Can I use the Wi-Fi logo on a website? Despite reading Wi-Fi alliance style guide, I don't understand whether I can use the Wi-Fi logotype on my website. The style guide seems to target the producers of Wi-Fi equipment only; my case is different. More precisely, I have a web page which, among others, explains how to configure a device to access a specific Wi-Fi access point. In order for the users to easily identify that the page talks about Wi-Fi, I want to include the Wi-Fi logotype. Not the one with “Certified” on it; just the plain one. Can I do it? Or is Wi-Fi logotype reserved exclusively to the hardware which connects through Wi-Fi?
In order to use a trademarked logo on a product you would need permission of the trademark owner's, just like with any other trademark. However, you don't need permission to use a trademark outside the context of trade and commerce. For example, despite the fact that the Wi-Fi Alliance's own name is a trademark, you didn't need permission to use it in your question. Similarly Wikipedia didn't need permission to use the Wi-Fi Alliance's logo in their article on the organization: However, given your stated use, you'd be better served by not using the Wi-Fi logo on your web page. This logo is designed to be used to identify products that have been certified by Wi-Fi Alliance, not as a generic Wi-Fi symbol. Whether your page would infringe on the trademark or not, the use of logo could cause confusion and not send the message you're intending.
Yes, you may The layout of the board and its appearance are not protected by copyright, because they are not expressions or any other type of copyrightable content. Even if they were (say if some protested art was displayed on the board) you are displaying this for instructional purposes, and not harming any market for the board, so fair use is likely to apply (in the U.S.). The device could be protected by patent, but you are not copying or imitating the board, nor showing anyone how to do so, so that would not apply. You are not selling or advertising the board, nor knock-offs of it, so trademark protection would not apply, even if a protected trademark is visible on th board. Just in case, be sure to make clear that your video is not authorized or endorsed by the maker of the board.
The official EU-legislation does not use the word "cookies", except in the recitals. The "Cookie-Law" is part of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive 2002/58/EC and is amended by Directive 2009/136/EC, where the relevant text of Article 5(3) is found: Member States shall ensure that the storing of information, or the gaining of access to information already stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, inter alia, about the purposes of the processing. This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service. This is a Directive, which is not directly binding, member states must implement it in their own law. But there will not be large differences to the text above. The guidance from the UK's ICO includes useful examples in particular about the exceptions to obtain consent. There is an exception to the requirement to provide information about cookies and obtain consent where the use of the cookie is: (a) for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network; or (b) where such storage or access is strictly necessary for the provision of an information society service requested by the subscriber or user. The best example is a shopping cart: This exception is likely to apply, for example, to a cookie used to ensure that when a user of a site has chosen the goods they wish to buy and clicks the ‘add to basket’ or ‘proceed to checkout’ button, the site ‘remembers’ what they chose on a previous page. This cookie is strictly necessary to provide the service the user requests (taking the purchase they want to make to the checkout) and so the exception would apply and no consent would be required. And there is a negative example which is unlikely to fall within the exception: Cookies used to recognise a user when they return to a website so that the greeting they receive can be tailored In your question you explicitly state localStorage to keep a user logged in. LocalStorage is "storing of information in the terminal equipment of a subscriber". If you want to keep a user logged in, the user has performed a log in step. So you provide a service to keep the user logged in, which is exactly what the user wanted. So the exception would apply and you don't need to obtain consent. For example this stackexchange website also keeps me logged in, so the exception would apply here. However, you must make sure that you don't use the cookie/localStorage in a way which is incompatible with the exception. For example it would probably not be allowed to use the same cookie to count unique visitors to your website. If personal data is processed to store login data, Art. 6(1)(b) GDPR would probably apply; Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies: (b) processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract; So the GDPR would also not require you to ask for permission.
Probably not, because you should be in a position to rely on the Safe Harbor provision of the DMCA. Safe Harbor protects service providers who provide open, non-moderated spaces for users to directly contribute content. Safe Harbor means you do not need an army of moderators to inspect every message posted to the site or system. It is essential for sites like Twitter, Youtube or StackExchange to exist. You are not liable for that content if you provide a means for IP owners to report copyright violations, and promptly take down any content which an IP owner reports as violating. You don't need to get in the middle of whether that's really true; there's a mechanism for the user and IP owner to &quot;duke it out&quot; directly at no risk to you. However you must take the required steps. For instance you must register an agent, and respond timely to DMCA takedown notices, which means you must be reachable as per the law. Your designated agent address must be staffed 9-5. Note that the &quot;Designated Agent&quot; can be the same person as the &quot;Registered Agent&quot; that you already must have when you are an LLC or corporation. And you'll want to be an LLC or corporation by the time you get big enough to worry about copyright lawsuits.
