Law Questions and Answers

Movie soundtrack rights?

this is for people within "The Biz". i have a small library of music on my computer. i'm thinking around making a small independent movie, and editing it together on my computer. i'll probably just fall up giving dvd copies to the people i can con into acting within the film, and there's a 99.999% opening that it will never see the inside of a movie theater. if i use some of the music in my library for the soundtrack for the movie do i hold to pay any charitable of licensing excise, or any fee at adjectives, for the rights to use the music? even if i still own the cd's the music come from?

Answers: Absolutely you have to license the music.

Even if the music is surrounded by your "library" because you paid for it.

There is plenty of information on show finance on the pattern, and even better information in books available on Amazon or surrounded by most Borders and Barnes and Nobles I have be in the final few years, that address this very issue and frequent more you should know about as an aspiring filmmaker.

Note what the issues are within the pending Hollywood writer's strike - should the writers be salaried if their work somehow ends up in some format approaching you are suggesting?

The current negotiations are such that it is not clear how it will turn out, but for music in that is no such controversy. You must license it.

Sorry, I know that is not the answer you want to hear :)

Dam Me

The establishment clause in the 1st Amendment.?

"Congress shall product no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."

So, classic give somebody the third degree, is the allowance of free expression of religion in public places and administration buildings effectively making a law through the unarticulated condonement of the religious expression, even if not explicitly supported, or must a direct ruling ratified, one which applies to given governmental department, public place, etc, exist? Does self a government member of staff make a difference?

Answers: Seeing as how the Constitution explicitly spells out how a tenet is to be made (Congress passes and President signs or vetos) I would vote it is logical to conclude that the clause you specify is chitchat about actual law created according to the Constitution, not something that is implied or condoned.

Furthermore, I am of the assessment that we should take the dialogue literally ("establishment of religion") and interpret it to mean that Congress can not establish a state religion (i.e. The Church of England) and not interpret it to prohibit any law regarding religion. It make sense given the historical context, especially the previously mentioned Church of England. In other words, I believe Congress has the power to leave behind a law stating that adjectives courtrooms must hang the 10 Commandments. This would not violate the 1st amendment because it does not establish a religion, it merely endorses one. Which is not prohibited if we interpret the amendment literally. I'm not proposing Congress do this, I'm freshly stating an opinion that I don't give attention to it would be unconstitutional if it did so.

Sorry, the question is too open for my shallow mind to answer, but the question is awesome. Thank you.
So heres a star

Sorry.cant amount out what you are asking

What the first amendment is referring to when it says,"Congress shall put together no law respecting an establishment of religion,".specifically the reference that's classification is bastardized. What it means is no established church,to wit: Catholic-Lutheran-Mormon-etc;shall be established as the form of our Government.(period). Hence the separation of church and state.
The Constitution DOESN'T SAY that you can't display religious paraphernalia in public or Government buildings. Not lone does it not say it but it doesn't intimate it.
The second part,"prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
UNDERSTAND THIS!!! The Constitution puts confines on GOVERNMENT not you. They would like you to believe the conflicting is true.

"effectivley making a law"?

I don't know what you mean.

Since you know it's convoluted to the point of man unintelligible, why don't you repost, but explaining more clearly.

It's OK to break it into more than one sentence, or make available an example.

Communication good!

I marshal you're talking give or take a few Christmas trees and such.

I'm for avoiding the issue by declaring them seasonal.

I close to the pretty lights up during this dark and negative time of year.

Under what circumstances killing of civilians during a time of war is not a war crime?

We know that IBM or other types of bombing usually motivation thousands of civilians’ death and destruction of private homes and success not used surrounded by war.

Answers: Why twice? When they are shooting at you first!

I am have deja vu all over again!

ask bush when he go to meet his author

in truth? the conqueror decides that

we werent prosecuted for the Dresden fire bombings (killed hundreds of thousands within a city with no military value)

same is true for the Tokyo fire bombings

consent to alone the 2 Nuclear bombs

the winners resolve who committed the atrocities

If it where a short time ago militaries fighting respectively other away from civilians and property was the one and only legal means of access of fighting period of war, only naval warfare would be court.

Bottom line is when the antagonist moves in around their own civilians, it make them a target. If they put an anti-aircraft gun on top of a hospital, it make that hospital a legal target. If you park tank in a college yard and use the school gym as a barracks, it make the school a official target. If a train carrying war materials is parked contained by a trail yard, the patio is a legal target.

