Sentences with phrase «question is in the public domain»

«The video in question is in the public domain, and there is no violation here.»

Not exact matches

The case hinges on questions of who owns a piece of data and the circumstances under which the information can be viewed as residing in the public domain, accessible by all and sundry.

Texas eminent domain lawyer Luke Ellis, told the Houston Chronicle: «The public interest question surrounding exports provides an opening to challenge land takings in court, and is almost certainly on the minds of pipeline executives.»

The question all security and fraud practitioners across all industry verticals want an answer to is: What are the applications of a public or private blockchain in their respective domains?

The case is similar, as probably no one will really deny, in the domains of social policy, culture and education, in the attitude of Christians to thermo - nuclear and other modern weapons and in innumerable similar questions of public life at the present day.

Lords» Questions, which are similar to Parliamentary Questions (PQs) in the House of Commons, are effectively tools for obtaining information from the Government that is not already in the public domain.

«It is completely an unnecessary question but I think it reflects the incompetence of this government because the information the President calls a secret is actually in the public domain.»

After Trubow wrote to complain, a lawyer for the company rebuffed his payment demand, arguing that the four - question scale is in the public domain.

Material contained in the NAEP Questions Tool is in the public domain (excluding any third - party copyrighted material it may contain), and therefore permission is not required to reproduce it.

On July 17, 2009, Amazon withdrew from sale two e-books by George Orwell, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty - Four, refunding the purchase price to those who had bought them, and remotely deleted these titles from purchasers» devices without warning after discovering the publisher lacked rights to publish the titles in question; in the U.S. they were copyrighted while being part of the public domain in some other countries.

[60] Amazon then revealed the reason behind its deletion: the e-books in question were unauthorized reproductions of Orwell's works, which were not within the public domain and to which the company that published and sold them on Amazon's service had no rights.

This data is in the public domain and available for anyone to sort and analyze — answering questions such as how many exhiitions included work by a particular artist, which exhibitions were organized by a particular curator, who was the youngest artist to have a solo show, or which artists are most frequently exhibited with another artist.

Nor even if one recognizes such a need, does this mean that the current questions in the public domain as exampled by the video, are somehow expunged, whether you like them or not (and they are less about the nitty - gritty than previous generations of questions).

So apparently the oil companies did not keep any information from the public because the information in question was already in the public domain.

Given that this was in the public domain and has been discussed in the media and on various websites over a number of weeks, the ICO's view, as I indicated when we spoke yesterday, is that the University must have understood that the question whether an offence under section 77 had been committed would be looked at.

The answers to your questions therefore are «no you have not licensed anything» and «yes it stays in the public domain».

I totally agree, although the linked articles (which the question poster does not to fully understand) is referring to magazines that accidentally entered the public domain between 1923 and 1968 due to a failure to renew a copyright on the part of the entity, in which case if there was residual copyright in the author who did renew the copyright, it would not enter the public domain for failure to renew.

I can't say categorically that I cross-license all my code here into the public domain, because code in my answers is frequently a «derivative work» of code from the question, and of course I can't re-license OPs» work without their permission; but suffice it to say, if you take code that I post here and adapt it for use in a non-trivial program of which my code is a trivial or incidental piece, then please don't worry about my rights under CC BY - SA.

Perhaps the better question is why isn't that in the public domain and can VR be the technology that finally reverses the broken IP regime Sonny Bono dropped on us?

As such, since the materials in question are clearly public domain under federal copyright law, any attempt by a library to place restrictions on the use of this material would be unenforceable under the «federal pre-emption doctrine» (in addition, the library would not like not gain copyright in the pre-1923 music by merely digitizing it: Bridgeman Art Library v Corel, 36 F. Supp.

62 The answer to the second question should therefore be that Article 9 of the directive is to be interpreted as meaning that the activities referred to at points (a) to (d) of the first question, relating to data from documents which are in the public domain under national legislation, must be considered as activities involving the processing of personal data carried out «solely for journalistic purposes», within the meaning of that provision, if the sole object of those activities is the disclosure to the public of information, opinions or ideas.