まああとは PS4 版のバイナリを PS5 でそのまま動かすみたいなのはセーフなのと同じように、 Switch 版のバイナリにマウス対応を入れられるのならそれを Switch2 で動かしてもセーフ？ #IANAL #TINLA
#TINLA
I still don't understand how NFT "ownership" works as far as #Copyright laws are concerned. First thing we need to understand is that most countries do not allow relinquishing/transferring an author's Moral Rights.
So, if you buy NFT arts, the author still have complete Moral Rights. #IANAL #TINLA
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:mf5dzzqkp7fnmby6blfeljwj/post/3m3pepajo622l
外国国章損壊罪 - Wikipedia
https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E5%A4%96%E5%9B%BD%E5%9B%BD%E7%AB%A0%E6%90%8D%E5%A3%8A%E7%BD%AA&oldid=106924821
> 「外国」とは、国際法において承認されている日本以外の独立国をいう[1]。日本の承認や日本との国交がない国（未承認国・国交未回復国など）については、その訴訟条件などとの整合性を考慮して含まないとする学説もあるが、それらの国の国家的名誉を尊重すべきであることや、将来的に国交を結ぶ可能性もあることなどから、「外国」に含まれるとされる学説が通説となっている[1][2]。
とあるので、そういうことっぽいです (thx: <https://qnmd.info/@qnighy/115415114473503531>)
外国国章損壊罪 - Wikipedia
https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E5%A4%96%E5%9B%BD%E5%9B%BD%E7%AB%A0%E6%90%8D%E5%A3%8A%E7%BD%AA&oldid=106924821
> 「国旗」とは一国の権威を表徴する国章をいい、「その他の国章」とは軍旗・元首旗・大使館徽章などのその国家の権威を象徴する物件をいう[1][2][4]。
ｲｷﾍﾟﾃﾞﾔ情報なので #TINLA だけど、どうもあくまで「国家」に対してものであるっぽい雰囲気はあるので、どうなんだ……？ という (たとえば極端なことを言うとシーランド公国とかはどうなってんだ)
Một chủ nhà ở TP.HCM cho thuê căn hộ cao cấp đã "ngã ngửa" khi đến kiểm tra: căn hộ bừa bộn, bẩn thỉu đến mức phải thuê 4 người dọn dẹp mất cả ngày mới sạch sẽ. Câu chuyện nhắc nhở về việc kiểm tra định kỳ khi cho thuê!
#TPHCM #ChoThueCanHo #LuxuryApartment #TPHCM #ChoThueCanHoCaoCap #TinLa #StrangeNews
https://vietnamnet.vn/cho-thue-can-ho-cao-cap-chu-nha-o-tphcm-nga-ngua-khi-den-kiem-tra-2443560.html
BONUS!
"Contribution to Collective Work. - When an author contributes to a collective work, his right to have his contribution attributed to him is deemed waived unless he expressly reserves it."
Like in open-source projects where the author is a contributor.
For example. If I contribute to an open-source project, eomy right to be attributed for that contribution is deemed waived in the absence of a License notice. It's just automatic. If I mention that my contribution is under a FLOSS/FOSS license, then the license's attribution requirement is followed.
This is different if the author is literally the creator and the one who chose the license for that project. So, if I choose a public domain equivalent license for my project, and later there were other contributors, since I am the creator, I cannot waive my Moral Right to be attributed since it's an inalienable right under Philippine law. In short, I am not a contributor even though it is a collective work, I am the creator of that collective work.
In addition, I learned this a few days ago:
1. since Attribution is under Moral Rights, and
2. only the Author/Creator is granted Moral Rights, and
3. an Author/Creator is defined as a natural person, then
it is mandatory for works to be Attributed to the Author/Creator. If one gives attribution to a legal entity, it is considered misattribution and a violation of the Philippine Intellectual Property Law.
Unlike the US, the Philippines doesn't give an Attribution/Moral Rights to a legal entity. The legal entity can only receive Economic Rights, either through work-for-hire or transfer.
In other words:
- Attribution always belong to the Author/Creator and it is mandatory. (Moral Rights)
- Copyright ownership can be transferred or owned by a legal entity. (Economic Rights)
Strictly speaking:
❌ © YEAR Legal-entity.
✅ © YEAR Legal-entity · Created/made by Author(s).
✅ © YEAR Author(s) · Legal-entity.
✅ © YEAR Author(s).
It is also incorrect to write: © YEAR Group/Team. Because a group/team is not a natural person. It's better to write it as: © YEAR named authors and contributors. (Which then links to a page with names of authors and contributors.)
Wait?! These are wrong?
❌ © YEAR Legal-entity.
❌ © YEAR Group/Team.
Strictly speaking. Since Authors/Creators are not suing anyone for not giving them proper Attributions, the practice continues.
It is only in the US where a Legal-entity is granted the Moral Right to be Attributed as an Author/Creator despite them not a "natural person". 🤷🏽
(Which probably is the reason why those two formats are common, because everyone is trying to copy the USA without being aware it is only valid there.)
Again, don't confuse Moral Rights and Economic Rights.
Attribution is part of Moral Rights. Moral Rights are only granted to Authors/Creators. An Author/Creator is a "natural person", not an entity.
Economic Rights is transferrable (for example, Copyright and Licensing groups like FILSCAP) , and can also be acquired through work-for-hire (your employer). They are generally called the Rightsholder. They can be the Copyright owner but not the Author/Creator.
I learned today that because of the strong Moral Rights protection in the #Philippines , it is not possible for Authors/Creators (defined as "natural persons" by law) to dedicate/release their work to the #PublicDomain .
