Okay, so who's a lawyer? (preferebly real estate)

SECTION IV -- LEZZING UP

SECTION VII -- VIDEO CAMERA INSTALLATION

I don't want to wade into this, because I don't know anything about this area of law. I imagine that, at the very least, you'd have to comply with federal (and maybe state?) fair housing laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc.

There are sections of the rules and regulations that we want to alter to more accurately reflect the way the people in the building currently live. The issue came up partially because of an incident last year between two owners and partially because one of the units is currently up for sale. It's mostly changes surrounding how the driveway can be used and explicitly stating that you have to comply with the city noise ordinance, and I want to make sure that what I've written says what I think it says. (I'm not too worried about breaking laws; most of the additions are less restrictive than the originals.)

I'm now very tempted to add lez-up guidelines, though.

No no Dan, random internet mentalists give the best legal advice possible! I used to edit comic books - is that close enough to real estate lawyer to help?

this is a wild stab in the dark, but: can anyone recommend a divorce-type lawyer ideally in the nyc suburbs (rockland/westchester)?

my sister-in-law's marriage is very rapidly and very unpleasantly unraveling, as in we might have to drive up there tonight because her john-daly-looking motherfucker of a husband is behaving aggressively and erratically.

Not real estate, but something I need answered. It's a copyright/fair use question--I think it could be answered easily, but I'd rather ask it via board e-mail.

Same question six years later! Can anyone help?

The problem with writing language that may need to be adjudicated is knowing which words or phrases have a precise and agreed legal meaning, instead of just expressing your basic understanding of who is obliged to do what under which circumstances. You need a lawyer for sure and lawyers like to be paid for sharing that specialized knowledge. I'd say bite the bullet and pay one.

Oh, you meant the copyright/fair use question! Sorry. If you're worried about getting sued for infringement, you could try asking for the permission of the copyright holder.

I'm not an IP lawyer, but I did consider becoming one and studied IP a bit. Fair use tends to be a thorny issue and there is often not a clear-cut answer.

Man alive: I sent you a board e-mail. I can outline my issue here, but I'd rather do it off-board.

Here are my questions--I'm looking for free legal advice.

What is the risk of including film stills in a self-published book that won't sell more than 50-100 copies?

I included a photo of Elvis in a self-published book I put out six years ago; worried about it, nothing ever came of it.

A friend and I included various copyrighted material (book jackets, DVD covers--as rendered by an illustrator) on the cover of a book we put out four years ago. Again, we were a little nervous, nothing came of it.

This time, I want to include three film stills on the cover, and a handful inside. I've read a bit about fair use, and since I'm writing about these films, does that count as fair use? 1977 seems to be a cutoff point of sorts--am I safer using films from before that, or does it make a difference?

My guess is, on the million to one chance someone did object, what would happen is that I'd have to redo the cover--which, when you're self-publishing, is not a big deal. Surely no one would seek damages on an obscure self-published book.

Hey clem, I don't really feel comfortable advising you too specifically on that, too much risk I'd give you bad advice since it's not my area.

One general thing I can tell you is that there's always a non-zero risk someone will try to come after you even if you're legally in the right, that's true in all kinds of things, not just copyright. I can also say a purely print book is probably less of a risk than something online since it would have to physically be viewed by someone who gives a fuck, but online you can run afoul of AI software that trawls the net for copyrighted materials. The shitty thing about fair use is that even when you're right you can still have action taken against you. But I can't really tell you the answer on your specific fair use question or advise you what to do here.

I mean, more generally from a litigator's standpoint, I can tell you that it's usually a waste of time to seek damages from someone who doesn't have any money. That doesn't mean no one would ever do it.

Thanks, I appreciate that. I'm going to give it some thought and try to read up a bit more on fair use.

Actually that's a fairly good guideline to follow when considering litigation or threats of it--the more value at stake, generally the more litigation potential.

That aside, there are some people or organizations (usually rich) who are more aggressive about protecting their intellectual property. And so while it might be a waste of time to seek damages, their counsel might at very least seek an injunction even if your project is relatively small. I'm not a lawyer but I've hired several in the past on a similar issue and unless you're doing some obvious damage to the intellectual property, no one's gonna care. Better to ask for forgiveness than permission, but also honor the work that you are using without permission.

The non-zero risk is a big deal. Just minimize the reasons for people to get angry with what you're doing.

That's helpful. The book is about pop music in movies and on TV; 95% of what I'm writing about I'm praising, and certainly anything I put on the cover would be something that I'm enthusiastic about. Would it be safer to stick with older films (late '60s/early '70s) instead of something more recent? Thing is, I'd rather go with more recent images.

You could always pursue actually clearing the stills, a desultory DuckDuckGo turned up Warner’s guide to requesting same, if you clear everything you want to use you could rest easy forever. (The risk I guess is not getting the answers you want or not getting an answer at all.)

If it were me, a not lawyer, I would be totally unconcerned about using stills in a context of commentary or critique, but I’d probably want a cover that didn’t have any copyright questions around it.

(The risk I guess is not getting the answers you want or not getting an answer at all.)

That's it--fear of a flat-out no. But maybe I'll give it a try, thanks.

Probably depends on what's in the stills but not knowing at all what's in them, older is probably safer unless there are iconic faces/places aspects of the stills. But in litigation everything is contestable lol.

Also, kind of what silby hints at (and what I meant to post previously) is that it's kind of cool to get clearance because it acknowledges the original artist's work and maybe even gets them paid a little. That's kind of the point, right?

