Copyright notices: a team or project declared as copyright holder Sometimes I see copyright notices like Copyright © 2016-2018 The TokTok team. Copyright © 2013 Tox project. I wonder if I can use similar copyright notices in a project of mine (licensed under GPL). The are some closely related questions: What defines a team? What happens if the team grows? Is some paperwork or registration necessary or the use of a version control system (VCS) makes it unnecessary? As you know, VCSs record the evolution of a project, the time and amount of contributions made by each developer.
united-states In US law the elements of a copyright notice are 1) the copyright symbol or the word "copyright or the abbreviation "copyr"; 2) the year of publication or creation; and 3) the name of the copyright owner. More specifically, under 17 USC 401 (b)(3) the third element should be: (3) the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner As a "team" is not generally a legal entity (unless it is incorporated) it cannot be the actual owner of the copyright. The owner in such cases will usually be the company for which the members of the team work, or possibly the individual members of the team as co-owners. Or some other entity may hold the copyright. The name of the team may serve as "a generally known alternative designation of the owner". Moreover, even if the name shown is simply wrong, 17 USC 406 (Copyright notice: error in name or date) provides in pertinent part: ... where the person named in the copyright notice on copies or phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner is not the owner of copyright, the validity and ownership of the copyright are not affected. In such a case, however, any person who innocently begins an undertaking that infringes the copyright has a complete defense to any action for such infringement if such person proves that he or she was misled by the notice and began the undertaking in good faith under a purported transfer or license from the person named therein [unless copyright office records would have disclosed the true owner]. So, such a notice opens up the possibility of someone purporting to grant licenses in the name of the "team". But unless this is a concern, the exact name used in the notice does not really matter. And if it is a concern, copyright registration, or recording the copyright with the US copyright office, will deal with the issue. Note that a copyright notice is optional for any unpublished work and for any work first published since 1989. (The effective date of the change in US copyright law to comply with the Berne Convention.) However the presence of a valid notice does offer some legal advantages to the copyright owner under US law. The use of a VCS does not in any way affect the copyright status of a work, nor does it change the effect of a copyright notice or its absence. It might be evidence of the date of creation of a work, if that was challenged in an infringement suit, but that is not commonly an issue in such a suit. Copyright registration affords additional legal rights to the owner(s), and must indicate the actual name(s) of the copyright owner(s). Agreements to transfer copyright must be in writing, and signed (but could be electronic). If the copyright is actually co-owned by the members of a team, it would be very wise of them to have a contract spelling out who does and who does not own a share of the copyright. Otherwise if they later disagree, and the matter comes to court, evidence of who actually was a co-author would be needed, and might be troublesome to produce. VCS records might be useful in such a case. If the copyright is in fact owned by a company, either on a work-made-for-hire basis or on an assignment basis, a contract between the company and all co-creators will be essential, or at least highly desirable, spelling this out in detail. But none of this affects any third party this is all important only between team members and any company involved. Note that this answer is enti8rely concerned with US law. While copyright law is broadly similar in most countries, the details vary.
If a website's TOS has restrictions against unauthorized copying and use of anything in the site, that applies to the TOS, too. Chances are, no one will do a Google search on the exact text of their TOS to find if someone has copied it; but who knows? If they paid a legal service to draft a very specific and original TOS, they may be concerned with others copying it illegally. Beyond that, their TOS is a legal document. Your TOS is a legal document. Your users sign a contract when they click and accept. If you copy and paste a TOS, and don't understand exactly what is in it, and you and your users are bound by that TOS, what kind of legal risks do you open yourself up to? A simple Google search yields https://formswift.com/terms-of-service among others. Or try one of the many services like LegalZoom.
I don't think so. While JSON stands for &quot;JavaScript Object Notation&quot;, it doesn't say that. So the term &quot;JSON&quot; isn't infringing on a trademark for &quot;JavaScript&quot;. To sue somebody because of an alleged trademark infringement, one needs to prove that the offender abused a trade name of the suing company in a way to make the public believe the offending company was related to the suing company. Nobody is even trying that by just using a file format. The file structure itself was developed as an open standard, so they can't claim any rights on that. I have not heard about a company claiming rights in file structures recently, because the data is considered the property of the user, not of the company that wrote the program it was created with. And users are often no longer accepting file formats that can only be read by a specific (expensive) application from a particular company. They want to be flexible to change their vendor and keep the data.
Multipage contracts, like any multipage texts, will likely bear some level of originality and so they will have a copyright owner. Absent a license allowing you to reuse the text, you will not be allowed to do so. The fact that you were a party to a contract represented by the text does not change your position: your contract does not have anything to do with the copyright of its text, therefore you still need to honor the copyright as if you were not a party to the contract. It is not uncommon that the copyright will be owned by the lawyer who drafted the text. Your business partner who supplied it would have employed/contracted one. Or, the lawyer could have provided the text to your business partner together with the copyright (less common). Why wouldn't fair-use be at play here? Don't you already get the permission to copy and modify the contract from the original party when they send it to you? (Is such right only limited to original execution?) The original party, whether it is the copyright owner or just a license holder, can send the text to you for possible copy and modification in the course of executing the contract with that party only. The copy that you receive is provided solely with the express purpose to make you an offer (so that you know the terms of the contract) and give opportunity to suggest modifications i.e. make a counter-offer. To reuse the text with another party you need a permission/license from the copyright owner. Fair-use won't play here because you'd be using the text for the purpose it was created for—executing contracts—as opposed to, say, writing a research paper on language/phrases used in legal documents. Does it at all invalidate the agreement itself if the party that supplied the contract doesn't actually own the copyright to it? After all, if you're not legally allowed to have a copy of the text that specifies the terms of the contract, how would it be possible to adhere to such terms? Most contracts do not even need to be in writing. The text will be just one of the evidences if your contract, not the contract itself. No matter whether you obtained the text legally or not, it still does its job as evidence. Whilst you may well be sued for the copyright infringement, in no way will it affect the validity of your contract, which will still hinge on those well-known 6 elements having nothing to do with the copyright of the text.
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.
All of your works would be considered to be a derivative work. This is because your work, is based on the work of someone else's. A good test for this to see if something is a derivative work is to see whether the new work can effectively exist without the original. Most copyright laws worldwide are similar, thanks to the Berne Convention for copyrighted works. Since derivative works are normally a right that is exclusive to the copyright holder, you can't make such works without permission (generally through a license or expiry of copyright). So now, let's take a look: The Mona Lisa was made hundreds of years ago. It's definitely in the public domain. You're in no breach of copyright laws here. Yes, of course. Microsoft retains copyright on their icons, and possibly trademarks as well. However, they may have trademark guidance that allows you to use their icons - as long as you follow it. Likely the same as microsoft - you can assume it's similar for most large companies. Code is copyrighted as a literary work - the layout and visual aspect is copyrighted as an artistic work. That artist retains copyright, unless you obtain the work with a license, or the copyright is expired. If you create a derivative work, you infringe on their rights.
First of all being the &quot;founder&quot; of a startup in no way implies that one wrote all the code of the startup's primary or signature app. The founder could have hires coders, or had partners, or used open source code. But let's make some assumptions. Suppose Alice has created a startup, and wrote the code for an application. Suppose Bob invested in the startup, and got 30% of the stock, What rights does Bob have to the copyright on the code? It depends entirely on what agreements Alice has made. Alice might have sold or assigned the copyright to her startup firm, call that F1, If so, F1 owns the copyright, and Alice can't reuse it without F1's permission. If Alice has retained the other 70% of F1, she controls it and can have it grant her whatever permissions she likes. But if she has sold or assigned a majority shore to investors, she will need to persuade the management of F1, or a majority of the shareholders, to grant her permission. Alice might have merely licensed the code to F1. In this case she retains the copyright. If the license was not exclusive, she can use the code as she pleases, but so can F1, in accord with the license. In neither case does Bob directly own the copyright, or a share in it, unless a separate agreement granted or sold that to him. But he has a right to a share of the profits, if any that F1 makes, and a right to vote on decisions that 1 makes, long with other owners of F1 If Alice never formally transferred or licensed the software to F1, she still owns the copyright and can do as she pleases, even if shew sold most or al of F1 Note that to transfer a copyright there must (under US law) be a written and signed document, one signed by the owner or the owner's agent. It must specifically indicate what copyright(S) it transfers. A purchase of an interest in a business does not suffice without such a document.
If you develop a program yourself and it wasn't a work made for hire, then the program is yours to do with as you please. You hold the copyright to it. Many developers choose existing licencing arrangements or they can choose to create a license on their own, or using an attorney. And sometimes they choose to release their programs into the public domain. If you release it into the public domain, you are essentially giving up your copyright. The IDE (Integrated Development Environment) you used to develop your program does not dictate what licenses you can use. There are some existing licenses that others use (which you are free to use or NOT to use) give varying protections to you regarding what you are allowing others to do; right of others to copy, right of others to modify, right of others to distribute, rights to sub-licence, and so on. One of the licensing schemes is the GNU General Public License (GPL). But there are many others, too many to list here.