And even if we use 0BSD, MIT-0, CC0, and other similar public-domain-equivalent licenses, we can still sue anyone who:
1. Misused our name
2. Misrepresented us
3. Misused our work (downstream)
All under Moral Rights because we can never waived it under Philippine law. Even with a promise not to sue anyone is not a guarantee.
So, saying, "This work is under 0BSD/MIT-0/CC0 and I will never sue anyone for whatever reason", won't work under Philippine law. The Creator/Author will always have their Moral Rights as the creator/author of the work. It's completely up to you to trust that they will fulfill their promise. 🤪
「権利制限規定」とか「権利制限の適用対象から除外」とかの用語めちゃくちゃややこしいけど、
* 「権利」とは著作権つまり著作権者が使用者による使用の方法を制限する権利のこと
* 「権利制限の適用対象」とは著作権者が使用を制限できる範囲から除外するような、使用者による使用の方法。たとえば引用とか。
* 「権利制限規定」とは著作権の行使を制限する規定、つまり使用者に特別に特定の使用方法を認めること (たとえば引用を著作者の許可なく行えるとか)
……というのを踏まえて、「権利制限の適用対象から除外」されている行為とはつまり、「使用者に特別に許していた使用方法に該当しないので、著作権者によるお許しがないと駄目な行為」です (ややこしい！)
https://x.com/astrophys_tan/status/1135909834639831042 #tw
長さを測る器具ではなく直線を引くための「定規」だからおｋ！ という理屈が可能らしい、ウケる #TINLA
画像引用の疑問点：有料配信動画のスクリーンショットを引用できるか？-アニメとスピーカーと‥‥。
https://kato19.blogspot.com/2016/03/screen-shot-gazou-inyou.html
ふーむ #TINLA
Additional information not mentioned.
1. Annulment must be filed before the 10th year marriage anniversary, otherwise, it's no longer available.
2. Not all muslims can divorce under Islamic Sharia Law. If a muslim couple (actually, even if only one is a Muslim) …
(NOTE: #IANAL & #TINLA)
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:uivc5p7uhbo3sicndtcaog5b/post/3lfu4x2v52m2h
New Episode: hpr4168 :: Beyond Economic Recovery
Hosted by Trixter on 2024-07-24 is flagged as Clean and is released under a CC-BY-SA license.
Tags: #archiving, #archivist, #legal, #TINLA, #IANAL
@trashheap Using a built-in software feature, like “reshare”/“boost”, is not a #Copyright infringement. I can't remember which case it was, but a high court in the USA explained the different between re-uploading/redistribution vs. using a platform's built-in “reshare” feature.
What can be considered as infringement are:
* Re-uploading / redistributing an image/photo/art/fiction/ebook/story. Since these are automatically Copyrighted to the author/creator/writer.
* Creating a derivative, or a reproduction, work without permission or a license.
On screenshots, it is case-by-case:
* Was it a screenshot of a scene from an animation or live-action production? It is infringement, however, in countries where there is Fair Use, or similar, they can get away with it depending on usage. (Example, in an article or review, it falls under Fair Use. [But if you overdo it, you still might get in trouble.])
* Was it a screenshot of a post where a Copyrighted work was included? If the subject is clearly about the post and not the Copyrighted material, it is fine. Otherwise, it's a grey area. If the owner of the Copyrighted material that was included in that screenshot, can prove their Rights were infringed, they can potentially win in court. (But using a platform's “reshare” feature is, again, fine as you simply re-shared it, not re-uploaded.)
How about text-only posts?
* Generally, text-only posts in microblogging platforms, are not Copyrighted as those do not fall under any conditions of the Copyright Law. If the post owner can prove their post was a creative work, then they can try it in court.
Of course, the Copyright landscape is constantly changing in our fast evolving cyberspace. For example, in many platforms today, they allow threading of a post. In some, even though the platform doesn't have any threading feature, mobile apps can add such features (example, Trunks can display a Mastodon thread properly even though Mastodon's web and mobile interface don't support threading).
So, if a user can prove that it is a “thread”, then there is a chance it can be Copyrightable. But, again, largely, “no”.
---
Anyway, it's the simplest way I can explain it. Also, #IANAL and #TINLA.
By the way, don't be confused between #Copyright and #Trademark. These two are totally different.
Let's use Mickey and Minnie Mouse.
While the earliest versions of Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse are now in the #PublicDomain it does not mean you can freely create and sell your own merchandise with them on it. That falls under Trademark.
Copyright covers works of art like the character, the stories, literary works, music. In the Mickey and Minnie Mouse case, the images and stories, and the character art itself, are now in the Public Domain.
However, using these characters as in a merchandise like mugs and t-shirts is not under Copyright, it is under Trademark. Disney still holds the Trademark rights for these characters.
You can draw Mickey and Minnie. You can create new stories for them. Not only that, but you can write a new literary work, say a novel or a children's book or a film, based on the earliest versions of these characters. Just not anything that falls under Trademark.
If you are going to do something that you think might fall under Trademark law, the best course of action is to ask #Disney. If they say it doesn't fall under Trademark law, then keep that reply, as it is your proof they gave you permission. Otherwise, try to negotiate if you really need it.
So, again, Copyright (and in this case Public Domain) is totally different from Trademark. Many countries choose to call these two as #IntellectualPropertyRights. While it is correct (and confusing), they are different and there is no overlap between them. They have completely separate uses/coverage.
#IANAL and #TINLA, however, it doesn't mean you can't study Copyright and Trademark laws.
Client Info
Server: https://mastodon.social
Version: 2025.07
Repository: https://github.com/cyevgeniy/lmst