I've basically got two versions right now. The older one involves Alice in the Cities (1974), Bob & Ted & Carol & Alice (1969), and Aloha Bobby and Rose (1974)--nothing particularly iconic there. The newer one has The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Freaks & Geeks, and Adventureland. My guess is that the first is pretty safe, the second less so. I had a Warhol still in one version of the older cover but figured that was just inviting trouble.

I sent two e-mails out last night; so much for trying to do the right thing.

Thank you for your request seeking permission to license film stills from the above referenced Columbia motion picture for use in a publication entitled “You Should’ve Heard Just What I Seen”. Sony Pictures Entertainment will consider granting you film still rights subject to a license fee of $300.00 US Dollars per still for rights one (1) time print rights, cover use, limited to 100 copies, worldwide distribution, English language.

You must agree to (i) obtain all 3rd party consents, if applicable, and provide us with a copy of those consents (ii) bear all 3rd party payments (e.g., DGA/WGA/SAG), if applicable, and (iii) execute Sony Pictures’ Feature Content License Agreement. You will also be responsible for any lab costs required in creating the film stills, if applicable. Please be advised that receipt of the total license fee is required before a fully executed Feature Content License Agreement can be provided.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

$300 isn't all that much, but you're talking about a project that's not going to make any money, and if everyone wanted the same, and you multiplied that by three for the cover and then added more for a few stills inside, forget it. I read some more on fair use, and to my mind what I'm doing counts. I'll just have to decide whether I want to risk this or not.

quick turnaround though!

If I were this fretful about it I would find an IP lawyer in my jurisdiction and pay them to provide me Actual Legal Advice regarding the necessity of a copyright license for use of film stills in a print publication, might run you more than the $900 though.

We've even had two follow-up e-mails this morning, and it's one of the two scenarios you suggested yesterday, where they just sort of leave you hanging with a non-answer: "I am not an attorney and cannot provide you with legal advise on Fair Use. I suggest that you reach out to a IP attorney and seek guidance. Thank you."

So that's what I'll do.

Here's another anecdote: I'm reading a book published this year in the US by an academic press which has extensive black and white and color film stills in it. One of the color plates of film stills is cited with "courtesy of", others are not. Black and white stills from films that are definitely in copyright in the US such as Pickpocket and Jeanne Dielman are cited but not listed as "courtesy" anyone, and there's no rights/clearances page in the backmatter.

Very helpful, thanks.

I just talked to an IP guy over the phone for 10 minutes, and he said some what you guys have been saying. He thinks I'm 99% okay under fair use, and suggested avoiding iconic images. I can do that easily. And if they objected, he thinks in almost all cases they'd just tell you to stop using the image. That's something that can be fixed in a day when you're self-publishing; you just change the cover and/or what's inside and resubmit. Finally, he said that if they did pursue it as a financial matter, they'd ask for some kind of accounting as to sales, etc. Not worried at all there--they'll be very disappointed.

So I think I'll go ahead, mindful of using screenshots a little less familiar.

so...not sure if anybody with requisite knowledge is here, but...

Prior to May of 2021, our company explained that even though we were hourly employees, from a pay perspective, we were considered 'salaried', in that if we failed to submit a timecard by the deadline, we would get paid our standard 40 hours. The only thing we'd lose out on is if we had overtime that week that we didn't record - once we made a correction, it would get paid on a future paycheck.

they explained this would no longer be the case, and that from now on, we would be true hourly, meaning we would not get paid AT ALL for any hours we didn't record. so if you forget to submit your time card by deadline, you get $0 (meaning once you get it corrected, you'll eventually get it, but only after waiting.

paranoid about this, I failed to miss a single time card until last weekend, when I forgot to submit before leaving for the day, and didn't remember I'd forgotten until a day after the deadline. that could cause me to be out $1,000 or so until it's rectified on next paycheck.

I looked online and was surprised to find articles suggesting this isn't actually legal - that companies are the ones responsible for recording your hours, and while they can discipline you (up to termination) for failing to submit the time card, they have to pay you for hours worked, and they can't use the excuse "we don't know how many hours they worked", because in that case, they're supposed to pay you the standard hours you worked.

my company isn't tiny, it's a humongous global corporation that pays people to know the law. it strikes me as very odd that they would knowingly adopt a policy that was illegal and that nobody in the last year had reported it. but every source I consulted concurred that this was illegal per Federal law.

Anybody know if I'm maybe misinterpreting what I'm reading? I did submit my time card at 3 am this morning so there's a strong chance I get paid anyway, but I am thinking of opening an anonymous case with HR to question the legality of this policy. But wasn't sure if it's a lost cause.

So a lawyer today suggested if Obergefell's precedent were overturned, it could allow states to criminalize same sex marriages, but she also suggested people already married could face criminal charges.

Wouldn't that be considered an "ex post facto" law and illegal? And doesn't last year's Respect for Marriage Act as written require states to recognize same-sex and legal marriages that were performed in states, territories, or foreign countries where the act was legal *at the time*?

Or am I wrong

*lawyer on my friend's FB feed, and the friend is in an interracial marriage. Wanted to offer reassurance to her but only if it's accurate*

You are not wrong.

First, right, existing marriages wouldn't be invalidated. Second, I can't imagine any scenario where anyone could face criminal charges.

I posted this a couple of weeks ago:

greatest amazon reader reviews ever

I know how silly this sounds, but is there any legal recourse here? More email exchanges, still nothing. It just infuriates me how you're basically helpless in a situation like this.