If your asking should Bush and Blair be charge beside war crimes after YES

WHO can tell me contained by the state of PA, can a business owner put his or her hands on a personage to remove them??

I know you can't be excessive but what are the laws? Can anyone provide a website that address these laws?

Answers: assault 1) v. the threat or attempt to strike another, whether successful or not, provided the target is aware of the trouble. The assaulter must be reasonably skilful of carrying through the attack. In some states if the assault is with a deep weapon (such as sniping with a rifle), the intended subject does not need to know of the peril. Other state law distinguish between different degrees (first or second) of assault depending on whether in that is actual hitting, injury or just a threat. "Aggravated assault" is an attack connected beside the commission of another crime, such as beating a clerk during a robbery. 2) n. the conduct yourself of committing an assault, as in "in that was an assault down on Third Avenue." Assault is both a criminal wrong, for which one may be charged and tried, and civil wrong for which the target may sue for damages due to the assault, including for mental distress.

2701. Simple assault.
(a) Offense defined.--A personage is guilty of assault if he:

attempts to cause or intentionally, purposely or recklessly cause bodily injury to another;
negligently causes bodily injury to another next to a deadly weapon; or
attempts by physical menace to put another contained by fear of looming serious bodily injury.

(b) Grading.--Simple assault is a misdemeanor of the second degree unless committed:

contained by a fight or commotion entered into by mutual consent, within which case it is a misdemeanor of the third point; or
against a child under 12 years of age by an full-grown 21 years of age or older, within which case it is a misdemeanor of the first level.

--------------------------------------...

If it's in a hotel, then a bouncer can.

Can a defendants criminal record or previous crimes be used against them contained by a crimal trial?

When on trial in a criminal luggage can the defendants previous crimes or criminal record be used by the state/gov't against you. If your on trial let say for Murder and be convicted in times gone by for grand thieving, can that conviction be used as evidence against you?

Answers: No, it cannot be used as evidence against you. The fact that you committed opulent theft within your past is irrelevant to whether you committed murder surrounded by this instance. They only purpose it would serve would be to prejudice the jury. However, if you chose to testify, the prosecutor can ask if you own been convicted of a felony. But, they cannot shift into what the felony was unless you lied and said "no". Of course, if your previous conviction be for a murder that occurred contained by the same attitude as the murder for which you were self tried, the prosecutor could make a motion to receive that previous conviction in as evidence of Modus Operandi.

Can it be presented to the jury as evidence? Probably not.

Is it agreed by the police & prosecutor prior to charges being brought against you? You bet your butt.

Your ancient will always come put a bet on to haunt you if it is ineradicably recorded.

It depends. Usually previous criminal act are not admissible, but there are exceptions. The more adjectives ones:

1. Criminal convictions are admissible to prove motive, intent, plan, preparation, opportunity, identity, or common job. (See, e.g. Fed. Rules of Evidence 404(b))

2. Criminal convictions are admissible to impeach a witness (attack the credibility of a witnesses' testimony) on cross-examination. Witness includes a defendant who takes the stand contained by his own defense. (Fed Rules of Evidence 608(b))

There are a few others. But, the bottom line is that prior criminal act are NOT automatically inadmissible.

Heather Mac & Mr. Placid are correct.

As a glass blower is it unendorsed to make or vend Pipes & Bongs in NJ?

As a chalice blower is it illegal to trademark or sell Pipes & Bongs contained by NJ

Is there some sort of regualtions or security needed?

Isnt it a federal offence to put on the market bongs?

Answers: New Jersey Penal Law

2C:36-3. Distribute, dispense or possession with intent to distribute or assembly, crime of fourth degree It shall be unlawful for any individual to distribute or dispense, or possess with intent to distribute or dispense, or creation with intent to distribute or dispense, drug paraphernalia, knowing that it will be used to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, obtain, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, experiment, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, ingest, inhale or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog contained by violation of the provisions of chapter 35 of this title. Any party who violates this division commits a crime of the fourth degree.

Advertise them as hookahs intended to use near tobacco.

Can I hire only non-smoking personnel? Smoking wastes like mad of time?

Answers: Many places do now; or forbid smoking on the opportunity as a condition of employment

Yep, its perfectly permissible to discriminate against smokers.

The gov't has specific guidelines of what you cannot disseminate against nation for. Anything else is fair activity.

Many companies are already saying no to smokers-I get turned down a job once because they mentioned a tobacco theory test.

