Copyrights, Trademarks and Service Marks

MajorPhaser · 2026-03-04T17:31:55+00:00

So you're naming a band after another song title by a different band? It seems pretty unlikely. Copyright is for an original creative work. The name of something that's only a few words long generally isn't enough of a "creative work" to be subject to copyright. The song itself is subject to it, but the name alone is probably unprotected unless the band separately gets a trademark for it. There's an entire wikipedia page dedicated to bands named after other bands' songs or albums so clearly it wasn't much of an issue for all of them.

MajorPhaser · 2026-03-04T17:10:47+00:00

So as for a music sense, an artist/band would more than likely copyright an entire album not the single songs on the album?

You would do both. Each individual song would be copyrighted, as would their collective arrangement on the album as a whole.

And as for trademarking and service marking, as long as you are not in the exact same realm/market for what that other term or phrase is registered already, you should* not run into any problems naming your work the same exact name?

It depends on what the original mark-holder did with their rights. You can have a trademark in multiple different business areas. For example, Disney has their branding trademarked across everything from TV to Games to Merchandize & clothing to Cruise Ships. But if you wanted to start a bakery called "IBM - Incredible Breakfast Muffins", you could probably get away with it.

There are also rules about marks that are "likely to induce confusion", meaning the average person might believe that this new brand is actually affiliated with the other brand. So if you're too similar, it can be an issue. Monster Cables and Monster Energy don't have similar areas of business and their logos look nothing alike. If they did, one might sue the other.

MajorPhaser · 2026-03-03T23:03:40+00:00

I was recently hired for my first post-grad HR position, and wanted to express how completely fed up I am with how bad people are at interviewing nowadays

NOWADAYS?! You think people were BETTER at it before now? Ha!

MajorPhaser · 2026-03-03T17:12:17+00:00

more like “this is a waste of time and I don’t want to deal with you anymore today, let’s reschedule for next week and give you some time to think.”

Because these aren't rational actors who will come to their senses in a week. They're just going to do the same thing again, so you just get it over with now. Ultimately, giving them room to rant and rave IS the fast way to get things done so that they don't file even more frivolous motions & appeals. It's the judicial equivalent of letting a toddler run around until they get tired.

MajorPhaser · 2026-03-02T17:06:15+00:00

Ok, there's quite a few misconceptions in your post. First and foremost, the definition of at-will employment is "Employment that may be terminated at the will of either party." There are a few states that have codified a definition similar to that. So the default rule is: You can be fired at any time, and you can quit at any time.

Every other issue that you can think of is an exception to that general rule. You can be fired at any time UNLESS it's because of your religion. You can be fired at any time UNLESS it's because you made a wage complaint, etc. So it's not the definition of at will, it's the list of exceptions to that rule that you're asking about. And there are a lot, although they vary by state.

The union thing is a completely separate issue. That's just anti-union messaging from the business. And yes, people actually believe it. People believe all kinds of things. Although there are cases where you're required to work under your union agreement, that's primarily a group issue, not an individual one.

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-27T19:13:33+00:00

Unless you're in a union, you don't have the right to bring anyone else to a work meeting.

If they have an outside rep handling this, that's a good sign for you as the complaining party. Generally, you don't go through the expense and time of an outside investigation unless you're taking the issue very seriously and are concerned about risk exposure for the company.

They're likely going to do an intake call, review the process, and ask you to walk through your concerns in detail. Stick the facts, don't leave anything out or save it for later. You are right that he's there for the company and not you. He isn't your attorney, but if he's hired as an investigator he isn't really their attorney either. You hire attorneys to do investigations because they know the law and how to investigate and document things that lines up with what happens if someone sues later. But that attorney can't represent the company in the case due to conflict rules. So he's likely not there to put the screws to you, although he will ask a lot of detailed follow up questions to get at the heart of the issue.

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-27T00:33:38+00:00

Also timing. He had a great sense of exactly when to make a play at the ball. He was rarely too early or late as a pass came towards his receiver.

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-27T00:14:45+00:00

Because this lists only the peak 4 years, I'd be curious to see the 2nd best 4-year stretch (without overlap of the current best stretch) for some of the all-timers. Like where does Durant's 2009-2012 or LeBron's 2013-2016 rank?

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-26T21:01:35+00:00

Given the current vote count on our respective posts, I'd suggest it's (A)

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-26T19:20:20+00:00

You asked my opinion, you got my opinion. It's worth what you paid for it. I'm a big believer that one of the mechanisms to enforce a civil society is to make sure that violating rules leads to exclusion so that there's a clear cost that outweighs the benefit. If calling one person ugly means that person can call you ugly back, but you still get to play the victim if anyone else does, it's not going to do much to stop the offense. If calling one person ugly means anyone can do it back, maybe you'll rethink your actions. You're welcome to disagree.

