Law School

Limitations and exceptions. In many jurisdictions, copyright law makes exceptions to these restrictions when the work is copied for the purpose of commentary or other related uses. United States copyright law does not cover names, titles, short phrases or listings (such as ingredients, recipes, labels, or formulas). However, there are protections available for those areas copyright does not cover, such as trademarks and patents. Idea–expression dichotomy and the merger doctrine. The idea–expression divide differentiates between ideas and expression, and states that copyright protects only the original expression of ideas, and not the ideas themselves. This principle, first clarified in the 1879 case of Baker v Selden, has since been codified by the Copyright Act of 1976 at 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). The first-sale doctrine and exhaustion of rights. Copyright law does not restrict the owner of a copy from reselling legitimately obtained copies of copyrighted works, provided that those copies were originally produced by or with the permission of the copyright holder. It is therefore legal, for example, to resell a copyrighted book or CD. In the United States this is known as the first-sale doctrine, and was established by the courts to clarify the legality of reselling books in second-hand bookstores. Some countries may have parallel importation restrictions that allow the copyright holder to control the aftermarket. This may mean for example that a copy of a book that does not infringe copyright in the country where it was printed does infringe copyright in a country into which it is imported for retailing. The first-sale doctrine is known as exhaustion of rights in other countries and is a principle which also applies, though somewhat differently, to patent and trademark rights. It is important to note that the first-sale doctrine permits the transfer of the particular legitimate copy involved. It does not permit making or distributing additional copies. In Kirtsaeng v John Wiley & Sons Incorporated, in 2013, the United States Supreme Court held in a 6–3 decision that the first-sale doctrine applies to goods manufactured abroad with the copyright owner's permission and then imported into the US without such permission. The case involved a plaintiff who imported Asian editions of textbooks that had been manufactured abroad with the publisher-plaintiff's permission. The defendant, without permission from the publisher, imported the textbooks and resold them on eBay. The Supreme Court's holding severely limits the ability of copyright holders to prevent such importation. In addition, copyright, in most cases, does not prohibit one from acts such as modifying, defacing, or destroying one's own legitimately obtained copy of a copyrighted work, so long as duplication is not involved. However, in countries that implement moral rights, a copyright holder can in some cases successfully prevent the mutilation or destruction of a work that is publicly visible.

In Canada, England, and Wales, certain convicted persons may be designated as dangerous offenders and subject to a longer, or indefinite, term of imprisonment in order to protect the public. Other countries, including parts of the United States have similar provisions of law. Worldwide. United States. In the United States, "Dangerous offender" statutes are defined on a state-by-state basis and are applied at sentencing such that the enhanced "dangerous offender" sentence stems from the original illegal activity. A person under "dangerous offender" sentencing is typically held for a minimum term that coincides with the sentence the person would have received without the "dangerous offender" sentence, and thereafter is subject to review of the person's state of mind as a determination of eligibility for release. Alternatively, a person can be civilly committed if a judicial hearing determines that a concurrent mental disorder makes the person likely to remain dangerous because of a lack of self-control. This issue arose in the case of sex offenders in Kansas v Hendricks (1997) in which the court did allow limited commitment; the court reversed itself on the very same issue in Kansas v Crane (2002) imposing much stricter commitment standards and a higher burden of proof. Various state and federal sex offender registry laws impose additional post-conviction requirements for sex offenders. Canada. In Canadian criminal law, a convicted person who is designated a dangerous offender may be subjected to an indeterminate prison sentence, whether or not the crime carries a life sentence. This does not apply to convictions of first degree murder, second degree murder, high treason, and treason. The purpose of the legislation is to detain offenders who are deemed too dangerous to be released into society because of their violent tendencies, but whose sentences would not necessarily keep them incarcerated under other legislation, such as the Correctional and Conditional Release Act. Under subsection 761(1) of the Criminal Code, the Parole Board of Canada is required to review the case of an offender with a dangerous offender label after seven years, and parole may be granted as circumstances warrant, but the offender would remain under supervision indefinitely. After the initial review, the Parole Board must conduct subsequent reviews every two years. According to Corrections Canada, on average 24 dangerous offenders are admitted to the Canadian prison system each year. Paul Bernardo is one well-known dangerous offender.

