Does Amazon prohibit a family of adults from sharing a single Amazon account? In Amazon's Conditions of Use, the section &quot;License and Access&quot; says the following: Subject to your compliance with these Conditions of Use and any Service Terms, and your payment of any applicable fees, Amazon or its content providers grant you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable license to access and make personal and non-commercial use of the Amazon Services. Also, the section &quot;Your Account&quot; says the following: You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your account and password and for restricting access to your account, and you agree to accept responsibility for all activities that occur under your account or password. Amazon does sell products for children, but it sells them to adults, who can purchase with a credit card or other permitted payment method. If you are under 18, you may use the Amazon Services only with involvement of a parent or guardian. Parents and guardians may create profiles for teenagers in their Amazon Household. However, Amazon Household is limited in how many profiles can be created. For example, you can only have two adult (18+) profiles per household. If a family of more than two adults would like to share a single account instead of getting involved with Amazon Household, would they be in violation of Amazon's terms, whether in the section above or elsewhere? Update I have just noticed an additional statement of significance in the terms: By using the Amazon Services, you agree, on behalf of yourself and all members of your household and others who use any Service under your account, to the following conditions. Might this suggest that the agreement is broad enough to apply not only to one individual but also to the individual's &quot;household&quot; (and maybe even to &quot;others who use any Service under your account&quot;)?
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.
We cannot dispense personalized legal advice: that is what your attorney is for. However, I agree with your analysis that this is most likely covered by fair use, and indeed it is not obvious that you have taken anything that is protected. There is no creativity behind a number such as entries in the &quot;I did N pushups&quot; column. The arrangement of data into a web page passes the smidgen of creativity test, but &quot;210&quot; is not a creative number. The terms of service of a website cannot negate your right to use the website however you want in a non-infringing way. If your use is &quot;fair use&quot;, then they can't tell you that you can't use it. In case it turns out that &quot;fair use&quot; fails, the matter would hinge on what exactly the TOS says. They may have granted you permission to make use of their &quot;information&quot;. So there are three positive avenues for you to consider: not protected, fair use, and permitted. A practical difficulty is that a university lawyer is only interested in the interests of the university, and they are as likely to say &quot;don't do that&quot; or &quot;get permission&quot; as they are to say &quot;that is fair use&quot;. You can hire a lawyer who is paid to care about your interest, though there is never a guarantee that the lawyer's advice is correct. I think it is likely that the lawyer will tell you to not say anything until legally forced to, given the apparent rebuff of your request for special permission.
Does CCPA impact whether or not this is allowed? Probably not. Public schools are divisions of state government and there are limits to how much the federal government can dictate the operations of state and local governments. Limitations on whether public schools can monetize data collected from students (13+) would arise under state law. The state law could certainly expressly authorize the practice (and to some extent does already with profit generating sports teams and yearbooks). State law could likewise prohibit the practice. For the most part, state law is silent and it doesn't happen that much because it isn't very profitable. Is there different guidance for public (government-managed and nonprofit) vs private schools? The legal analysis is very different. I'm not as familiar with this area of law, however, and will leave that question to someone else. As a practical matter, private schools are in a very good position to obtain express consent to do so from parents and students, so that is usually how the issue is resolved, I suspect.
Business question Since a license agreement/terms of use document is a contract between the publisher and the end-user, and since minors are prohibited from entering into legally binding contracts in most U.S. states, how can any sort of terms be legally enforceable? Legal question May an online publisher enforce its product license agreement/terms of use against a minor ? Answer Yes, an online publisher can enforce its product license agreement/TOU against a minor until such time the minor voids the agreement. Discussion The opinion of the court in C.M.D. v. Facebook 2014 WL 1266291 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2014), Inc. discusses this very legal question and clarified that terms of service of Facebook are enforceable against minors who use websites and further suggests that to disaffirm such terms of service, minors likely must terminate their accounts and stop using the website. The key question in front of the Judge in this case was whether the contract at issue between minors and Facebook - was one of the narrow types of contracts with minors that were void, or if the contract was merely voidable under California Family Code 6701. The court rules in favor of Facebook.
You can't grant or license that which is not yours. For example, the Slack terms of service say: We grant to Customer a non-sublicensable, non-transferable, non-exclusive, limited license for Customer and its Authorized Users to use the object code version of these components, but solely as necessary to use the Services and in accordance with the Contract and the User Terms. So Slack's agreement with Org A does not give A any right to let any other organization B use the software. It does not matter how A and B are related, nor whether B is nonprofit or for-profit, nor what A would be getting in exchange. If B wants to use it, they need to make their own agreement with Slack.
