What is the point of the disclaimer in Narcos? Each episode of Narcos opens with a disclaimer that &quot;Any similarity to name, character, history of any person is entirely coincidental and unintentional&quot;. Why do they have this disclaimer, when the show is explicitly about real events, and in fact occasionally uses historical footage?
The MGM movie Rasputin and the Empress implied that the real person Princess Irina Yusupov, as represented by Princess Natasha in the film, was raped by Rasputin. She sued for defamation, the jury agreed, and MGM paid out plus edited the scene out of the film. Subsequently, the &quot;everybody is made up&quot; disclaimer has been standard albeit not universal, especially when events are similar to reality. Star Trek is clearly not intended to be real, so &quot;false claims&quot; would not be defamation. But when a movie could reasonably be taken to be a representation of facts, it becomes important to make clear that it is not a representation of facts. Otherwise, a false claim that Mr. X did something bad could be the basis for a defamation lawsuit. It is not bulletproof protection against a lawsuit. The movie The Idolmaker was apparently too realistic, and Fabian Forte filed a big lawsuit, and settled out of court (so we don't know if the disclaimer would have been deemed by the court to be legally empty).
If Bob acknowledges how he has altered the evidence at the time he submits it, there shouldn't be any issues with it turning into falsification, which generally only becomes a problem when it's done with an intent to mislead the court. More likely, an opposing party would raise an authenticity objection, i.e, that the evidence has been altered and is therefore not trustworthy. It's probably going to be up to the judge whether to sustain that objection or not, and I'd expect the court's decision to turn in large part on how plausible it finds Bobs allegations of fraud and retaliation. I'd also expect that the Court would be less concerned with the pitch alteration than the redaction of portions of the recording. If we don't know what Bob is saying, it makes it hard to understand the full context of the conversation. Of course, all of this assumes that Bob hasn't already been forced to turn over the original recordings to Company, which he will be. The parties have a right to each other's evidence, and they are required to identify their witnesses to each other. The moment Company knows about the recording, it is going to submit a discovery request demanding a copy, and Bob will be obligated to comply. If Bob objects that doing so would expose the representatives to retaliation, I would expect the court to warn Company against tampering with witnesses and then order Bob to comply with his discovery obligations.
Criminal liability is triggered by guilty knowledge. The people who run OnlyFans may know in general terms that it is probable that some illegal images exist on their servers, but so does everyone who allows the public to upload stuff. If that was illegal then the senior management of Google and Facebook would be liable to arrest on the same grounds and the Internet as we know it could not exist. Once the company becomes aware of a specific file that contains such material they need to remove it. If they fail to do so then they become liable. OnlyFans has been doing this: [OnlyFans] provides templates for each successive warning - explaining why material has been removed, and that failure to comply with terms of service may result in the closure of the account. [emphasis added] The site operators also become liable if they have a general policy of tolerating illegal material. This is a grey area; a prosecution would have to prove that the toleration was an active policy rather than merely ineffective moderation. There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support such a claim. Permitting an account to continue after deleting an offending file is not toleration of the offending file. The BBC report does not allege that the OnlyFans policy of multiple warnings has been applied to cases of underage content; rather it talks about cases of incest, bestiality and exploitation of vulnerable adults (such as homeless people), and only where the accounts were particularly popular. The linked articles do report cases where accounts have been set up advertising content by minors, but they were shut down as soon as the company was notified of them. The second article also quotes its source as saying that lots of such accounts get closed down all the time; there doesn't seem to be any evidence of toleration of that material specifically. So in conclusion it seems from the available evidence that OnlyFans have been complying with the law. It is telling that the BBC article specifically does not say that they have done anything illegal. If the BBC had found unambiguous evidence of illegal conduct by OnlyFans management then they would certainly have highlighted this.
It means what it literally says, that safety and effectiveness have not been established in certain contexts. The rationale behind saying this is §201.57 of 21 CFR 201, a regulation that mandates giving warnings. It is permitted to use a device or prescribe a substance where it is not yet proven that it is effective or safe for that usage, but you must not imply that it is perfectly safe and effective in all contexts. This part of the federal regulations dictates language aimed at particular scientific uncertainties. Insofar as a patient is expected to give informed consent for a treatment, informing the patient that a treatment is to some extent unproven is an essential part of the information that must be given for informed consent. So you can interpret it as a flag to the patient (or the prescribing doctor) that there is greater risk.
Your issue is trademark, not copyright. If these other guys use their mark (product name) in commerce but did not register it, they have an unregistered trademark which you could be infringing. Between two users of the same trademark, the first to use in commerce wins. (There is a territorial component but with the Internet, meh.) If the trademark is registered that gives them a presumption of validity. Trademark infringement is concerned with consumer confusion. If someone uses someone else's trademark in a way that confuses consumers as to the origin of the goods, that's a problem. What this means is that if I make tires with the name Sportie and someone else makes soap also with that name Sportie there is not a high likelihood of confusion. Likewise a hotel in Washington called Runner's Cove probably doesn't infringe a shoe store in Florida with the same name. Fantasy games and fantasy books sold over the Internet? Sounds like a potential problem that you might want to clear up before the second book.