Vandalism is the action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property. The term includes property damage, such as graffiti and defacement directed towards any property without permission of the owner. The term finds its roots in an Enlightenment view that the Germanic Vandals were a uniquely destructive people. As a crime. Private citizens commit vandalism when they willfully damage or deface the property of others or the commons. Some vandalism may qualify as culture jamming or sniggling: it is thought by some to be artistic in nature even though carried out illegally or without the property owner's permission. Examples include at least some graffiti art, billboard "liberation", and possibly crop circles. Criminal vandalism takes many forms. Graffiti on public property is common in many inner cities as part of a gang culture, where they might be used as territorial markers. More serious forms of vandalism that may take place during public unrest such as rioting can involve the willful destruction of public and private property. Vandalism per se is sometimes considered one of the less serious common crimes, but it can become quite serious and distressing when committed extensively, violently, or as an expression of hatred and intimidation. In response, local governments have adopted various legal measures to prevent vandalism, but research has shown that the conventional strategies employed by the government in response to at least unapproved graffiti are not the most effective.

Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery. History Discovery evolved out of a unique feature of early equitable pleading procedure before the English Court of Chancery: among various requirements, a plaintiff's bill in equity was required to plead "positions". These were statements of evidence that the plaintiff assumed to exist in support of his pleading and which he believed lay within the knowledge of the defendant. They strongly resembled modern requests for admissions, in that the defendant was required to plead only whether they were true or false. At some point between the reign of Elizabeth I (1558-1603) and the late seventeenth century, positions were gradually replaced by interrogatories: written questions which the defendant was required to truthfully respond to under oath in his answer to the bill, based on information within his own personal knowledge as well as documents in his possession. But back then, interrogatories could only elicit admissible evidence (not the broader modern standard of "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence") and could only request evidence in support of the plaintiff's case, not either side's case (that is, they could not ask for evidence which the defendant intended to use in support of his defenses and was otherwise entirely irrelevant to the plaintiff's case). Even worse, this was purely a one-way procedure, because interrogatories could only be pleaded as part of a bill (a pleading initiating a suit in equity). A defendant who needed to obtain evidence in support of his defenses had to file a cross-bill against the plaintiff to plead his own interrogatories. Discovery did not exist at common law, but its availability in equity attracted litigants in actions at law (legal proceedings in the common law courts). They began to file bills in equity to obtain discovery in aid of actions at law. This led to another innovation in the mid-15th century: the bill to perpetuate testimony of a potential witness. This was for witnesses whose advanced age or poor health implied they would not survive to testify at the trial of an action at law. In this type of proceeding, the parties merely pleaded written interrogatories which were read out loud to the witness in a closed proceeding without parties or counsel present. The witness's attendance was secured by service of a subpoena ad testificandum at least 14 days before the date of the examination. In London, the examinations took place before a master or an examiner in Chancery Lane. Outside of London, the parties' attorneys were supposed to jointly stipulate to a group of lay commissioners (typically four, though only two were needed for a quorum) who could not be interested persons (for example, parties or their lawyers) and were usually country gentlemen. Once agreed upon, the court would grant them authority to examine witnesses by way of dedimus potestatem.

An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor (alleged wrongdoer). The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken. Background. As a matter of public policy, damages available for intentional torts tend to be broader and more generous than for negligent torts. To preserve individual well-being and overall social welfare, society generally wishes to deter its members from intentionally attacking each other. For example, in the United States, it is easier to get punitive damages (damages above and beyond compensatory damages) if one can prove that the tort was intentional. Similarly, in most Australian jurisdictions, intentional torts are not included in civil liability legislation, thus excluding the threshold of injury and damages payouts from various legislated limitations and caps. But it is harder to prove intentional torts because as with many felony crimes, one must prove subjective elements involving the content of the defendant's mind, and defendants do not always express their harmful intent out loud or in writing. Intentional torts are most directly contrasted with negligent torts. The key difference between the two categories of tort is that the plaintiff must prove the additional element that the defendant acted with the specific intent to perform (for example, acted with a mental state of intentionally performing) the act that was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries (so-called malice), as opposed to simply violating a general duty of care as plaintiffs must prove in suits for negligence. "The concept of 'intention' in the intentional torts does not require that defendants know that their acts will result in harm to the plaintiffs. Defendants must know only that their acts will result in certain consequences." Under the doctrine of the transferred intent, the plaintiff may instead prove that the defendant intended to commit any intentional tort against any person rather than the specific injury that actually occurred.