I cant remember all of them right stale, but age, gender, sexual nouns (depending on area sometimes), see, religion, and a few others are the only things protected.
__

The non-hiring of smokers is base as much on insurance costs as anything else. Many employers are also charging smokers (and overweight people) lofty insurance premiums instead.

Noooo...silly. You can not discriminate against anyone! You can, however, allow only so lots breaks during the day - as long as you save it within the law of your state, etc...

Edit: What are they smoking?

Depends on your company or line of work. I would recomend agianst it, as you could potentially be sued for 'intentional discrimination' (based on Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

Citing smoking as "a rubbish of time" probably wouldn't be a good plenty reason alone.
You should document the amount of productivity your company have lost and create a defense (in other words, a "paper fortress" of facts and analysis).
You could articulate, instead that the second-hand smoke is negativly affecting you force moral, health, and consentration. I would ask several organization if that is the overnight case. If they work in a small organization or cubicles or the like, the smoke can be problematic.

What you would want is call a BFOQ, or Bonafide Occupational Qualification. Meaning, that non-smoker are a necessary qualification to be hired for your company or business.

Hope this help. :) At VSU, we will soon be a non-smoking campus due to numerous complaints from the students.

I have an issue beside the lawyer who be suppose to work case found out his license be suspended what next?

Here the settlement..My son has be going to court for the past year and partly almost two years I paid this legal representative $6,000 for the case the trial be tuesday I called the attorney and he never answered the phone it was in the region of 10am, a little bit after I made the phone nickname the state revealed to me that he was working beneath a suspended license and it was suspended for two years..subsequent the judge tell me that I have to own a lawyer by the following tuesday, what should I do I am confused and don't own more money to spend on a lawyer and I dont want to hire a legal representative that works for the state because of different reasons...Any oblige

Answers: I am a lawyer contained by NC and NY. This isn't legal suggestion, but some ideas on how to proceed. I don't know the facts of the satchel or the details.

Some state bars hold compensation funds for people who lost money to lawyer and couldn't get it pay for. I imagine that will clutch more time than you have though.

Here is something you can try: Get something within writing from the State Bar- have them fax it motto that the lawyer you hired have a suspended license. File a motion to continue next to the District Attorney (I am assuming it is a criminal case) and the clerk of court.

Go to the clerk of court and ask for a blank form that your son just fill in the blanks and furnish the original to the clerk and the copy to the DA. Ask the DA ahead of time if he will consent to the continuance given the circumstances. If the DA consents, the go-between will probably allow the continuance, but if the DA objects, the judge will probably not allow the continuance. Get the DA's consent ahead of time- explain the circumstances to the DA.

On your court date, hold your son tell the intercede that his lawyer's license is suspended and that you just found this out- present the conciliator with a copy of the fax from the State Bar and a copy of any contract you own with the attorney (do the court records already show this attorney as being your son's legal representative?). I know the judge might be impatient since the grip has be going on so long, but your son has the right to be represented by an attorney.

If that doesn't work, you can ask the District Attorney for a plea wrangle.

Another alternative is to go to a local attorney and ask him for a consultation on the case- you can do that formerly court. Don't ask to have him represent your son- only just a 1 hour consultation- a good local attorney should be capable of point you in the right direction and bequeath you some alternatives. Have him write down some directions for your son to do. Won't cost too much, but you will get some honest advice- better than you have be getting.

E-mail me if you have any other details or question.

Prosicute your now ex-lawyer beside the brand new one you can draw from from Legal Aid and the public defenders department. If you are having a problem finding one you contact the courts within your county to have one appointed to you. This information can be found by contacting your state or county webpage.

What do you think more or less the new "Do not track" net list?

Are you for privacy rights? I am and I support a lasting opt out to telemarketing and annoying spam mail.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071101/tc_n...
What do you ruminate?

Answers: I agree with you, no tracks and irrevocable do not call. I don't want to own to re-register. One time is enough.

I distinctly would support a permanent block on telephone marketing (I enjoy no objections to cold selling at office) at home - and what I find most annoying is when you transmit the caller that you are not interested and two or three weeks down the column - you'll get another call upon from the same blooming company. Whilst I read between the lines they are trying to earn a living, I strongly object to them invading on my privacy.

As for the spam messages - I'm not too bothered because it can be deleted straight away or simply increase the protection of incoming mail.

Should Justin Ellsworth's Parents have be given access to his email?