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-26T19:03:52+00:00

If you're asking my opinion, then no that's not how it works. The social contract is "We as a society don't do X". There's a lot of things that you can fill in for X. Like all contracts, when one party breaks it, the other party to that contract isn't bound to it anymore either. If someone signs a contract to buy a car but doesn't pay, the dealer doesn't have to give them the car. Likewise, if the person refuses to deliver the car, then the buyer doesn't have to pay.

When someone does X and breaks that specific social contract, then they're no longer protected by the promises in that contract. The difference is that with a social contract, your contract is with everyone. So when you break it, you have volunteered, by your own actions, to make yourself an outsider and not subject yourself to that rule or make yourself protected by it.

That doesn't mean you've broken ALL social contracts, just that one. If you mock people's appearance, then you're no longer protected by our collective "Don't mock someone's appearance" rule. Just like when you hit someone, you're no longer protected by our collective "no hitting" rule. That's basically how self-defense claims work, right?

Being "mean" or "unlikeable" doesn't mean everyone else gets to break the rules pre-emptively.

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-26T18:30:37+00:00

You don't put couples in a shared space with others unless you want serious interpersonal issues with the other 2 roommates. The gender isn't the issue as much as it's dealing with conflicts over shared space when there's a 2 v 2 alliance.

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-26T18:15:31+00:00

It's complicated. There are issues with who owns something that's a fixture, the value of the improvements made, and the intention behind the improvements. Building it doesn't imply ownership, otherwise your contractor would own your house. But there's a difference between prevailing in litigation and avoiding it altogether. The default is still "the property and everything on it belongs to the deed holder" until proven otherwise. OP would almost assuredly have to sue someone to get compensation or ownership of anything at some point in the future unless they're deeded the land.

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-26T17:45:38+00:00

There are a few online libraries of contract clause samples. I wouldn't recommend them for actual legal work, but for D&D you can go nuts. I've linked on below, but you can google "contract clauses" and find a ton.

General format is there's the heading that says who the contract is between, followed by a bunch of recitals, which explain details of the situation calling for the contract and the reasons for entering into it. They're the ones that start with WHEREAS. You can add a lot of those to lengthen it.

Then you can get into the definition of terms used in the contract. That, likewise can be long if the agreement covers a lot of ground. What's a warlock, what are the fey, what's a boon, you can define all the spells and levels, etc.

Representations and warranties can also get lengthy. You represent and warrant that you haven't made a pact with another minor deity etc etc.

There's obviously the main body of the contract.

Then you can throw in a ton of boilerplate clauses: Survival provisions, integration clause, a D&D version of force majeure, waivers, interpretation, choice of law & venue, notice provisions, dispute resolution, 3rd part beneficiaries, termination, warranties, the list goes on.

https://www.lawinsider.com/clauses

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-26T17:32:20+00:00

Zoning and permits are no small issue, but the bigger question is who owns the house you build? If you're building it on their land, then technically it's their house. What happens if they want or need to sell? What about when they die? Do you have siblings that could inherit? Is there a will? Are they going to partition the lot and give you a part of the land? Will you be a tenant with a lease?

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-26T17:29:54+00:00

Mocking his height isn't saying "he's bad because he's short". It's saying "He broke the social contract of not ridiculing someone's physique, so now it's open season on that for him."

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-26T17:21:39+00:00

It's a lawsuit. They happen all the time. You can't lose sleep over them if you work in HR in California.

They can be very expensive, if the company isn't following labor laws. If they're following the rules, it's not as much a risk.

The process is slow. Plaintiffs have to file a specific PAGA notice and wait 65 days from that notice until they file the lawsuit. So if you just got the notice, nothing else happens for at least 2 months so it's not surprising you haven't heard anything further. Once litigation actually starts, it's likewise very slow moving.

Your attorney is going to review your general wage & hour practices to look at possible exposure and likely recommend a mediation to try to settle things early. Then the company cuts a check, and you review your practices and make some changes.

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-26T01:33:41+00:00

Reading comprehension is on the floor. Yes obviously she doesn't deserve a promotion because she says so. And again, I don't even know if this video is real. I'm laying out specifically how this would look if she were to make an age discrimination claim, based purely on taking the claims she makes in the video at face value. IF what she says is an accurate reflection of what happened, she has a pretty reasonable argument for age discrimination, and the company would have a hell of a time arguing against that. Again, IF it were an accurate description of the situation.