Registration. In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce their exclusive rights. However, while registration is not needed to exercise copyright, in jurisdictions where the laws provide for registration, it serves as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright and enables the copyright holder to seek statutory damages and attorney's fees. (In the US, registering after an infringement only enables one to receive actual damages and lost profits.) A widely circulated strategy to avoid the cost of copyright registration is referred to as the poor man's copyright. It proposes that the creator send the work to themself in a sealed envelope by registered mail, using the postmark to establish the date. This technique has not been recognized in any published opinions of the United States courts. The United States Copyright Office says the technique is not a substitute for actual registration. The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office discusses the technique and notes that the technique (as well as commercial registries) does not constitute dispositive proof that the work is original or establish who created the work. Fixing. The Berne Convention allows member countries to decide whether creative works must be "fixed" to enjoy copyright. Article 2, Section 2 of the Berne Convention states: "It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in some material form." Some countries do not require that a work be produced in a particular form to obtain copyright protection. For instance, Spain, France, and Australia do not require fixation for copyright protection. The United States and Canada, on the other hand, require that most works must be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" to obtain copyright protection. US law requires that the fixation be stable and permanent enough to be "perceived, reproduced or communicated for a period of more than transitory duration". Similarly, Canadian courts consider fixation to require that the work be "expressed to some extent at least in some material form, capable of identification and having a more or less permanent endurance". Note this provision of US law: section c) Effect of Berne Convention.—No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto.

A suspended sentence is a sentence on conviction for a criminal offense, the serving of which the court orders to be deferred in order to allow the defendant to perform a period of probation. If the defendant does not break the law during that period and fulfills the particular conditions of the probation, the sentence is usually considered fulfilled. If the defendant commits another offense or breaks the terms of probation, the court can order the sentence to be served, in addition to any sentence for the new offense. United States. In the United States, it is common practice for judges to hand down suspended sentences to first-time offenders who have committed a minor crime, and for prosecutors to recommend suspended sentences as part of a plea bargain. They are often given to mitigate the effect of penalties. In some jurisdictions, the criminal record of the guilty party will still carry the offense, even after probation is adequately served. It is important to note about a suspended imposition of a sentence is that it does not completely remove the conviction from a person's record. While it may be hidden from the public, it is not hidden from law enforcement. In other cases, the process of deferred adjudication prevents the conviction from appearing on a person's criminal record, once probation has been completed. In the federal system, judges' authority to suspend sentences has been abolished by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, through the United States Sentencing Commission, and upheld by Mistretta v United States. United Kingdom. A custodial sentence may, at the discretion of the sentencing judge or magistrates, be suspended for up to two years if the term of imprisonment is under two years and the offender agrees to comply with court requirements, which may include a curfew, performing unpaid work, and or engaging in an appropriate rehabilitation programme. In 2017, 5% of convictions resulted in a suspended sentence, compared to 7% immediate custodial sentences. The sentencing guidelines indicate that it is appropriate for a sentence to be suspended if there is strong personal mitigation and or a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, but suspended sentences should not be used for offenders who pose a risk to the public or who have a history of poor compliance with court orders.

Theft is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. The word theft is also used as a synonym or informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as larceny, robbery, embezzlement, extortion, blackmail, or receiving stolen property. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny, while in others, theft is defined more narrowly. Someone who carries out an act of theft may be described as a "thief" (plural: thieves). Theft is the name of a statutory offense in California, Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and the Australian states of South Australia and Victoria. Elements. The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping, or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and the intent to permanently deprive the owner or rightful possessor of that property or its use. For example, if X goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Y's scarf instead of her own, she has physically deprived Y of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents X from forming the mens rea (for example, because she believes that she is the owner, she is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the "owner" of it) so no crime has been committed at this point. But if she realizes the mistake when she gets home and could return the scarf to Y, she will steal the scarf if she dishonestly keeps it (theft by finding). Note that there may be civil liability for the torts of trespass to chattels or conversion in either eventuality. By jurisdiction. The following are the countries with the most cases of theft, as well as the respective rates per 100,000 people, according to the United Nations in 2018. United States. In the United States, crimes must be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which they occurred. Although federal and state jurisdiction may overlap, even when a criminal act violates both state and federal law, in most cases only the most serious offenses are prosecuted at the federal level. The federal government has criminalized certain narrow categories of theft that directly affect federal agencies or interstate commerce. The Model Penal Code, promulgated by the American Law Institute to help state legislatures update and standardize their laws, includes categories of theft by unlawful taking or by unlawfully disposing of property, theft by deception (fraud), theft by extortion, theft by failure to take measures to return lost or mislaid or mistakenly delivered property, theft by receipt of stolen property, theft by failing to make agreed disposition of received funds, and theft of services. Although many U.S. states have retained larceny as the primary offense, some have now adopted theft provisions.

