## Solution It turns out that quotes fall under "fair-use" [4][5], so technically one isn't required to even give *attribution* to the source of the quote; however, in practical purposes, this means that there are simply no restrictions on how one *cites* a quote. ## Original Post Creative Commons licenses require that credit be given to creator of a work [1]. This is stated as: > Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. [2] "Appropriate credit" is defined as: > appropriate credit — If supplied, you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material. CC licenses prior to Version 4.0 also require you to provide the title of the material if supplied, and may have other slight differences. [2] This seems to be stating that if you, say, quote content from a CC licensed work, when you cite it, say, with MLA or APA, you'll have to also include a copyright notice, a license notice, and a disclaimer notice. This seems like way too much for a simple citation. MLA claims that you don't need to include the license [3], so I'm not entirely sure what is legally expected. ::: spoiler References 1. "About CC Licenses". Creative Commons. Accessed: 2024-09-07T05:29Z. https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/ 2. "Attribution 4.0 International". Creative Commons. Accessed: 2024-09-07T05:28Z. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 3. "If I cite art, music, or other material that has a Creative Commons license, should I refer to the license in my works-cited-list entry?". MLA. Published: 2017-11-07. Accessed: 2024-09-07T05:26Z. https://style.mla.org/citing-works-with-a-cc-license/ 4. FAQ. "Can I Use Someone Else's Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine?". "How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?". Copyright.gov. Accessed: 2024-09-09T17:34Z. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html. > Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. 5. "17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use". Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. Accessed: 2024-09-09T17:46Z. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107. > Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— > > (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; > > (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; > > (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and > > (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. > > The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

In my AGPL3 project, can I use code from a GPL3 project and publish it under the AGPL3 licence? If not how would i go about using said code?

I quit a job in California. After my resignation, they sent me an email requesting that I confirm I turned over all employer property, and asked me to sign an agreement with the following:  Do I need to respond at all? Can I strike that if I don't agree to that last statement? How should I handle this?

If not what percentage of a human brain would need to be simulated to grant such human rights. If said brain was made made artificially and thus was never born is it still human? If we can simulate an AI of simmillar size to a human brain I assume thats not considered a human but if u put that into a body that can take a breath (I believe this is the legal definition of a human at least in australia jurisdiction). What's an actual lawers opinion on this? PS this is purly hypothetical I was talking to a lawyer friend and found legally its an interesting hypothetical. Whats ur take on this from ur legal POV.

Last week I bought a used car. I got a title. I moved to Missouri in January, and I'll be moving back out of Missouri in a month. I have insurance on it. I've been looking at the papers I still need online, and at reviews of the different office I need to go to. Apparently, I need info from the assessors office to show that I'm exempt from property tax on the vehicle or to pay it. It's gonna be an hours drive to get to the office. They dont have accurate info online on hours open, they don't answer the phone, and the voicemail says that they hope to open again on April 4th. It's April 15th. I figure it's gonna be another drive to get to DMV offices, and reviews on both offices show that there's 2 hours waits, and extremely unpredictable closing times. So I'm looking at having to take at least a day off of work, maybe more. I make like $300 on a good day. The max fines for late registration look like $200, and for the traffic violation it's $50.50, if I understand right from my Google search. If I were able to even get a hold of somebody at either office during business hours, I'd go ahead and register. Honestly though, I'm struggling to justify the opportunity cost. I could get caught and fined twice in a traffic stop before it would be worth doing it. Am I missing something? Is it financially worth registering my car? What if I just register when I move, in the new state?

I posted a question to legal.advice asking why material witnesses are tossed in jail while a sequestered jury gets a hotel despite neither being a suspect. I got a response asking for a specific instance, and so I posted the link, and was immediately banned from the sub, makes perfect sense.... The sub is a shit hole.

It appears at least some of the indicted players in the Trump indictments in Georgia are asking to change to Federal court…but these are State charges not Federal - how could a Federal court hear the case(s) in that situation? Would it enable a potential Presidential pardon which does not apply to State charges otherwise? Is this a back door way to dodge the charges?

I was curious and noticed that Reddit uses a bunch of open source (MIT, BSD 3 clause, Apache 2.0, etc) licensed javascript libraries. I looked around both on the website and in the minified source and did not notice the license being retained. I am just curious if Reddit is violating the license terms by not showing these licenses. This answer on SE implies it might be: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/9258/how-does-javascript-minification-process-comply-with-requirements-of-opensource

I would be interested in licensing all of my posts, and comments (or any other applicable user-created content) under CC BY-SA 4.0. Is this legally feesible? How would one go about this properly? Is it enough to just state in a bio something like "All of this users posts are licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0", or would I also have to add "This work is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0" to the end of every post, and comment that I make?

Well, someone's gotta make a first post, I guess. Around 6 months ago, I took my car to a regional chain mechanic shop for a decent chunk of work (timing assembly replaced). About 5 months later, it died in the driveway. I took it back to them and they ultimately told me I have a spun bearing and that the entire motor would need to be replaced. Neither me nor a friend of mine were satisfied with this answer (for one, a spun bearing wouldn’t destroy the motor), so we investigated it briefly with a scope and discovered what we both suspected: that the timing assembly is indeed destroyed, which contradicts the mechanics words that “the timing assembly is fine”, which I had asked him explicitly to check, since it was worked on recently. I also read through their warranty, and found two problematic clauses: > When warranty service is requested, this warranty shall not be valid if the customer does not permit [REDACTED] to install all necessary parts and/or perform all necessary services needed to restore the vehicle for safe operation or that would allow the warranted part to operate in the manner it was intended. > THIS WARRANY DOES NOT COVER THE COST OF REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY PART THAT IS DAMAGED DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE WARRANTED PARTS OR OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. THIS WARRANTY DOES NOT COVER, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF TIME, INCONVENIENCE, LOSS OF USE OF VEHICLE, TOWING CHARGES OR OTHER INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. Is there any chance either of these is illegal or unenforceable? The "consequential damages" waiver feels particularly egregious to me, like it might violate some consumer protection laws. Normally, small claims court would be the option to go for if the mechanic refuses to acknowledge liability for the motor, would it not? Does the warranty make that option worthless?

I’m afraid the Reddit legaladvice mods will remove my post . If they sue, do I have a reasonable counterclaim?