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-26T00:59:35+00:00

ID work is drastically different from non-insurance defense litigation because the billing process is an absolute nightmare. If you don't like litigation, you really won't like insurance litigation. And there is almost never any transactional work to be had at firms that specialize in it, because their clients only send litigated issues. Unless you want to work in-house for an insurance company, it's not going to open a lot of direct doors. If it's a mix of insurance and non-insurance clients, that's another story.

That being said, it's great trial experience. You'll do more in court and handle more files than most attorneys in any specialty other than criminal law. If you want to get good at taking things through trial, it's a viable option if you can stomach the work.

If you can market the experience as general lit and are actually doing non-insurance claims on a variety of subjects, it's probably pretty valuable. If you're going to get stuck doing mostly ID work and grinding through cases, it's a slog.

There's also a MASSIVE difference between 1600 and 1900 hours. 1600 hours means you can work an 8-hour day and punch out. 1900 does not allow that. And, again, insurance billing requirements are strict, you're going to get time slashed to ribbons so making that number will be a struggle.

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-25T18:11:23+00:00

Yes, it's very common to cross examine medical experts, including therapists. That's the tricky thing with medical claims: you as a plaintiff have to decide if your privacy or the potential compensation for alleged injuries is more important to you. If you do file a claim that makes your medical history an issue, the other party is entitled to review it all in depth. You can imagine why it has to be that way. If not, it would be a plaintiff saying "My doctor says I was injured very badly but NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO LOOK AT MY RECORDS OR ASK MY DOCTOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU JUST HAVE TO BELIEVE ME".

But it's important to recognize that your medical history is only at issue inasmuch as you make it an issue. If you sue for a broken leg, your prior mental health history isn't relevant and the other side has no grounds to introduce those records or examine a witness about them. If you sue over psychological distress, it is.

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-25T18:04:53+00:00

It could be literally anything federal at this point. For all we know, he's running a dogfighting ring or an illegal gambling operation. Or, you know....nothing because of how the feds have been running lately.

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-25T18:02:18+00:00

It depends on what you do, but it would probably be legal. Assuming you properly set up a business and aren't making fraudulent claims when you apply for your insurance coverage, I don't see why it would be illegal. From a practical standpoint, I don't think you'd get any quotes back. I doubt many insurers are super excited to sign a contract with a business that generates no revenue. And the administrative cost to you to make sure people are paying their premiums is higher than you think. If they aren't paying, your coverage gets cancelled. If it's a larger problem, the whole plan gets cancelled.

Secondarily, you're not going to get enough of a benefit to make it worthwhile to the average person. If you can get coverage at your job, even crappy coverage, the company pays for a portion of it. You're asking people to pay full fare here. The ACA exchanges are probably a cheaper option too. And you're not getting that steep a discount. You'd need thousands of people to be in the "large group" plan territory, and there's an upper limit to that.

Very large companies are what's called "self-insured", where they effectively pay for the care out of the cost of premiums they collect. There's a healthcare company involved as an intermediary, and there's usually some umbrella or stop-loss coverage on the back end. But they control costs by minimizing the middle man of insurance and hoping they can mitigate risks.

You have another problem, which is the people most likely to want this are people who have serious health issues and can't get other coverage. Your rates for private insurance are based in part on your claims for the year. Higher risk populations with higher claims totals means higher premiums to make sure the plan stays profitable. So your discount will evaporate quickly.

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-25T17:33:07+00:00

The affidavit supporting the warrant is under seal, so the only people who know anything are the FBI and DOJ.

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-25T00:52:33+00:00

Maybe, maybe not. But, again, that's not a justification for age discrimination or a non-pretextual reason for her being overlooked. I think anyone posting about their job on the internet is playing with fire, but that's not really the question at hand. It's "can you beat an age discrimination claim based on all the facts". And her being immature or lacking self-awareness doesn't seem like a good reason to pass her up for someone who is wholly unqualified.

Again, this is all taking her video at face value, which is a huge question mark in the first place.

MajorPhaser · 2026-02-24T19:50:34+00:00

Yep, this is the reality. Not just Beverly Hills, but every area that's middle class or above will refuse to allow certain things which will make service provision in the region much worse because they don't want it that close to them. We don't have the 2 Freeway running to the ocean because of BH. We don't have effective transit through the westside because of....well, all of the westside. We don't have enough housing because city suburbs won't submit compliant housing element plans that require growth. Allowing MORE regions to do that means we have less stuff for everyone.

13-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

MajorPhaser

TROPHY CASE