A lawsuit is a proceeding by a party or parties against another in the civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used in reference to a civil action brought by a plaintiff (a party who claims to have incurred loss as a result of a defendant's actions) requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is in the plaintiff's favor, and a variety of court orders may be issued to enforce a right, award damages, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes. A lawsuit may involve dispute resolution of private law issues between individuals, business entities or non-profit organizations. A lawsuit may also enable the state to be treated as if it were a private party in a civil case, as plaintiff, or defendant regarding an injury, or may provide the state with a civil cause of action to enforce certain laws. The conduct of a lawsuit is called litigation. The plaintiffs and defendants are called litigants and the attorneys representing them are called litigators. The term litigation may also refer to a criminal procedure. Rules of procedure and complications. Rules of criminal or civil procedure govern the conduct of a lawsuit in the common law adversarial system of dispute resolution. Procedural rules are constrained and informed by separate statutory laws, case laws, and constitutional provisions that define the rights of the parties to a lawsuit (see especially due process), though the rules generally reflect this legal context on their face. The details of the procedure differ greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and often from court to court even within the same jurisdiction. These rules of the particular procedures are very important for litigants to know, because the litigants are the ones who dictate the timing and progression of the lawsuit. Litigants are responsible to obtain the suited result and the timing of reaching this result. Failure to comply with the procedural rules may result in serious limitations that can affect the ability of one to present claims or defenses at any subsequent trial, or even promote the dismissal of the lawsuit altogether. Though the majority of lawsuits are settled before ever reaching trial, they can still be very complicated to litigate. This is particularly true in federal systems, where a federal court may be applying state law (for example the Erie doctrine, for example in the United States), or vice versa. It is also possible for one state to apply the law of another in cases where additionally it may not be clear which level (or location) of court actually has jurisdiction over the claim or personal jurisdiction over the defendant, or whether the plaintiff has standing to participate in a lawsuit. About 98 percent of civil cases in the United States federal courts are resolved without a trial. Domestic courts are also often called upon to apply foreign law, or to act upon foreign defendants, over whom they may not even have the ability to even enforce a judgment if the defendant's assets are theoretically outside their reach.

The defense of property is a common method of justification used by defendants who argue that they should not be held liable for any loss and injury that they have caused because they were acting to protect their property. English law. Generally, in addition to the right of self-defense at common law, section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 states that, A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime or in arresting offenders or suspects. Insofar as an attack on property is a crime, reasonable force may be used to prevent the crime or to arrest the offender, whether it be theft of a sum of money or the damage of an object. In many cases of robbery and burglary, the threat will be to both a person and property, and this combination can be a powerful defense. In AG's Reference (No 2 of 1983) (1984) Lane CJ held that a defendant who manufactured ten petrol bombs to defend his shop during the Toxteth Riots could set up the defence of showing that he possessed an explosive substance "for a lawful purpose" if he could show he acted to protect himself or his family or property by means he believed reasonably necessary to meet the attack. In theory, the defense of property by itself cannot reasonably provide a justification for inflicting serious injury, but there are a number of cases approving considerable violence to arrest criminals threatening property. Although R v Scully (1824) held that it was not justifiable to shoot an intruder merely to arrest him, on the facts, "the life of the prisoner was threatened, and if he considered his life in actual danger, he was justified in shooting the deceased as he had done; but if, not considering his own life in danger, he rashly shot this man, who was only a trespasser, he would be guilty of manslaughter." See self-defense (Australia) for a comparative view on whether the use of excessive force causing death should give rise to a mitigatory defense and "Reform" below. In Mead and Belt's Case (1823). Holroyd J instructed a jury that violence could not be used against a civil trespasser, adding: "But, the making an attack upon a dwelling, and especially at night, the law regards as equivalent to an assault on a man's person; for a man's house is his castle and therefore, in the eye of the law, it is equivalent to an assault."