The general rule is that in the opening statement, the lawyer may describe what he expects the evidence and testimony to show: We will present Mr Smith, who will tell you that he saw the defendant miles away at the time of the crime But cannot make statements of fact as such. I don't see why this rule would be different for a pro se defendant. In a closing argument, as i understand the rule, the lawyer may and often will say things like "As witness X testified, there was no time to stop" but is not supposed to introduce new alleged facts not supported by the evidence. However, in a closing, a lawyer can and often does draw conclusions from facts supported by testimony. "My client was proved to have been in the next town 20 minutes earleri, so obviously he could not have committed the crime." Again, i don't see any reason why these rules would be different for someone acting pro se.
Say I wrote a spy novel, in which some character refers to my protagonist as &quot;Mr Bond&quot; suggesting that he thinks of himself as a &quot;master spy&quot; like the movie character. Would that infringe a trademark on &quot;James Bond&quot; (assuming, for the moment that that name is trademarked)? No it would not. Or suppose my main character mentions having met Bond years ago during training, or on a previous mission. Would that infringe? Again, No. Or suppose I write a brief, one-paragraph walk-on scene in which the James Bond character appears? Infringement? Again, no. Or suppose my spy character is waiting for a meeting, and stops for a meal, and i mention that he has a Coke. Would that infringe the trademark on Cocacola? No it would not. All of these are forms of nominative use, and none of them are &quot;uses in commerce&quot;, so there is no trademark liability. (Interestingly, there was a series of stories set in an alternate world, written by Randall Garrett in the 1960s-90s. Some of these are spy stories, and his major spy character is &quot;Sir James le Lien&quot; Now a &quot;lien&quot; is a French-derived legal term for a secured debt. The most common English-derived term for a (slightly differently) secured debt is &quot;bond&quot;. No one ever tried to sue Garrett for trademark infringement.) The game &quot;Cards Against Humanity&quot; includes, as I understand, many brief references to real-world and fictional things and characters, some of which are trademarked. But none of these uses are &quot;in commerce&quot; and no reasonable person would be confused into thinking that the game was sponsored or endorsed by any of the trademark holders, nor are these trademarks being used to promote or advertise anything. So, No infringement. Now if the game were advertised as &quot;The only card game to feature super-spy James Bond&quot;, that might well be infringement. at least a case could be made for infringement then. But as it stands? I don't think so. Also, use of the R-in-a-circle symbol is totally optional when one makes nominative use of someone else's trademark. It can help, along with a disclaimer, to make the point that the user is not claiming ownership. Something like: {X}® and {Y}TM are trademarks of {Z-corp}. They are used here to refer to {Z-corp}'s products. The use here is in no way approved of by Z-corp, nor does Z-corp endorse, sponsor, or recommend this product. No ownership of these trademarks is claimed. However such a disclaimer is not in any way required, any more than the ® symbol is. One exception, if a trademark is used with permission, the owner may make use of the ® symbol a condition of the permission.
You are misinformed. In fact, approximately the reverse is true: in a typical jurisdiction in the United States today in excess of 95 percent of criminal cases that begin never reach a verdict. (The exact number varies a little, depending on which exact court system we're talking about.) Or never reach a trial at all, in fact. Or never even come close to making it to the trial date. Now, in some of those instances the charges wind up being dismissed. In some others defendants are diverted outside of the traditional criminal justice system when the circumstances seem better suited to other resolutions (examples: a petty criminal who steals to feed a drug addiction is diverted into a process where he or she will get drug treatment, a non-violent mentally ill person is put into a process where he or she will get mental health treatment); if they complete the diversion program the criminal charges are dropped. But in the vast majority of cases a defendant winds up pleading guilty, in court, to something. Sometimes in exchange for the prosecutor dropping certain other charges. Sometimes in return for the prosecutor downgrading a charge he or she would otherwise pursue in court to a charge for a lesser offense. Sometimes just in return for perhaps getting some credit in the eyes of the judge for "acceptance of responsibility" when sentencing rolls around. But make no mistake: there are few elements more central to the way modern American criminal justice works than plea bargaining. But don't feel too bad: for what it's worth you are certainly not alone in thinking otherwise. In fact, in my personal experience almost everyone outside the legal profession and the court system/s holds at least a few large misconceptions about the way criminal justice in the U.S. actually works. General news media outlets contribute quite a bit to helping those misconceptions form by typically focusing solely on the rare, high-profile, controversial (and thus ratings-grabbing) cases rather than the vast, vast number that end in a whimper instead of a bang. Law drama shows and movies almost invariably bear little relation to reality. (And that's is totally fine, BTW, as long as you realize they bear almost no relation to reality.) Which makes sense: Law &amp; Order: SVU probably wouldn't have stayed on the air year after year if most episodes just consisted of an endless stream of one rote, dull plea hearing after another, each featuring some otherwise-unremarkable sleezeball who's been caught dead-to-rights downloading and re-distributing child pornography. (And, BTW, the misconceptions aren't limited to criminal law &amp; justice, by any means. In fact, in my view other high-profile legal arenas like civil litigation, intellectual property disputes, constitutional law battles, and many others are even more misunderstood. But I digress...) Anyway, to sum up: very frequent plea bargaining = one of the foundations of how modern American criminal justice operates at a practical level. For tons more stats, background info, and analysis corroborating and analyzing that fact, see the links commenters have already posted and/or any of the many, many good items on the topic indexed via our friend Google.