Can the &quot;de minimis non curat lex&quot; rule render actions that are otherwise illegal, legal? My understanding is that the rule can be used in court to strike down actions in court. I was wondering whether it might also perhaps be used legitimately by someone, outside of a court case, and apart from a court ruling, to determine that an action that would otherwise be considered illegal, was in fact lawful, in a legal positivistic sense, by virtue of this rule. For example, perhaps it's the case that photocopying a page of a book, in a particular situation, would be considered to be a copyright crime without the use of the rule. Is it then the case that the rule might be able to be invoked, to say that the photocopying is perfectly lawful? Or is it perhaps alternatively the case that the &quot;de minimis non curat lex&quot; rule throws no comment on the legality of the photocopying, and that the rule can only be used to determine unenforceability in a court of law?
The maxim &quot;de minimis non curat lex&quot; is not so much of a rule as a guideline. It essentially says that when a court considers a matter too trivial to bother with, it can simply dismiss the case. It also constitutes advice not to make a legal case over trivial matters. It always involves judgement over what is or is not trivial in a particular context. It does not ever change the law. For example, perhaps it's the case that photocopying a page of a book, in a particular situation, would be considered to be a copyright crime without the use of the rule. Is it then the case that the rule might be able to be invoked, to say that the photocopying is perfectly lawful? Photocopying a single page of a book is very unlikely to be a crime. Under US law the government must prove intentional copying of works for personal financial gain with a total retail value of at least $1,000 (and in practice criminal charges are not brought unless unlawful copies are made in bulk as a business). I have not found the exact monetary lower limit of criminal copyright infringement in England and Wales, but I am confident that a single page of a book would not qualify. Beyond that UK law specifically provides for fair dealing. This allows one to lawfully make a copy or use copyrighted materiel for, among other purposes: Private and research study purposes. Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes. Criticism and news reporting. Incidental inclusion. Copies and lending by librarians. Caricature, parody or pastiche. (Source: &quot;UK Copyright Law: Fact sheet P-01&quot; If making a copy of a page of a book did not fall within the scope of fair dealing, then it might be an actionable tort, and if the copyright owner choose to peruse it, the maxim would not automatically lead to a dismissal, although it could form part of an argument for dismissal. If such dismissals occur routinely, a legal realist might say that showed that such copying was not in fact covered by the law, but most legal theorists would not put it that way. (Legal realists generally take the view that the actual law is what courts actually enforce, not what is on the statute books or even what is described in court opinions.)
It is legal to be wrong, it is legal to say false things in public (leaving out defamation), and it is legal to buy and manufacture signs that say false things. Moreover, the sign does not make a false statement, in that legal liability is distinct from moral responsibility. In fact, the sign helps to decrease their legal liability. Via this sign, you have been put on notice that the truck may spray a bit of gravel, so by following too closely, you are negligently contributing to the damage. This is what also underlies those disclaimer signs with "not responsible for theft from your auto". There is nothing "official in appearance" about this sign (a legal citation of a statute might have such an appearance).
If the tool circumvents Windows' copy protection (which is a computer question, not a legal one, but I cannot imagine a circumstance in which this isn't access-circumvention), then it is a violation of 17 USC 1201, which forbids &quot;circumvent[ing] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title&quot;. It is both illegal to use, and to &quot;manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic&quot; in such a program.
Both Bob and Charles are liable for infringement in the US. The fact that Charles had no idea that Bob was an infringer is not a defense, but it mitigates the statutory damages consequences for him. Either party can negotiate with Alice after the fact for a license, and Alice can grant either party but not the other permission to copy. The terms of the license that Alice gives Bob could either allow CCo reposting, or some more restrictive redistribution right. If the license requires a notice prohibiting further redistribution and Bob omits that notification, Bob will have breached the terms of the license in omitting the notification, so we're back to square 1. If Alice fails to specify a no-redistribution notification condition on Bob's reposting, Alice may have granted an implied license to the world, a matter which has to be determined by the courts.
Making a profit does not make the act illegal: it is illegal without there being any profit. The act of copying without permission is what makes the act illegal. Profit might maybe enter into the matter if you are talking about the "fair use" defense, since certain kinds of works can be partially copied for certain purposes. You could quote a few lines from a novel in a review, for instance. The judgment of whether a given act of copying without permission is allowed under fair use is complex and involves a balancing act. Profit becomes relevant in that a non-profit use favors fair use and a for-profit use disfavors it. Wholesale copying of works of art as you describe is illegal (is infringement). However... "illegal" is a pretty broad concept. If you infringe on my intellectual property, you almost certainly will not suffer any consequences unless I sue you. Taking "illegal" to mean "in violation of the law", infringing copyright is illegal because it violates the law, but I have to make a federal case out of your infringement – I have to sue you. As it happens, it can also be a crime to infringe copyright, and in that case, the government and not the copyright holder pursues the matter. If a person knowingly infringes copyright, he might be prosecuted, thus the Megaupload case which in the US is realized in the indictment US v. Dotcom. Moreover, profit motive is a required element for criminal infringement. (Also note that you don't have to actually make a profit for the profit element to be present). You cannot sue a person unless they have harmed you, so if you know that Smith copied Jones' work you can't sue Smith for harming Jones. (This is what they call "standing"). You might sue Smith, but not for infringement itself. If they sold you an illegal infringing copy, then you could sue. Or, their infringement could diminish the value of your legal copy. This website gives a multi-nation overview of criminal copyright infringement laws.
Almost all works recorded in some fixed way that are not a couple of hundred years old or created by a government agency are protected by copyright. In the absence of an exception to the general rule, copying a work that is protected by copyright is copyright infringement, which can be a basis for the copyright owner to sue the infringer. This can also be a basis for criminal liability is certain additional elements are proved and a prosecutor proves a case of copyright infringement in a criminal case. But, there are some important exceptions to this general rule of what constitutes legally sanctionable copyright infringement. The most important exceptions to the general rule have the character of affirmative defenses. In order words, if someone sued for copyright infringement and the person sued admits that they copied the copyright protected work, they can use these exceptions to avoid having legal liability. One of the exceptions is the permission from the copyright owner to use the copyright work. This can be either in the form of affirmatively given permission to use the copyrighted work in a particular way (called an &quot;express license&quot; to use the copyrighted work), or in the form of permission to use the copyrighted work that can be inferred from context (called an &quot;implied license&quot; to use the copyrighted work). Another of the main exceptions is &quot;fair use&quot;. If the way a copy of a copyrighted work is used constitutes fair use, the person using the copyrighted work without an express or implied license to do so it not liable for copyright infringement. Of course, while you don't need more than one exception to the general rule to avoid liability for copyright infringement, you can have more than one. For example, you can use copyrighted work in a way that would constitute &quot;fair use&quot; and not give rise to liability for that reason if you were sued, even if you can't be sued anyway because you already have been given permission by the owner of the copyright to use the copyright in the way that you did. It isn't a case of a contradiction. It is a case of a general rule that has exceptions.
"Educational use" does not get a free pass on the law against circumventing copy-protection. First, "educational use" is extremely broad and could include "to post on Stackexchange", or "so that I can learn something". The cited clause specifically limits this exception to "A nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution" – the library must be nonprofit, and the archive or educational institution may also need to be nonprofit (until the courts fix the ambiguity in the scope of "nonprofit"). Second, the circumvention has to be very limited: the purpose must be only to evaluate the work, to see if you want to legally acquire it. So a nonprofit library can peek into a work to see if they want to buy a copy, but you may not. The only thing the library can do is evaluate the work for legal acquisition, and they have to get rid of the pirated copy once they've made the decision. Additionally (other parts of the subsection say), they can't do this is there is an equivalent legal copy available (e.g. if there's a print book available, they can't hack into the e-book to "determine" whether they want the book), and w.r.t. libraries and archives they must be open to the public.
Who knows. It doesn't matter. 17 USC 102 lists the kinds of things protectable by copyright under US law. These are: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works. A landscape feature is none of these and is not subject to copyright protection under US law, nor I think under the law of any other country. The &quot;copyright notice&quot; has no legal effect. 17 USC 120 Specifically prohibits copyright being used to prevent the taking of pictures of a building from a public place. In many countries Freedom of panorama (FOP) specifically permits publication of photos taken from public places. Se also this article on FOP. FOP is an exception to copyright protection, which applies to copyrighted architectural works and publicly posted works of art, such as sculptures. Since landscape features are not copyrightable at all, FOP does not strictly apply to them, but all the arguments for FOP would apply to them even more strongly. In US Law, particularly under the Fiest vs Rural case, only works with original content, created by a person, are protected by copyright. (Other countries generally have similar limits on copyright.) But a feature of the landscape is not the original creation of any person. (If someone carved the landscape into a designed shape, it might be protect able as a sculpture.) 3 and 4. If it were a building, you could take pictures of it from a public place or a private place where you have a legal right to be, under 17 USC 120 . But since a part of the landscape is not protected by copyright at all, this is not really relevant. No under the US First amendment there is generally a right to say even false things. But if the landowner attempts to enforce this &quot;copyright&quot; it would be considered frivolous and any court proceeding would be promptly tossed out. The sign gives the landowner no rights s/he would not otherwise have.