It is legal for a manufacturer to sell a device which is capable of being misused. For example, a wifi-capable router can be sold even if it is &quot;open&quot; by default. A Bluetooth device has a shorter range than wifi, but in principle can connect to any other device. An owner's legal liability is not different given wifi vs. Bluetooth. Whether or not there is criminal liability for a third person who connects to the device also does not specifically depend on whether the device uses Bluetooth technology, as opposed to some other technology. 18 USC 1030 is the general federal law prohibiting &quot;unauthorized access&quot;. In the case of a bed, two legal question arise: is it a &quot;computer&quot;, and is it &quot;protected&quot;? It is an electronic high speed data processing device which performs logical, arithmetic, storage and communications facilities, i.e. it is a computer (in the legal sense). It probably is not protected, because it is not &quot;used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication&quot;, that is, it is not connected to the internet (unless it is). State laws tend to be broader, not having the &quot;interstate commerce&quot; limitation, so accessing the bed would violate Washington's analog of the federal law. However, under Washington law, the access is probably not &quot;without authorization&quot;. That term is defined as knowingly circumvent technological access barriers to a data system in order to obtain information without the express or implied permission of the owner, where such technological access measures are specifically designed to exclude or prevent unauthorized individuals from obtaining such information, but does not include white hat security research or circumventing a technological measure that does not effectively control access to a computer. The term &quot;without the express or implied permission&quot; does not include access in violation of a duty, agreement, or contractual obligation, such as an acceptable use policy or terms of service agreement, with an internet service provider, internet website, or employer. The term &quot;circumvent technological access barriers&quot; may include unauthorized elevation of privileges, such as allowing a normal user to execute code as administrator, or allowing a remote person without any privileges to run code. One question is whether there is any technological access barrier that the user circumvents (I don't know if it is possible to circumvent &quot;hidden mode&quot;). Since the term &quot;may include ... allowing a remote person without any privileges to run code&quot;, and since playing music on speakers involves running code, then the remote user may be criminally liable. On the third hand, the language of that paragraph (&quot;technological access measures are specifically designed to exclude or prevent unauthorized individuals from obtaining such information, but does not include ... circumventing a technological measure that does not effectively control access to a computer&quot;) clearly indicates a legislative intent to address deliberately overcoming active access barriers and not accidentally connecting to an unprotected, open system. Plus, the law also says that you are accessing the computer &quot;in order to obtain information&quot;, but that is not the purpose of transmitting sound to speakers.
In united-states trademark law, 15 U.S.C. § 1111 provides that: Notice of registration; display with mark; recovery of profits and damages in infringement suit Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1072 of this title, a registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, may give notice that his mark is registered by displaying with the mark the words &quot;Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office&quot; or &quot;Reg. U.S. Pat. &amp; Tm. Off.&quot; or the letter R enclosed within a circle, thus ®; and in any suit for infringement under this chapter by such a registrant failing to give such notice of registration, no profits and no damages shall be recovered under the provisions of this chapter unless the defendant had actual notice of the registration. Notice that display of the symbol is optional, the registrant &quot;may give notice&quot; by using the phrase or the ® symbol. But if such notice is not given a significant element of damages in case of an infringement is forfeit unless the infringer had &quot;actual notice&quot; of the registration of the mark. Since the purpose is to give notice that a word, symbol, logo or other indication is in fact a registered mark, making the registration so small that it cannot easily be seen might tend to defeat that purpose. If an infringer claimed not to be aware that an indication was a registered mark, and if the notice was displayed or printed in so small a form that this claim was plausible, it might raise an issue in an infringement suit. I have not found any caselaw on the point. &quot;Finessing the Details of Type: Registered, Trademark, &amp; Copyright Symbols&quot; by Ilene Strizver advises that: These symbols are used at so small a size that they should be neutral in appearance, yet clear at the size they will be reproduced at ... when using a ® or a ™ after a word, the size should be adjusted as necessary, independently from the rest of the text, to look clear and legible, yet unobtrusive. Its proportion next to the neighboring word or glyph depends a lot on the final size of each appearance. A general guideline for text is to make these symbols a little smaller than half the x-height. As the type gets larger, the symbols can become proportionately smaller, especially in headlines. However this is a guide for typesetters and graphic designers, and is not legal advice. Several sources indicate that a single use of the R-in-a-circle in connection with a particular mark in any given document or set of packaging is sufficient (as is also mentioned in a comment). If elsewhere in the same web site the logo is displayed in a larger size, with a larger version of the symbol, that would probably offer all the protection needed under US law. This answer is US-centric. Law elsewhere may or may not be similar.
could this mean my employer owns the idea and anything I develop --since I would use the same technology for my idea that I do at work? No, unless by &quot;technology&quot; you mean the employer's materials or resources (see condition 3 of the clause). Your remark that &quot;this is completely and utterly unrelated to [employer's] business model&quot; survives items 1 and 2. Likewise, working on your idea outside hours survives the corresponding part of item 3. Would this also mean that any open-source software I develop outside of work automatically belongs to my employer? No, unless the software you develop is &quot;based on [your] knowledge [etc.] of (COMPANY)&quot;.
Can't we get a legal action about AdBlocker as web masters? No. I assume that by "web master" you mean a server admin who contracts with entities which are seeking to advertise their goods and services. An advertiser pays the server to transmit (or send(), in terms of a socket API) certain content to whoever submits a GET or POST request ("the client"). The scope of the contract ends there, and the end consumer or client is not a party to that contract. Any point beyond the server admin's routers, it is perfectly lawful for end users to run some program on the client side where the purpose of that program is to (1) parse any packets received in the client socket, (2) filter out some of it, (3) and forward the rest to a browser. Bringing legal action against AdBlocker would be somewhat akin to suing producers of TV remote controls under the allegation that the mute button functionality blocks advertisement content.