Is the term &quot;commercial purposes&quot; defined in Indian law? For example in various laws related purchase of machinery and consumer rights , Intelectual property / patent or in extreme cases pornography or the term &quot;for commercial purpose&quot; is used. has this been defined ? the laws I skimmed through haven't defined this so far. but someone said that even selling something at a low price means commercial i.e selling IP designs or code at less than you would earn or sharing freely available files for a price i.e as a bet (if you found some good files for me , I will give you X rupees) is this true ? edit;; skimming through another law that uses this term is ironically the POCSO Act whoever posseses or stores sexual material involving child for commercial purpose there is also the Comepetition Act which is a market law
No. &quot;Commercial Purposes&quot; is not defined by statute, but it is by case law and rests on the particular circumstances in each case: In the case of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G Industrial Institute, the Supreme Court held that whether goods bought by a person are for a ‘commercial purpose’ is a question of fact and it should be decided by taking into account all the facts and circumstances in each case. The Supreme Court further observed that if the goods have been used by the purchaser himself for commercial use then he would be considered to be a consumer under this Act but if that person does not use the good himself and engages some other person to operate that particular good then such person will not come under the ambit of the definition of ‘consumer’. Source
The relevant section of US patent law was already posted in an answer on one of the questions you linked, but I'll repeat it: 35 USC 271 (a): Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent. Merely making a patented invention is infringement; it isn't relevant whether you sell it. It is also infringement if you use it yourself, regardless of who made it or whether you paid them, or whether you would have otherwise bought it from the patent holder. There are some special exceptions for things like certain kinds of pharmaceuticals, but I browsed the rest of 35 USC Chapter 28, and didn't see anything that would appear to be relevant in this case.
Udemy claims that all the videos and course content are copyrighted, but does that also hold for the material of the course? Yes, all the material is copyrighted. Ideas are not, material and content is. it would be really useful to me if I could take a large part of that code ... I want to know if I am allowed, by the law, to use this code for commercial purposes, or is it protected as the intellectual property? Yes, it is protected, specifically it has copyright applied and you may only use it if the license it is distributed under allows you to - in some cases this may be a permissive license, or the code may be obtainable legitimately from another source under a permissive license, in which case its usable. But in many cases, it may not be distributed under a permissive license or indeed any license, and in such cases you will not be permitted to use it. The license under which the code is released depends on the individual course, and in many cases the source code repository or download site for the code for the course. Check their for a license.
The question is not one of copyright law or trademark law, neither of which apply. Instead, it is a question of a common law right of publicity, which in India is recognized in some circumstances, but is not well developed and has many gaps that courts will have to resolve as cases are presented to them. The right of publicity is largely a right to sue if another person without permission profits commercially from someone's likeness without their consent and it is unclear to what extent, if any, it encompasses a right to control the use of one's own image otherwise. It is not in and of itself a crime, even though it is a tort which is the basis for a civil lawsuit for money damages and perhaps injunctive relief. As explained here: In India, the right of publicity is governed by common law and accrues to the celebrity’s individual persona. It is a right to a celebrity’s particular distinguishing and identifying characteristics, features, behavior, likeness, image or other unequivocal aspects. These rights are transferable and are generally used as an individual’s right to control and profit from the commercial use of his or her name, likeness, and persona. . . . The Indian Courts scrutinize the law governing publicity as a right in which an individual’s identity suffers the loss of commercial purpose. Some courts refer to the unauthorized appropriation of an individual’s identity as an invasion of the right of privacy. However, the two bodies of law can be distinguished as follows: while the right of publicity provides the individual with a property right in his or her identity, the right of privacy protects an individual from the publication of private facts that are embarrassing or intimate, or that portrayal of him or her in a false light is offensive. The right of publicity claims usually arise from the publication of information of which the public is already aware; the celebrities thrive on being known and talked about. In Sourav Ganguly v. Tata Tea ltd., Sourav Ganguly returned from an extremely successful tour of England and Tata Tea Ltd., where he was then employed to promote a tea packet, offered the consumers a chance to congratulate Sourav through a postcard which was inside each packet. The company intended to profit from his popularity and his latest success. Sourav could successfully challenge it in the Court before settling the dispute amicably. The right of publicity protects all persons’ rights from birth to death and beyond. When the right of publicity extends after death, it is called the post-mortem right of publicity. However, whether the right of publicity extends beyond life is jurisdiction specific. For example, the post mortem right of publicity has only been recently recognized in the US in California and will soon be recognized other American states too. Legal recognition of post mortem rights of publicity usually permits the deceased’s beneficiaries or heirs to control and financially benefit from the use of a deceased’s image and likeness. The news about the movie Dirty Picture having been challenged by the kin of the deceased actress Silk Smita, claiming that the movie does not depict her personality in the right spirits, is first of its kind in India. The linked examples, showing satirical portrays of a famous U.S. politician, hinge on the issue of what constitutes commercial use, as opposed to other uses. The right of publicity doctrine arose at common law when images of models were used to market consumer goods, when the models for the painting and photographs weren't paid. It has not generally been used to prohibit political cartoons or their 3D equivalent, the basic thrust of which is political commentary or satire that does not suggest endorsement by the subject of the image. In the U.S., such a broad reading of the right of publicity would probably be overcome by the very strong First Amendment protections of free speech. But while India also protects the right to free speech, it, like most former British colonies, tends to be less extreme in the extent to which other generally applicable laws and protections of other individual rights yield to free speech protections than the United States. I doubt that a right of publicity lawsuit by the individual depicted in the linked materials which appear to be basically satirical political depiction would be recognized in India, and it is likely the some of the same considerations that apply to fair use of copyrights or nominative use of trademarks without permission would inform its judgment on the scope of this common law right. But because India's common law in this area isn't very well developed it isn't possible to know with certainty how a case like this one would be evaluated by an Indian court. This said, there are a couple of caveats that should be added. First, it is easy to imagine that the 3D image is obtained by some illegal means which could be tortious (i.e. the basis for an invasion of privacy lawsuit) or criminal. The illegality in obtaining the information could arise not just from common law protections but also, for example, for statutory or contractual non-disclosure requirements. For example, if this was obtained obtained from records maintained for health or educational purposes it could violate laws providing privacy protections in those areas. Obtaining the 3D image surreptitiously and without the knowledge of the person whose image is obtained (e.g. through a secret camera in a changing room) would probably be both a crime and a tort. Second, if the 3D model were used to defraud someone, e.g., by impersonating them on a Zoom call, this would likely be both a crime and a tort under the general principles that apply to fraud in general, as a form of affirmative misrepresentation, even though it is visual rather than verbal.
The Code defines "Source of income" as: lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or paid to a representative of a tenant. There's nothing to suggest that the occupation is a relevant consideration otherwise. What it would mean is that if the occupation of a person is relevant to their source of income, it would be illegal to discriminate on that basis. I would consider occupation distinct from source of income - I could (but don't) have a family trust that is my source of income, and my occupation is volunteer work. My occupation is very clearly not my source of income.
Under the First Sale doctrine, when intellectual property is imparted to an actual physical thing, the first commercial buyer of that actual physical thing (that is made with proper intellectual property licensing or permission) is entitled to use it without further intellectual property limitations. As Wikipedia explains at the link: The first-sale doctrine (also sometimes referred to as the &quot;right of first sale&quot; or the &quot;first sale rule&quot;) is an American legal concept that limits the rights of an intellectual property owner to control resale of products embodying its intellectual property. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works (for example, enabling individuals to sell their legally purchased books or CDs to others). In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder puts the products on the market. In the case of patented products, the doctrine allows resale of patented products without any control from the patent holder. A different analysis applies if the goods when first made were already infringing. But, in practice, the aggrieved IP owner usually sues the primary infringer or an importer of the infringing goods, rather than a retail purchaser, in those case.
Probably not. The Act applies to: (1) EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION, THIS PART 13 APPLIES TO A CONTROLLER THAT: (a) CONDUCTS BUSINESS IN COLORADO OR PRODUCES OR DELIVERS COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS OR SERVICES THAT ARE INTENTIONALLY TARGETED TO RESIDENTS OF COLORADO; AND (b) SATISFIES ONE OR BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING THRESHOLDS: (I) CONTROLS OR PROCESSES THE PERSONAL DATA OF ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND CONSUMERS OR MORE DURING A CALENDAR YEAR; OR (II) DERIVES REVENUE OR RECEIVES A DISCOUNT ON THE PRICE OF GOODS OR SERVICES FROM THE SALE OF PERSONAL DATA AND PROCESSES OR CONTROLS THE PERSONAL DATA OF TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND CONSUMERS OR MORE. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1304(1). The Rules contain the following related definition: “Commercial product or service” as referred to in C.R.S. § 6-1-1304(1)(a) means a product or service bought, sold, leased, joined, provided, subscribed to, or delivered in exchange for monetary or other valuable consideration in the course of a Controller’s business, vocation, or occupation. There is no case law on point, but generally speaking a house of worship or a church is not considered a business, so it is probably not within the scope of the Act.
In the Netherlands, this qualifies as a deceptive trade practice (misleidende handelspraktijk) and is therefore directly illegal. It's likely also an unfair trade practice, (oneerlijke handelspraktijk) as the claim appears intended for end consumers. This means that the seller cannot count on the consumer knowing anythong about stuffase. It is a dutch implementation of EU directive 2005/29/EG, so similar laws apply in other EU countries. But the illegal per se part might vary.