You probably can't refuse to use such services. The relationship between you and these services is very different when you interact with them as a consumer, versus when these services are provided on behalf of your employer. In the latter case, the service is (or at least should be) bound as a data processor who can only* use your personal data as instructed by the data controller, your employer. Thus, it is your employer who determines for what purposes your data will be used, not the cloud service. Your employer has a legitimate interest in providing a modern and secure productivity suite to its employees, and in requiring you to use such services for efficient communication and collaboration. Of course it would be possible to provide some such services on-premises, but the GDPR doesn't really discriminate between self-hosted and third party services, as long as the third party service is contractually bound as a data processor. To a large degree, this is of course a legal fiction. The cloud services deploy new features all the time, and all that your employer can really do is agree to those changes, including agreeing to new ways for how to process your data. Also, the service provider may act both as a data processor on behalf of your employer for some purposes, but as their own data controller for others. E.g. in Google Workspace (formerly GSuite, formerly Google Apps for Business) Google collects analytics data about how you use their Docs product, and they use it for their own purposes. However, they would only process the document itself as a data processor. This is quite different in the consumer version where Google can use personal data for their own purposes, although within the limits of their privacy policy. Within your work account, you do have some privacy controls, similar to a consumer account. While your employer can set defaults and restrict features, you are not forced to share all data. E.g. in a Google Account, you can “pause” web and app activity (i.e. browsing history) that would otherwise be collected from Chrome browsers while logged in with your work account, or from Android devices that are managed by your employer. This data would potentially be used by Google for Ads, even with a Workspace account (I'm not sure). However, Google Workspace services generally do not feature ads themselves, e.g. the paid Gmail version does not feature ads. The largest real issue with the use of such services by an European employer is the international transfer of data to a non-EU jurisdiction, especially into the U.S. The GDPR offers many alternatives for how such transfers can be protected. In the past, the EU and US had used the Privacy Shield mechanism. However, it was found to be invalid in the 2020 Schrems II ruling, due to concerns about US mass surveillance. Subsequent guidance from supervisory authorities explained that it's not sufficient to use “standard contractual clauses” as an alternative protection, but that additional safeguards have to be implemented, which would effectively deny the personal data to actors in the US. Both Google and Microsoft offer some “data sovereignty” choices that prevent international transfers into the US. However, those have to be configured appropriately by your employer. Thus, instead of asking “can these services be used?” to which the answer is yes, it might be better to ask “is my employer using these services in a compliant manner?”. If you have concerns about such issues, you can contact your employer's data protection officer
This answer is limited to United States law. The situation in other countries is definitely different. Under United States law, the owner of a lawfully made copy of a copyrighted work has, as a right of the physical possession of that work, the right to the work's ordinary use. Licenses grant you additional rights such as the right to make derivative works, the right to make copies beyond what's needed for ordinary use, and so on. A pure license doesn't ask for anything in return, it just gives you new rights. Those rights may be conditional, but the conditions are just things you have to do to get new rights. They're not conditions imposed on any existing rights you had. A contract is an agreement between two parties. Both parties must agree to a contract for the contract to be enforceable. Contracts can take away rights you otherwise have. You don't need a license or contract to use a copyrighted work if you lawfully possess a copy of that work. Say you download a copy of a work covered by the GPL. You can refuse to accept the GPL license and you can still use that work. Why? Because no law prohibits you from doing so and there is no civil cause of action for using a lawful copy of a work under US law. But now say you want to give a copy of that work to your friend. This is illegal under US law because 17 USC 106 restrict that right to the copyright holder and there's no applicable exception since that's not part of the ordinary use. For a work covered by the GPL, the license offers to give you that right, a right you wouldn't otherwise have. It imposes conditions on you that are specifically in exchange for the grant of the new right. If you do accept the GPL, it functions as a contract. You got in exchange a right you didn't have before and if you don't comply with the GPL's terms, you don't have the copyright holder's permission to exercise those rights which is required under the law. By contrast, a click-through or EULA takes effect when you agree to it and such agreement is a condition for using the software. That's a pure contract and usually doesn't give you any rights you wouldn't have in the absence of such an agreement other than the use of the software.
Unfortunately the answer is a vague "it depends." Commercial versus non-commercial is not clearly defined in actual law, and is usually up to the specific license to define what it considers to be commercial use. If you were putting them on your business cards, then it's just being used for advertising and whether it's commercial use is a bit controversial. If the license explicitly prohibits the use of the work in advertising, then the license should explicitly mention that and should not rely on the term "commercial use" to cover or protect it. Creative Commons ran an excellent study on commercial versus noncommercial use back in 2009: Defining “Noncommercial” - A Study of How the Online Population Understands “Noncommercial Use” In the United States, for example, the Copyright Act does not define a copyright owner’s rights in terms of commercial or noncommercial use. Instead, copyright law sometimes attaches legal significance to whether a use is “commercial” or “noncommercial” or whether a user is deemed to be a commercial or noncommercial entity, However, rarely are the terms defined, and the law offers no specific guidance on how to differentiate between commercial and noncommercial uses or users of copyrighted works. If you were putting them on a business card you were making for the client, then that would be more clearly identified as commercial use because you're using it in something you are selling for a profit. What your client will be using them for is not relevant, because you're the one selling them to the client and you need to have the right to be able to do that.