Is it illegal to &quot;sell&quot; a pro golfer&#39;s swing? Say I use three cameramen to record a pro golfer's swing at a public event in order to subsequently digitize the path of the swing in 3-space. Say I then program a baton (like a Wii remote or a smart phone taped to a golf club) to vibrate and/or beep when the device doesn't move through space along the same path and at the same speed as the original golf swing. (In other words, the device lets you "feel" what the pro's swing is really like: as you swing, the more the device will vibrate and beep the more you deviate from the programmed swing. On the other hand, the closer you duplicate the speed and position of the original swing, the quieter the device remains, so you can try to find the preferred "groove".) Would it be legal to sell the program and data, without any consideration going to the golfer whose swing is being duplicated? Say the software is embedded with the necessary hardware in a golf club handle that could be attached to any club. Say the software or device being sold didn't replicate a particular golfer, but instead let you download "path" files from servers, so that if someone posted a "Tiger Woods 5-iron" file or a "Bubba Watson 3-wood" file, you could load that "training" file into the device. Would that be like song or movie players, where the device is legal, but the file being downloaded or played might not be?
From the patent angle, you will need to make sure that you are not infringing on a patented swing. That should be pretty easy at present because golfers are not patenting their swings. What Mowzer says about public disclosure probably has something to do with this. However, at least one golfer patented a swing: I would be more concerned with the right of publicity of the golfers whose swings you are selling. You can't use someone's name for commercial advantage without their permission. (I will leave this thought for another day: Can analysis of a golfer's swing, without reference to their name, be appropriation of their identity if the swing is so unique?) I am just going to rip this straight out of C.B.C. Distribution v. Major League Baseball, 443 F.Supp.2d 1077 (E.D. Mo., 2006), cleaning up some formatting and removing some citations. This is a good cite because it discusses Supreme Court jurisprudence and the New York origins of the right of publicity doctrine. The right of publicity is recognized by statute and/or common law in many states. J. Thomas McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy § 63 (2d ed.2005). A fairly recent concept, according to the Sixth Circuit in ETW Corporation v. Jireh Publishing, Inc., 332 F.3d 915, 929 (6th Cir.2003), this right "was first recognized in Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum. Inc., 202 F.2d 866 (2nd Cir.1953), where the Second Circuit held that New York's common law protected a baseball player's right in the publicity value of his photograph, and, in the process, coined the phrase `right of publicity' as the name of this right." Subsequently, in Zacchini v. Broadcasting Company, 433 U.S. 562 (1977), 433 U.S. at 573, where a performer in a "human cannonball" act sought to recover damages from a television broadcast of his entire performance, the Supreme Court recognized that the right of publicity protects the proprietary interest of an individual to "reap the reward of his endeavors." The right of publicity is described in Section 46 of the Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition (2005), Appropriation of the Commercial Value of a Person's Identity: The Right of Publicity. This Restatement provision states that "[o]ne who appropriates the commercial value of a person's identity by using without consent the person's name, likeness, or other indicia of identity for purposes of trade is subject to liability...." Relying on the Restatement, the Missouri Supreme Court held in TCI, 110 S.W.3d at 369, that "the elements of a right of publicity action include: (1) That defendant used plaintiff's name as a symbol of his identity (2) without consent (3) and with the intent to obtain a commercial advantage." See also Gionfriddo, 94 Cal.App.4th at 409, 114 Cal. Rptr.2d 307 ("The elements of the [tort of the right of publicity], at common law, are: '(1) the defendant's use of the plaintiff's identity; (2) the appropriation of plaintiff's name or likeness to defendant's advantage, commercially or otherwise; (3) lack of consent; and (4) resulting injury.'") To prove a violation of one's right of publicity a plaintiff must establish that the defendant commercially exploited the plaintiff's identity without the plaintiff's consent to obtain a commercial advantage. Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., 698 F.2d 831, 835 (6th Cir.1983).
Is it illegal to ask a company for money in exchange for information on a bug in their software/website? That in itself is legal. Indeed, the company would incur unjust enrichment if it coerced you to disclose your discovery for free. Only if you threatened the company to divulge to others your discovery unless the company pays you, it would be illegal and trigger charges such as extortion (likewise, legislations outlaw the unjustified delivery of programs or instructions for hacking a software/network/etc., although this goes beyond your actual question). Can the company take legal action against me? That seems doubtful, futile, and it could backfire (please note I have not done any research on legal precedents about this). Although the terms and conditions of the website or the End User License Agreement (EULA) of software might prohibit you to reverse engineer (RE)/decompile/etc. the application, anti-RE clauses are unenforceable and the remedies therefor are indeterminate because the sole act of conducting reverse engineering does not subject the company (or third parties) to any losses. The company's decision to take legal action for your discovery could backfire from two standpoints. First, it calls attention to the fact that the software at issue is defective and unsafe. And second, the bug is likely to be detected by someone else anyway, thereby potentially compromising customers' systems.
What are exactly the legal consequences of "All rights reserved"? Almost none. You have to explicitly grant copyright rights. You don't even need the Copyright notice for them to apply. My "almost" is because the notice makes it harder for somebody to argue "they didn't realize". Do I still need an additional SW License Agreement or is the Copyright notice above + a Disclaimer of liability sufficient? If this is free software (I know you said it isn't), do yourself (and everyone else) a favour by picking a license you like. Preferably either GPL or MIT (depending on your taste). There are far too many free licenses already. Please don't add another. (It also makes it much easier for any user of your software: "Oh yeah, GPL v2. We understand that. We can use it." as opposed to "What are the implications of using this one??" As this is not free software, I think you need a paid-for lawyer (who understands IPR in your juridiction.) Edit: In principle, I believe you don't need anything. The code is copyright, so the customer can't do anything with it (without explicit permissions that you haven't granted). However if the customer doesn't realize that or thinks you won't mind, you then have to go to court to enforce your rights (and probably end up with a disgruntled customer). A short, clear, license will make it clear to the customer what they are allowed to do, and save all that aggravation.
If by "streaming," you mean "having my web browser create temporary copies of media from an online source so that I can view it," then Canadian law is unclear. I can't really do better to demonstrate than to cite a few articles on the subject. According to Alex Buonassisi and Jennifer Marles of IP law firm Oyen Wiggs: [...] it is not entirely clear that receiving an unauthorized stream of a copyrighted work in Canada does not infringe copyright. At best, this activity could be said to fall within a grey zone. According to Sandy Kang writing for law school blog IP Osgoode: As for users of such websites, it is currently uncertain whether their act of streaming video would be found to infringe. According to Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa law professor specializing in IP: The most controversial sources are unauthorized streaming websites that offer free content without permission of the rights holder. [...] Those accessing the streams are unlikely to be infringing copyright, however. As you can see, there is a variety of expert opinions on whether streaming pirated movies is an infringement. The section under debate is 30.71 on temporary reproductions, especially subsection (b): It is not an infringement of copyright to make a reproduction of a work or other subject-matter if (a) the reproduction forms an essential part of a technological process; (b) the reproduction’s only purpose is to facilitate a use that is not an infringement of copyright; and (c) the reproduction exists only for the duration of the technological process. I don't want to duplicate what articles above have already stated, but I'd like to dive deeper into Bishop v. Stevens, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 467, cited by the first two articles as a similar case (reaffirmed in 2015 after a few rounds of statute amendments). In it the Supreme Court held that prerecorded "ephemeral" copies used to facilitate a broadcast was an infringement. The key piece of reasoning is: [... the broadcaster] has not established that, at the time of their enactment, the sections of the Act providing for the right to broadcast a performance must have been understood to include the right to prerecord. Even now it remains fully possible, and quite common, to broadcast live performances. To me, there are two key differences why this logic might not directly transpose to the streaming pirated movies situation: "Ephemeral" prerecorded copies aren't necessarily "temporary" copies within the scope of section 30.71 above, particularly subsections (a) and (c) might not strictly be met. This case discusses the point of view of the broadcaster which is analogous to the hoster, not the end-user. While making ephemeral/temporary copies might not be strictly necessary for broadcasting, viewing online content necessarily creates at least a temporary copy on the end-user's computer. Two other random notes: None of the involved sections have a "reasonableness" or "should have known" clause whereas they are present in other parts of the Copyright Act. This means whether its legal should theoretically depend strictly on the facts (i.e. if it turns out to be illegal, pleading "oh I didn't know it was pirated" won't work). Funny enough, I don't actually see anything in the law that would differentiate between streaming online pirated video and your example of something illegal being aired on TV provided its digital (presumably some part of the TV has a temporary copy too).
Your app is a simple case of copyright infringement. All the Pokémon are copyrighted, the lettering and names are also protect by trademarks. Trying to claim fair use will be outright impossible: you'll use huge portions of the individually protected Pokemon (the iconic ones like Pikachu) and you are usurping a market they are already in. They have given licenses for apps (Pokemon Go). Pokemon are artistic and some form of fiction. The last straw might be if you'd do a rather obvious parody, but even then, I see no way to show Fair Use with what you stated. No disclaimer can change that, and publishing your work might open you to a huge lawsuit with damages for each individually protected Pokemon you infringed on. With between 750 $ minimum and 150,000 $ absolute upper limit per infringed item (last is for willful infringement), you don't want to infringe on Pokemon, as you could be very easily liable for a number in the 6 to 9 digits! Even if Nintendo might only try to get the statutory damages for all the 900 Pokémon, that is a number of at least 675,4000 $. And that's before looking at Trademarks. Pikachu has about 6 live word marks and there are 111 different Pokémon trademarks filed (some expired or dead)!
Yes Playing recorded music in public is unlawful without permission (licence) from the copyright holder. Many jurisdictions allow automatic licensing by signing up with and paying for it through the authorised music organisation.
You can report it to the publisher(s) Protection of copyright is a matter for the individual rights holder: some (I’m looking at you Disney) are vigilant, thorough and draconian in protecting their rights, others don’t care at all. Unless you are the rights holder it’s none of your business. In much the same way that the guy charging your neighbour for 4 hours gardening but being long gone in 2 isn’t. If you like your neighbour or feel duty bound to do something, you tell them and then leave it to them what they do with it. This is not a matter for the authorities as it doesn’t rise to the level of criminal copyright infringement. Just like the gardener above, this isn’t a crime.
The simple answer is yes. There's a famous case that illustrates this: A&amp;M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (2001). A number of record companies successfully sued Napster for infringing their various intellectual property rights. Essentially, the finding came down to the fact that: Napster's program (of the same name) allows for the exchange of copyrighted material, and Napster had actual knowledge that specific infringing material was available using its system, and that it did not remote the material (by blocking access to the system or otherwise). Napster did not police the index of files that they maintained, and so were liable for vicarious infringement. The longer answer to your question is it depends. Based on the Napster precedent, it seems it would depend (at least) on whether: the program may have legitimate uses you are aware that it can be used for illegal purpose you have a means of monitoring the activity you have a means of restricting use of the program you financially benefit from the activities of the users Many developers will include some warning about using the software only for legal purposes. I don't think such a warning has ever been tested, and even if it were, it's unlikely to make a difference if the clear purpose of the software is to perform illegal acts.