Who legally owns Millenium Falcon now? First off, The question is an actual Earth (American version, if jurisdiction matters) legal one It was inspired by Star Wars Episode VII, "The Force Awakens" related question on SciFi.SE site. As such it contains spoilers for an important plot twist in the film, so please continue reading at your own risk. Let's pretend that Millenium Falcon is a regular, Earth human trading freighter ship, registered to US flag. It has an owner-captain (Han Solo), and a First Mate (Chewbacca) who is second in command. Both are US citizens. Question: If the owner-operator dies - and absent any specific documents like a will, or joint ownership papers - does the First Mate inherit the freighter, in preference to the "standard" inheritance chain - wife and children? (assume that the wife is alive and can claim inheritance, to avoid complicated legal fallback scenarios) If it matters, let's assume it's registered in whichever state LucasFilm (or Disney) headquarters are.
No, the first mate does not inherit If the first mate is an employee then his employment contract is terminated by the death of the principal and he would be entitled to be paid his accrued wages and entitlements only. If the Falcon was Han's only asset, the estate would have to liquidate (sell) it to meet this obligation. In most jurisdictions there would be legal and administrative costs to be settled too. Even if there was a legal partnership between the captain and the first mate that included ownership of the ship; the captain's share would pass through normal inheritance rules. The same would apply to shares in any holding company interposed between the captain/first mate and the ship. In either case Chewie would have a new partner. Where the ship is registered is irrelevant; the law governing the inheritance would be that of where the estate is domiciled. For a person of no fixed address like Han this would probably be based on his citizenship; AFAIK Corillian. If their laws are the same as NSW Australia see http://www.legalanswers.sl.nsw.gov.au/guides/wills_estates/inheritance.html. On this basis the ship passes to his spouse Leia Organa or spouses if Chewie is a de-facto spouse (there's a lot of down time in space travel).
Under Swedish copyright law, a work such as a movie is protected for 70 years after the death of the "creator". It is unclear who the copyright holder is, but it has not been 70 years since the film was made. Unless it was explicitly "released into the public domain", it is still protected, so you can get sued.
20th Century Fox have a trademark on "Simpsons." They have trademarks on "Bart Simpson", on "D'oh", on "Duff Beer". I would assume that they take their trademarks seriously. What you can't do is to use someone else's trademark to make people believe your commercial product is related to theirs. It's quite reasonable to assume that someone seeing your book in a store would think it is written by the makers of The Simpsons show and therefore buy it. Even if you say that isn't your intention, it is what would happen. I'd try coming up with some different titles, maybe "How to write animated TV shows" with "Example: The Simpsons" (well, you are the writer so you should come up with something better), and take them to a lawyer. And then contact the makers of the show (again asking the lawyer for advice how to do this) because even if your lawyer says the title is fine, that doesn't mean you can't be sued.
Actually, Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Elizabeth II are not sovereigns of any common state. QEI was sovereign of England and Wales and QEII is sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (among others). The numbering has nothing to do with the states they are sovereign over: it is familial number dating from William I (the Conquerer). It is no different from the numbering that would occur if I were named for my father and my son were named for me. Some monarchies use ordinals that include mythological kings or kings that ruled a completely different state that shared a common geography or culture, or were claimed to do so in the founding myths of a state. The only legal issue here is that the number that a monarch accepts is the legally relevant one - if the next Elizabeth decides she will be Elizabeth XVII then so she will be. There is actually a case about this relating to QEII in Scotland: A court case, MacCormick v Lord Advocate, contesting the style “Elizabeth II” within Scotland, was decided in 1953 that the numbering of monarchs was part of the royal prerogative, and that the plaintiffs had no title to sue the Crown. So, legally, she is Queen Elizabeth II in Scotland even though Scotland never had a Queen Elizabeth I. Practically, state owned assets in Scotland are not embossed with EIIR (Elizabeth II Regina) but with the crown of Scotland out of consideration of Scottish sensibilities on the matter. In any event, certainly in Australia (not sure about Canada), the head of state is the Governor General, not the Queen. You can read about they whys and wherefores here.
