022 21:22
That is not a good reason to close a question. I urge neveryone toi leave this question open. Like it or not race-based categories are a think in US law for anti-discrimination purposes.
 

 Discussion on answer by David Siegel:…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
David Siegel
Sep 20, 2022 20:27
@nick012000 True, but Parlimnt never confirmed Edward VI'S will on that point. Anyway most of those with power eventually supported Mary.
David Siegel
Sep 20, 2022 20:27
@Someone They were typos, thanks. It seems my edit making other fixes overrode yousr unintentionally.
 

 Discussion on question by kisspuska: …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
David Siegel
Sep 16, 2022 21:27
What does the ECOHR have to do with US Law?!
 

 Discussion on answer by David Siegel:…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
David Siegel
Sep 15, 2022 03:27
@bdsl Since no US court has ever passed ion such a law, theris no way to know. The text of the admendment says "In a manner prescribed by law" but says nothign about how detailed such a law must be. Congress could pass a law giving any military officer power to take over a dwelling by sayingf just "Under the military housing act of 2025, I take possession." That could be what the law "prescribes". Until a court hears a case based on such a law, one can't be sure.
David Siegel
Sep 15, 2022 03:27
@kisspuska I did not write, or intend to suggest, that non residences have greater protection under the 3rd A than dwellings do. I will review the answer and try to clarify it if need be What part did you think expressed that view?
David Siegel
Sep 15, 2022 03:27
@kisspuska That is possible only because there is a specific law permitting such direction by the executive. Note that Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer ruled that a plant seizure without such a law was unconstitutional. In any ae tht is on a different legal basis from "quartering" Please be moe careful about changing the intent of othere people's answers.
David Siegel
Sep 15, 2022 03:27
@ Mindwin Some recent decisions have limited Civil Forfieture a biut, requiring it to be "proportionate" to the crine
David Siegel
Sep 15, 2022 03:27
@nick012000 Eminent domain requires that the government pay "just compensation" whiuch has been held to mean a fair market price. Paying just a "token" woud not be constitutional. This provision has not always been upheld in practice, but usually it has. In any case, traditional "quartering" involved no payment to the homeowner.
 

 Room for Joseph P. and David Siegel

David Siegel
Sep 4, 2022 17:50
@JosephP. ... If this had occur-ed over on ELL I would probably be discussing with other mods whether a suspension was justified. My advice: Back off! Be extra polite in any response toi trish. If you think an answer needs a supporting cite say something liker 'Would you please add a cite to support this answer". Don't use terms such as "cowardly" or even "low-quality post" Don't repeat your points. If she is unfriedly, point that out without responding in kind.
David Siegel
Sep 4, 2022 17:45
@JosephP. I have read your statement at dpaste.org/sYioG Iam tempted 6to call it a rant. I am not going to try to go thgrolugh all your recent interactions with Trish and asses them. But it seems to me that you have been farther over the line than she has. She has seemed to me to be touchy in the past, yes. But "Have you read X" and "have you considered posting a cite" are pretty direct CoC violations.
David Siegel
Sep 4, 2022 17:38
@JosephP. When the community managers (SE employees) think a SE site could use more mods, they can schedule a moderator election. People volunteer to run. users vote. Those nwho are elected become mods. See ell.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5757/… for a recent election whewre I became a mod on ELL
David Siegel
Sep 4, 2022 17:26
@JosephP. First of all, when a single comment or chat msg is not replird to right away, posting multiple cmts to alert the intended recipient is unneeded, unhelpful, and feels to me like harassment. Please do not do this again. Secondly, posting multiple meaningless cmts to try to force s chtroom is also unhelpful. Please Don't. I hsve flsgged thod msgs as not needed
David Siegel
Sep 4, 2022 16:54
@JosephP. I am sorry that you have experienced friction. However I am not s mod on law.se. What would you like from me?
 

 Discussion on answer by David Siegel:…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
David Siegel
Aug 16, 2022 20:47
@JBH Questions about why the law is as it is are generally off topic here, the only real answer is "because the legislature said so". In some cases where the "why" is deeply embedded in legal history and an objective answer can be given, it is on-topic.
David Siegel
Aug 16, 2022 20:47
@Mazura What is the source of this quote, please?
David Siegel
Aug 16, 2022 20:47
@Eric Duminil That would depend on nthe exact facts. If there is some clear indication of a boundary, such as a fence, or perhaps a stream or road, and the "posted" or "No trespassing" signs are beyond that boundary, (but not far beyond it) trespassing would start once the person passes the boundary, not the sign.
David Siegel
Aug 16, 2022 20:47
@Someone Yes, a property is posted when appropriate signs or other markings are present, so that a person entering the property will be informed that trespassing is prohibited on that property.
David Siegel
Aug 16, 2022 20:47
@IMSOP The Maryland law reads "property that is posted conspicuously against trespass" showing that "posted" is a legal term describing property so marked. Hy-ko is a vendor of signs, showing that there is a demand for such sign, and also summarizing the laws of various states.
 

 Discussion on question by don: In whi…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
David Siegel
Aug 4, 2022 19:32
I do not see this questio as needing tighter focus or as being appropriate to close on that basis. i urge that it be left open.,
 

 Discussion on answer by David Siegel:…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
David Siegel
Aug 3, 2022 21:49
@supercat [...] If one uses someone else's work without permission in a way which is not fair use, the owner may choose to bring suit and might get a judgement. If the infringer ceases to use the work on getting a demand letter (C&D) the owner will often not choose to bring suit, and may get reduced damages if suit is brought. But such use is infringement, and once infringement has occurred, the owner may proceed with a suit if s/he chooses to.
David Siegel
Aug 3, 2022 21:45
@supercat Legally a Cease&desist letter is just a request backed by a threat of legal action, it has no legal force of its own. If a use of content is in fact a fair use, it is not an infringement and neither a demand letter nor an actual suit will have any legal effect. However, one never really knows if a use is a fair use until a court rules on the issue. [...]
David Siegel
Aug 3, 2022 19:06
@supercat "Copyright infringement is a strict liability offense, meaning “intent or knowledge is not an element of infringement.” Fitzgerald Publ'g. Co. v. Baylor Publ'g. Co., 807 F.2d 1110, 1113 (2d Cir. 1986). I think this disposes of any idea that some infringements thst do not qualify as fair uses but are of tiny economic value are automatically allowed by a de minimis exception.
David Siegel
Aug 3, 2022 18:21
@supercat @supercat, Please consider the new thread at law.stackexchange.com/questions/82774/…
David Siegel
Aug 2, 2022 22:37
@supercat [...] fair use will be found when a quite diferent work would have served the purpose. I think you are inventing law out of nothing, and you are neither a judge nor a legislator to do that. If I am wrong, please cite case law on the point. Or at least tell us where you got this idea. It may be worth a new question.
David Siegel
Aug 2, 2022 22:37
@supercat "a key requirement of fair use is that the reproduced material serve some legitimate purpose which could not be served without it." I have no idea where you got mtht idea. Ther isa nothign like in in 17USC 107, and I have not seen anything of thge sort in any caselaw on fair use that I have read. The purpose of the4 use is significant, but nothing imposes a requirement of "essential". In your example the paintign mmight well be fair use in a vid about the city. There is some caselaw that comment on the work is important to fair use, but often [...]
David Siegel
Aug 2, 2022 22:37
@supercat. Yes it is a general principle. That does not mean that it is an invariable principle, or applies in all situations. It does not apply when a law imposes strict liability, or makes the consequence subject to the court's judgement aa to what seems just. If the entity doesn't want to bother assessing license requests, they can issue a permissive license subject to whatever conditions or limitations they think fit, and have no need to review applications. Thwire choicce, not the infringer's.
David Siegel
Aug 2, 2022 22:37
@supercat There is nothing in copyright law that immunizes a "trivial" quantity of infringement. If the action does not qualify as fair use, the court can impose whatever amount of statutory damages it thinks just,(within the limits set by law) and may do so even where there is no provable monetary damages, Yes damages = $0.00. There is no threshold dollar amount that entitles a plaintiff to damages. A proven infringement is enough. "but is not meant to imply that someone who can show $0.0001 of actual damages should be entitled to $750" This is not correct. Any infringement is enough
David Siegel
Aug 2, 2022 22:37
@Neil Meyer Yes that idea is common on the net. I am not sure why, possibly because people think the sole purpose is to "protect the revenue" for the owner, and one who makes no money is not harming the owner. and one who makes no money is not harmign the owner. Also, owners often do not bother to sue non-commercial infringers. It is, of course still infringement even if no money is made, unless fair use applies.
David Siegel
Aug 2, 2022 22:37
@Richard I didn't know the figures but am not surprised. But lots of people enjoy games, often esp games they played in the past. Not nearly so many enjoy playing with old OSs, and there are not so many games for with Win95 is required support.
David Siegel
Aug 2, 2022 22:37
A copyright holder always needs to decide whether it i worth the time, effort, and money required to bring and infringement suit. It can choose to ignore an apparent infringement. If it does, no legal action will be taken by nyone.
 

 Discussion on question by Charles: GD…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
David Siegel
Jul 18, 2022 17:26
@Charles GDPR obligations will not be any different for a sole proprieties as opposed to an LLC, and not much different for a large corporation.
 

 Discussion on answer by Trish: Copyri…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
David Siegel
Jul 15, 2022 18:42
If one makes a hash of a protected work, to serve as a unique identifier of that work, I suspect that hash would either not be treated as a derivative at all, or would be considered to be a fair use. I don't know of a case on-point for this, however.
David Siegel
Jul 15, 2022 18:42
For example if one takes the text of a creative work, and XORs it with a truly random byte-stream, the result is also a random string, and no meaningful trace of the original remains (if the random input is not preserved). Such an output would not be a derivative work, even though it depends on the input work at every point. More reasonably, artists have started with an image but so mixed and transformed it that no visible trace of the original remains. In such a case the output will not usually be considered derivative.
David Siegel
Jul 15, 2022 18:42
@phoog True. What I said is that the output of an irreversible process is not a copy. Note that a new copyright depends on originality not creativity. An unoriginal and uncreative derivative work may still be infringement, but a work so modified that no trace of the original can be discerned would not normally be treated as a derivitive work,
David Siegel
Jul 15, 2022 18:42
If the algorithm is not reversible, the output is not a copy. A hash, for example, is not a copy of the file being hashed.