instagram API platform policy I just came across this: You cannot use "insta", "gram" or "Instagram" in your company or product name. on the instagram API platform policy, https://www.instagram.com/developer/ I am wondering: how can they do that? how can they forbid one from using such general terms (i am referring to gram and insta) in a product or company? It is logic to think that they would reject an application that is called in this way and uses their API but the statement seems to be more generic.. update: I don't have an instagram app or else in the works, i just want to understand how it works update2: there is no sign of that statement in the full platform policy
Fairly easily. You want to use their API. They give you the conditions for using it. As long as their conditions aren't illegal or unreasonable, you need to adhere to them to use their API. Is it illegal to not include "insta", "gram", or "instagram" in your company or product name? Almost certainly not. Is it an unreasonable term? Almost certainly not. If you want to include "insta", "gram", or "instagram" in your company or product name, you can try - but you can't then use their API.
Not only can’t you trademark it, you can’t use it The original logo is covered by copyright which belongs, prima facie, to the original artist. It doesn’t matter that they are based in Russia; Russia and the US are both signatories to the Berne Convention which means they protect each other’s copyright. That means you can only use it if it is fair use (it isn’t) or if you have the copyright owner’s permission (you don’t). Could I still use the logo I bought and trademark it in the US granted that the seller had made some revisions to the stock photo he found? Not if the seller didn’t have permission to make those changes. Creation of a derivative work is one of the exclusive rights copyright gives. The seller had changed up some parts of the stock image, this includes color scheme, orientation, and made the picture look a little low poly. See above. The original artist of the stock photo is based in Russia and as far as I can see there is no registered copyright on it and don't think they could apply for US copyright anyway. They already have copyright. They would need to register it in the US before they could sue but there is no impediment to them doing so. While I'm not sure where the seller (located in Pakistan) officially downloaded the logo, I had nothing to do with the final design of it or downloaded anything from a stock photo website myself, so I'm not sure if I'd be bounded by any terms of the stock photo website Makes no difference. Just because you didn’t steal the car, that doesn’t make it ok for you to drive it. The stock image is very niche and a bit random. Across all the websites the artist has published it on, it has about 5 or 6 downloads altogether. Not relevant at all. As far the copyright of the seller's work goes, the Fiverr terms state that buyers have all the copyright, though I don't know if this is nullified by the use of the stock image. You can’t sell something you don’t own. If the seller had no right to upload the photo (as it seems they didn’t), the terms of the website don’t matter. The true owner never agreed to those terms and isn’t bound by them.
Does Amazon prohibit a family of adults from sharing a single Amazon account? No, or at least it seems unlikely. As outlined in my answer &amp; comments on Law Meta, a domestic or family-oriented character is palpable in the clause. That weakens the notion that Amazon's intent is to preclude scenarios which are of a personal-domestic nature and short of commercial/sublicensed use. The language &quot;You are responsible for [...] restricting access to your account&quot; seems more permissive than something akin to &quot;only you are allowed to access your account&quot;. The former language is consistent with the term &quot;non-exclusive&quot;, which otherwise seems to have no relevance or purpose in the clause. Users' ability (if any) to enter multiple payment methods with different names (i.e., card holder name) could be an additional indication that the scenario you have in mind is acceptable to Amazon. It is easy for a company to implement a validation for the purpose of identifying significant discrepancies of holder names and/or to have the user confirm that all payment methods refer to one same owner. The latter approach is more conclusive for scenarios where a woman has changed names as a result of getting married or divorced. The fact (?) that Amazon declined to include that simple validation weakens the notion that the company is genuinely interested in sticking to a rule of one-person per account.
No. That clause does not give other users a licence to reproduce the work (other than what is necessary to access or use it) or create derivative works. The copyright owner has the exclusive right to do those things. (See 17 USC 106.) The clause you quote only indicates that other users can "access" (download for viewing) your "information" and use it, too. It doesn't give away any of your exclusive copyright in the work. You do grant Facebook a licence to do certain things with your work in section 2.1 of the Terms of Service, though.
Maybe, but probably not The geographic location of the organisation is immaterial: under Article 3.2: This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to: ... (b) the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union. Posts anyone (not just EU citizens) make to Reddit (or anywhere else) while they are physically located in the EU or UK engage the GDPR. Pushift.io is therefore captured by the GDPR and any denial of that is just plain wrong. Given the denial, it is likely right out of the gate that they are non-complient. For example, they are unlikely to provided the required information under Article 14. More importantly, it seems that they have not determined the lawful basis for processing the data under Article 6 - they can possibly rely on the public interest basis (preserving deleted publication is arguably a public interest) or a legitimate interest but that requires a balancing of their interest against the data subject's. That said, the right to be forgotten is not absolute, the reasons that might be applicable here are: The data is being used to exercise the right of freedom of expression and information. The data is being used to perform a task that is being carried out in the public interest or when exercising an organization’s official authority. The data represents important information that serves the public interest, scientific research, historical research, or statistical purposes and where erasure of the data would likely to impair or halt progress towards the achievement that was the goal of the processing.
If you publish a website, you are the data controller for this website. Serving a website necessarily implies processing (but not collection) of personal data. You have chosen to host your website on GitHub Pages. Is GitHub then a joint controller with you, or is GitHub your processor with which you sign a DPA? In 2019, I asked GH customer support about this. Their response: Our Privacy Statement, combined with our Terms of Service, is intended to serve as a data protection agreement for individual accounts — we specifically wrote our Privacy Statement to provide the information required by Article 28 of the GDPR, including a list of our subprocessors. Our Privacy Statement and our Terms of Service serve as our agreements with you, as the controller, instructing us as the processor, and you can always contact us to provide additional instruction. Should we receive a data subject request that relates to data we process on your behalf, we'll always let you know promptly and work with you to comply. — Github, 2019-04-10, private communication At the time, their Privacy Policy described GH Pages as follows: If you create a GitHub Pages website, it is your responsibility to post a privacy statement that accurately describes how you collect, use, and share personal information and other visitor information, and how you comply with applicable data privacy laws, rules, and regulations. Please note that GitHub may collect Technical Information from visitors to your GitHub Pages website, including logs of visitor IP addresses, to maintain the security and integrity of the website and service. (Update 2022: the privacy notice has since changed, and the quoted part is no longer part of the privacy notice.) Under this theory: you are the controller, and GH is your processor the terms of service incl. GH privacy policy form an effective Data Processing Agreement you have instructed GH to collect Technical Information in the sense of the privacy policy, for the purpose of maintaining security and integrity of the website, which can be covered by legitimate interest you have not instructed/allowed GH to process any other data from your site It is your call whether you subscribe to that theory. Note that GH organizations can opt-in to their corporate terms and sign an explicit DPA which will mostly contain the same provisions. Does it matter that you don't have access to the Technical Information? No. Being a controller means that you decide the purposes and means of processing, not that you store data. You as a controller can always decide to point your domain name to a different server if you no longer want to use GH as a processor.
You cannot use the libraries trademarks, but that does not stop you from using your own. For example, you cannot use the name Twitter Bootstrap to endorse, promote or use as the name of your project.
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.