Justin Ellsworth was a Marine who give his life for his country. By adjectives accounts he was a brave and fine Marine and we adjectives owe him the highest debt of gratitude. But we be also left next to a serious question, what to do beside his email? His parents wanted access. They looked-for to see what their son had to right to be heard. However, email is a private sort of thing. Yahoo, his email provider, have a terms of service agreement beside him. And while we sympathize greatly with his parents, in attendance is also a precedent to be concerned about. One can't simply waive away the privacy issue as a edict to release the information could have serious consequences for email privacy for us adjectives. So the issue needs to be discussed, thought through, and resolved. That is why we hold cases like this contained by a class like this, so we can construe these things through and try to respect the family, the lifeless, and the needs of society. So I ask you:

Answers: In the military, they steep out a form for instances like this, indicating who the designated 'subsequent of kin' is. To this person, adjectives personal effects are turned over in valise the individual is killed contained by action. Since this includes snail communication, I believe email should also be covered.

These real-life stories are the leading fold of what may become a wave of litigation concerning ownership of e-mail information upon the departure of the account holder. The competing interests are the privacy of the article holder, coupled with the ISP's interest surrounded by preserving that privacy, and the survivors' rights to the property of the deceased.

Most of us chew over of e-mail as the modern equivalent of a box of letters belonging to us, when, technically, e-mail is an intangible form of property owned by the ISP. Nonetheless, if it is possible to spot an impulsive trend on the issue, that tendency is to treat e-mail information as the justification holder's property upon his or her death. In most states, the issue is still unresolved and in need clear case precedents. At lowest one state has passed a tenet directing ISPs to turn over the e-mail of a decedent to the personal representative for the decedent's estate.

Steps to Take Now
It will be some time before legislature and courts catch up near the reality that millions of individuals use their e-mail accounts as repositories for all sorts of information have sentimental, historical, or economic effectiveness. In the meantime, there is some practical warning for facilitating access to e-mail information "moved out behind":

* Read your ISP's privacy policy to determine what your survivors may have to contend beside to get access to your e-mails. The policies run the gamut from providing e-mails to subsequent of kin upon showing a power of attorney over the account and a destruction certificate, to treating e-mail accounts as non-transferable and near no right of survivorship.

* As strange as it may sound, consider dealing directly next to the issue in your estate planning by including e-mails specifically surrounded by your will, especially if they have monetary convenience. In connection near this, you should archive the information to your hard drive and be sure that your survivors hold any necessary passwords. Conversely, if you want to steal your e-mails with you, contained by effect, stipulate in your will that not a soul is to have access to your sketch.

* Get good trial advice, including information as to whether nearby are any new law in your state on the subject. They could trump, or at smallest affect, whatever arrangements you enjoy made or may be considering for disposing of your e-mails after your death.

The military requires respectively troop to make out a will in the past deployed into hot zones, also they advocate that any information you want your family to know contained by the event of death, if included in the will, consequently in a seperate encase such as a letter address to who you want the info to go to and specifically where most put their passwords to adjectives email accounts. If the troop does not want anyone in his/her email afterwards they just dont distribute out their passwords and at the end of 30 or 60 days of non use the tale is dissolved, also i think yahoo does recommend users to leave for whoever they want , their password contained by event of untimely demise.
Mine are in my firebox along beside my will and all critical documents - so when i die - somebody is gonna get remunerated. Not to mention they can go into my accounts and do a mass email to not email me anymore create i am dead.
No lately because the parents Want to know their son's private business does not mean they own the RIGHT to get his email password nor should they. The desires of the parents are to bury their son and greive. wants and curiosities roughly speaking what thier son was up to contained by HIS LIFE as an adult - presently seperate from his parents making HIS OWN life as he desired, is basically that a want a certain noseyness, and NOT a right.
In todays society I would request for information the parents motives as to why they wanted it and if they did find it - expect to see a law suit against the organization. now days - disappearance is not the loss of a loved one but an oppotunity TO GET PAID - make some big bucks.
Parents who truely grieve for their loss, wont be demanding they hold rights. People in standard that have honest motives do not run around demanding and claiming rights.
Ciminals and those with criminal intents, do however, other demand their rights whether the rights are authentic, perceived, or fantasy.
I cannot see how you could clear a case for the parents and force yahoo to unscrew up his account to them. If you can receive a good crust then you may be an excellent aspirant for a shyster law suit attorney - turn harvard law!

More Questions and Answers:
[1295] - [1058] - [1738] - [2372] - [2136] - [1617] - [815] - [2265] - [556] - [1322] - [264] - [1196] - [2099] - [650] - [2568] - [2457] - [2464] - [841] - [554] - [83]

The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.

Answer question: