Who, if anyone, owns the copyright to mugshots in the United States? In the United States, who, if anyone, owns the copyright to mugshots (or perhaps any &quot;work&quot;, if the principles generalize) produced by federal, state, or local employees? If there is too much variation to cover exhaustively in a single answer, a general description of that variation or a few examples would be great.
The Mugshot was most likely made by a state employee in the course of their work. Employees don't get a copyright for works from their work but their employers do so generally, as that is work for hire. However, the government is different: The US government specifically can't have any copyright from works of its employees. They are public domain. 17 USC 101 &amp; 105 State governments are a little different. Technically they could be copyrighted unless they are laws and edicts, but states might disclaim such: Arizona employees make Arizona copyrighted works. California works require public access and are public domain unless the state specifically authorizes a work to be copyrighted. Florida and its employees can't have copyright in government works unless they specifically make a law that carves a work out from this beforehand. Indiana employees make technically copyrighted works, but they can't restrict use by obtaining a license or fee in any way under IC 5-14-3, making them quasi-public domain. A public domain image can be done with whatever you want. No strings attached, no rights of rightsholders violated. However, not everything made on behalf of the government is made by the government: Contractors do have the copyright in the first place, and then can assign it to a government, which does not make a work public domain.
Yes, a licensee of Sketchfab is only required to cooperate with this audit process because it was agreed to in a contract. Copyright law does not (in the US, or anywhere else that I know of) give a content creator such a right to demand proof that something is being used in accord with a license. If a content creator or copyright holder thinks that some content is being used without permission, or is an unauthorized derivative work, the holder has only a few possible courses of action. The holder can send a cease and desist letter. This has no legal force, but puts the alleged infringer on notice, makes further infringement clearly &quot;knowing&quot;, and may well cause an infringer to stop infringing for fear of an expensive suit. The holder can send a takedown notice if the content is online in a venue that accepts such notices. But there is not a legal obligation to honor such a notice, and a counter-notice may lead to the content being put back up. Finally the holder may sue for copyright infringement. This has significant upfront costs, and requires significant time from the holder or the holder's business. The holder may therefore be unwilling to bring suit unless significant recovery seems likely. Once suit is brought, the holder will have discovery rights to demand answers to relevant questions from the alleged infringer, including the source of the content in question.
It would seem that your song is a derived work. You took the original work and found words that sound the same. If the original work had used different words, your work would have ended up differently. So you have a derived work. Same as making a translation; if the original was different, then the translation would be different, so the translation is a derived work. I was asked "How is this not straight up infringement". But it is. Not only copying is an exclusive right of the copyright holder, but also the creation of derivative works.
It is probably illegal, just not pursued. In the case of something like bank robbery, you'd have a victim that filed a police report. A murder would need to be discovered somehow - either a missing person report or a dead body. If the porn shoot happened somewhere that a member of the public saw it and subsequently filed a police report, the video could be used as evidence. Absent a report, the police simply have no reason to look into it (unless the police catches them in the act, but we probably don't see those videos posted online). Why would these public offenses go unreported? Perhaps nobody sees it. Perhaps the bystanders in the video are paid extras. Maybe they're filming in what appears to be public but is actually private property. Perhaps they have a permit to use a public space for this purpose. Perhaps they just got lucky. Again, there might be some confirmation bias here - you're not going to see as many videos of folks they catch breaking the law, since they will either be interrupted and stopped or (maybe) have their videos ordered taken down.
Unless you hire your friend cameraman, he will own the copyright. So sign a contract with him: you give him $1, he disclaims and/or grants all the copyright to you. Make sure this is actually in writing because, otherwise, presumption of no intention to create legal relations applies as you are friends.
No, it means you can't copy it. By default, the copyright to a work is owned by its creator, and nobody else is allowed to copy it, or create derived works, without their permission. That permission can be granted by a license. "License unknown" doesn't really tell us anything, but it certainly isn't clearly granting you permission. So you don't have permission to copy, and thus you cannot. You would have to seek permission from the copyright holder. See also If no licence is distributed with an application/source code, what license applies by default if any? (Some jurisdictions do allow for "fair use" exceptions, which allow you to copy a work without permission. You haven't said what jurisdiction you are in.)
"Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work." Copyright in Derivative Works and Compilations http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf So if you have not been granted authorization, you are violating the right of the owner. It's always recommended that you get permission. Practically speaking, if the owner does not give you permission, there is probably someone else with a similar photo who will! Pretty famous recent case: Barack Obama "Hope" poster
Exactly the same way it works over all other content There are no special classes of copyright, there’s just copyright. What a user of a service may do with copyright materials will be spelled out in the licence. If there is no licence, then they are left with fair use/fair dealing.