What are the legal requirements for displaying a Terms &amp; Conditions link on a website? Are there any legal requirements regarding the display of a Terms &amp; Conditions link? Does it need to be out of flow (popup, banner), or actioned ("I agree" checkbox)? Any specifications on font size compared to surrounding font, like there is on some other types on information on mediums? This question has been covered in UX.SE, but the answers came more from the "better to be safe than sorry" angle, rather than actual law
In Australia, the overall representations of the website must not be misleading or deceptive when it comes to the provision of goods or services, in order to comply with Australian Consumer Law. The length of the terms matters. In a very recent case against a homeopathy website, it was noted that (at [47]): The terms and conditions were exceedingly lengthy and it was highly unlikely that any visitor would trawl through them merely to access another part of the Website for free. In this case the significance of the length was not specifically tested. The position of the terms also matters. In another case against a major retailer, it was noted (at [37]) that the conditions visible: a user accessed a link at the bottom of each page of the HN Website titled “Website Terms and Conditions”, such that it was unlikely either condition would be found by a normal reader reading the HN Catalogue or viewing the HN Website This specific matter related to a very specific claim made by the retailer, and so I can't say whether it applies in general to website terms and conditions. Apart from the above cases, I can't find any good examples where the exact form of a website's terms have been considered in determining a case. There are some United States cases referred to in the Wikipedia article for browse wrap. These seem to have been judged in favour of the website operator only when the terms are conspicuous, and/or when the user has had repeated exposure to them (or a link to them), for example over a number of pages. Even where the terms are linked at the bottom of the website, and a user is not required to scroll to the bottom to use the site, terms have been found unenforceable. As far as I know, there's no statutory requirements - in Australia, at least, and quite likely anywhere else - that specify the manner and form that disclaimers may take.
Yes Best is to call them and let them guide you to the right department. https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/contact.aspx In reality you can give up. They will never ever give you the permission to use the icon, even if you'd pay for it. Why? Because as soon they give the permission to someone others will try to use it too and their legal stand would be more difficult since they softenend the use rights of that icon/intellectual property, opening doors for people who copy without thinking of the legal implications and scammers. EDIT: To add; As far I know you're not allowed to take stuff from wikipedia without noticing them/linking to them. That your app is free also doesn't matters. Maybe you're even showing ads in your app giving it a commercial goal.
You can do whatever you like with posts made after you change the rules - you have to leave the previous stuff alone. The contributors' have accepted the terms of the licence: They own the copyright or have permission from the copyright holder to post it (the promise) They agree that it can be edited altered or removed CC-BY-SA allows people to copy the stuff off the website and republish it - this is way outside what the contributors agreed to. These people have given permission for their work to be altered but not copied.
It is hard to say: this article sketches the legal landscape. So-called deep linking that bypasses the main page for a site is not believed to be infringement, following the reasoning of Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146. The URL itself does not have the bare minimum of creativity required for copyright protection, and storing a URL on a computer is not storing the contents that it refers to, so no copy was made in violation of copyright law. It is unlikely that competing theories would develop in other US districts (there don't appear to be any at the present). However, such a link could create secondary liability for infringement, see Erickson Productions, Inc. v. Kast, where a party &quot;has knowledge of another’s infringement and (2) either (a) materially contributes to or (b) induces that infringement&quot;. If I link to a file on a pirate website, I am secondarily liable for that infringement. However, if I link to a legally-uploaded file which the author did not intend to make public, there is no infringement. Copyright law requires permission of the copyright owner, which is more than just &quot;explicit denial&quot;. The problem is that a person can put a file out there and not say one way or the other whether you have permission to copy the file. The US Copyright office says that &quot;A copyright owner must have expressly or implicitly authorized users to make retainable copies of a work by downloading, printing, or other means for the work to be considered published&quot; (let's not care at the moment whether it is important to be &quot;published&quot;). The court may infer implicit permission from a copyright owner's conduct, but there is no rule &quot;if it's on the internet, you've granted permission&quot;. A rights-owner may make a valiant but insufficient effort to block access to the work (except via a password), so in that context, the courts would infer that the rights-owner had not given permission, therefore the copying is infringing and you have secondary liability for your direct link to the material.
That's an old idea that has been tried several times before (such as the first, being Unvarnished: Website Lets You Review People (And Trash Them) | HuffPost, which no longer exists); and one of the latest incarnations is Peeple (mobile application - Wikipedia). There are lots of legal liabilities, including defamation and harassment/stalking, even with the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act | Electronic Frontier Foundation which (mostly) protects the website owner from others' speech posted on the site (your mileage may vary due to jurisdiction). The only way such a site would survive is to do what Peeple and other sites have done: greatly limit the speech allowed, such as limiting to only positive reviews, giving the subject complete control over what does appear on their profile, only allowing "opt-in" profiles, verify identities, etc. You would have to implement full GDPR compliance; but various lawsuits will either shut you down before you get far enough to launch or soon after and force you to greatly limit the scope of the site. Most lawyers would advise you to find something else to do with your time and money.
Yes, since you default to no consent, ergo consent would have to be positive. It's rather unsatisfactory though as a sort of double-negative, and needs careful wording to make sure consent is informed. However, this may be a technical problem as it seems odd that you can't have an unchecked checkbox. Does the word 'checked' perhaps appear in the HTML? https://ux.mailchimp.com/patterns/forms#radio
The purpose of the button is not to put liability on you, but to shield the website from liability. The website does not want you looking up information about drugs, deciding that a particular drug is right for you, causing yourself harm and then blaming the website. You may have acted unlawfully but you would have no liability because no injury (financial or otherwise) has been caused to the website. Clicking the button is an assertion that one is a medical professional. This is a false statement, so the website could sue you for the tort of deceit, but there is no injury, which is one of the elements of deceit. The website would not even get nominal damages. The button may also constitute a contract. In exchange for access to a website, you warrant that you are a medical professional. You are not, which is a breach of the contract. However, the damages are nil. Conceivably, if you passed the information on to someone else who misused it, there may be some injury to the website, and then you would have to compensate the website for that injury under one or both of the heads of liability described above. In terms of criminal liability, it is rarely an offence to make a false statement to a private body without some other aggravating element. For example, in Australia, it is an offence to make a false statement for financial gain, or to make a false statement to a government official (regardless of whether there is financial gain etc). But simply making a false statement is not by itself a crime. You may breach a computer law. The United States Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is pretty broad. Obtaining information from a computer without authority is an offence: 18 USC s 1030(a)(2)(C). The only exception is if the web server is in the same state as you and somehow nobody from outside the state can access it: see definition of 'protected computer' in 18 USC s 1030(e)(2).
Do you have an explicit permission by the artist? Does the artist give a blanket permission to anyone which covers this kind of use of their work (a license)? If no, then you commit a copyright violation when you use their work for your blog. This applies to practically any country which signed the Berne convention which is almost everywhere in the world. Having no commercial interest is usually not an excuse to violate copyright. Regarding which jurisdiction applies when you, your website and the copyright holder are in different countries: I opened a new question about this.