This is true of the merchant ships of most countries. The collection of all merchant ships bearing a nation's flag are collectively its merchant fleet. Basically, this means that German flagged merchant ships are subject to German admiralty law when on the high seas, and that German merchant ships can be conscripted to aid a war effort on behalf of Germany in times of war. Stated another more direct way, this means that in exchange for the benefits of German sovereignty for a merchant ship owner, the merchant ship owner must sign up to be eligible to have his ship drafted into the German navy in times of war. A U.S. specific description of the "merchant marine" can be found here, but the general concept that: "The Merchant Marine is the fleet of ships which carries imports and exports during peacetime and becomes a naval auxiliary during wartime to deliver troops and war materiel.", is equally applicable to the German Basic Law as used in this case. A unitary merchant fleet is the naval equivalent of an "unorganized militia" or "selective service" made up of people eligible to be drafted, but who haven't actually be called up for military service.
Copyright law is a country-by-country matter. Most countries are signatories to the Berne Convention, which provides a common framework, but there are still variations, generally in the duration of copyright or the definition of copyrightable material. According to the Hirtle chart, a video game that was first published in Europe in the year 2000 and subsequently published in the United States is still copyrighted in both the United States and whichever European countries it was published in. It is likely to be a work of corporate authorship, so the US copyright will expire on January 1, 2096 (unless a law extending the duration is passed). In the United States, the requirement to register a copyright was eliminated in 1989 as part of the Berne Convention Implementation Act; registration still provides benefits when filing a copyright-infringement lawsuit. Most European countries eliminated their registration requirements much earlier, if they had them at all: the Berne Convention dates from 1887. Copyright does not simply cease to exist when the owner does, or if the owner cannot be determined. The difficulty of tracking down copyright holders for old or little-known works is the driving force behind orphaned works legislation. There are no orphaned works laws in the United States, and since copyright is country-by-country, European laws won't help you if you're interested in publishing in the US. In order to track down the copyright holder, you'll need to figure out who originally held the copyright (probably the publisher, but it could be either development company, or both, or the game might be a collective work of the individuals who worked on it). If it was a work of corporate authorship, and none of the game-copyright sales mention it, copyright will have been transfered when the company owning the copyright was sold (as part of a general "and all intellectual property" clause).
First, copyright does not apply to "brands". Copyright exists in literary works which includes art - a picture (any picture) usually has a copyright belonging to the creator of the picture. Brands are protected by Trade Marks. To be clear: A picture of you is protected by copyright belonging to the creator The phrase "Mickey Mouse" is protected by trade mark belonging to the Disney corporation A picture of Micky Mouse is protected by copyright and trade mark. (when) would it be legally OK for me to do so without the copyright owner's permission? You can use copyright material without permission if you meet the fair use criteria in your jurisdiction. You can use trade marks if there is no risk of people confusing your goods and services with the trade mark holder's and you do not cause damage (including loss of potential income) to the trade mark holder or it is fair use (e.g. you are writing a review of a Micky Mouse cartoon). Is it legal if I do not distribute them to others at all? No, this would be OK as copyright fair use, but not as trade mark fair use. Is it legal if I give them to my family/relatives for free, e.g. as a gift? No, not fair use for either copyright or trade mark. Is it legal if I give them away to others for free (meaning I'm losing my own money on them)? No, see above. Is it legal if I sell them to others at-cost (i.e. for the same price I obtained them, meaning I'm not making any money from them)? No, see above. If the answer is "yes" to any of the above, can the copyright holder explicitly prohibit me from doing so, or would such a prohibition be unenforceable (e.g. if this would be fair use)? It isn't allowed. Yes they can stop you. No, it isn't fair use; there is no "fair use" defence for trade mark infringement here - you are depriving them of income because you are not buying their T-shirt! Any other factors that are relevant but which I'm forgetting? Will they sue you for doing these things? Probably not.
If the owner of the intellectual property leaves property subject to the jurisdiction of the state of Washington, and it is determined that the owner is dead and has no heirs, then per RCW 11.08.140 it is designated escheat property. Then the following sections specify that title to the property vests in the state. The Department of Revenue has jurisdiction over that property, which has the duty to protect and conserve the property for the benefit of the permanent common school fund. There is no general answer to the question of what would best benefit the school fund. Any form of giving it away would not benefit the school fund, at least if there was an viable option for sale / licensing. There are provisions that relate to the possibility that an heir is eventually uncovered, but I will assume that no heir ever appears. Ohio law is similar. The decendant's property escheats to the state in case there is no heir. Then under ORC 2105.07, the prosecuting attorney of the county in which letters of administration are granted upon such estate shall collect and pay it over to the county treasurer. Such estate shall be applied exclusively to the support of the common schools of the county in which collected.