A new makerspace is being built in my community and as part of the build process they need a ton of mechanical work done on the building they purchased. I am a professional HVAC-R mechanic specializing in commercial and industrial HVAC-R so this work is right up my alley and being a founding member of this makerspace I would love to do some of the required mechanical work on a volunteer basis. Obviously, for the big stuff they'll still need to pay a proper contractor because I don't want the liability for that, but I'm more than willing/capable of doing any required service and preventive maintenance work. I already hold all the relevant liscenses and certs to do the work as well

The problem I'm encountering is that in MN mechanical contractors need to be bonded and insured to even do service work. When I'm actively working I'm covered under my employers bond and insurance but on my own I have nothing. I even spoke to my employer about me working any service jobs there and just not logging my hours but I can't do that because then my employer would be violating employment laws by not paying me. Needless to say I don't want to pay the well over $1000 per month for my own contractor liability insurance for work which I would not be charging for.

What's more, the law doesn't really state anywhere what constitutes mechanical contractor work as far as I can tell. In my actual job as a mechanical contractor I regularly have to do basic things like changing furnace filters but obviously I don't need to be bonded and insured to change a damn filter. But what about a fuse? I doubt replacing a blown fuse would require me to be bonded and insured but lets say that I trace the cause of that blown fuse back to a bad transformer. Does replacing that transformer require me to be bonded? What about replacing a compressor? Adjusting a pressure switch? The line between what is/isn't professional mechanical work isn't actually drawn anywhere as far as I can tell which currently has me in a position where I'm not sure if I can so much as legally change a lightbulb unless I'm on the clock and therefore covered by my employers insurance.

So my questions are the following.

1. Do I still need to be bonded/insured if I am receiving no benefit financial or otherwise for doing the work?

2. What exactly constitutes professional contractor work which would require a bond/insurance?

3. If I do need to be bonded/insured for this is there any way for me to get privately bonded/insured without it costing me an arm and a leg?

4. Who would even be the correct authority to reach out to with these questions?

cross-posted from: https://reddthat.com/post/54842208

Any bike app/community that allows posting personal information?

I live in the U.S.A. and don't have a car. This means that I bike/skate/walk nearly everywhere.

Road conditions seen to have gotten worse to the point where nearly every day I'm almost hit by an irresponsible car driver.

When I'm not walking, I have a dashcam that captures the cars, license plates, and even faces.

I want to develop an app/community that allows you to report these dangerous drivers, complete with their faces whenever possible.

However as I look at other similar projects, I haven't found any that allow this. Why is this?

According to this source:

There isn’t a satisfying “yes” or “no” answer to whether doxxing is illegal.

Generally speaking, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals’ right to publish information that is considered a matter of public concern. However, if it isn’t a matter of public concern and/or it was published with malicious intent (to intimidate or cause harm), it’s no longer protected by the First Amendment.

Would I get in legal trouble by starting this app/community?

It doesn't seem fair that they can continue to harm or almost harm us pedestrians/skaters/bikers without possible recourse.

My goal with the app would be to make people aware of these drivers, because it's of public concern.

Does something like this exist already? If not, why not? What possible ramifications would there be for this type of app? Thank you in advance.

Let's say there's a software engineer in some company. They've been working there for a while, everything's good, they like the work and their employer's happy. Now there's a shortage in another part of the company and since they've been doing good work, their employer wants them to move to that department/project. However, they don't want to, because they don't like the domain/the team/whatever reason. Is the employer allowed to simply say they have to? If they say no, is that a reason for the employer to fire them?

The company I’m trying to sue (Let’s say ABC Service) is not listed on the CA Secretary of State website, however the contractor’s license of the owner is listed as a sole proprietor on the Contractors State License Board under a different company name (Let’s say ABC Enterprises), which is listed on the SOS site twice, both active. One as Limited Liability Company and one as Stock Corporation.

The company I’m trying to sue is listed in the Fictitious Business Name search on the Clerk Recorder website of the city in which they do business, but listed twice, both active. Once with the registrant as ABC Enterprises and another as the registrant as ABC Enterprises Inc.

How can I confirm which name to list on the SC100 so any final ruling is enforceable?

Do I list the owner’s name, just the business names? I know it’s come combination of ABC dba XYZ and maybe additional defendants, but I don’t want to mess this up and even the small claims advisor was having a hard time figuring it out.

Thanks!

I want to do this because I am at the end of my rope with these people, and this is the only way I can think of to get back at them. I don’t give a shit if it even works or not. If I were to burn a cross in front of a police station, CIA or FBI building, what would I get in trouble for? Trespassing?

If I were to do it without trespassing but in a viewable area, like on public property or next to a road, what would I be looking at? I know I’ll be caught.

Spouse wanted to give my a property, so we did a warrantee deed. Now she is deceaced, and I read that her kids may still have claim to a portion of the property. Is that true? How does that work? Can we avoid probate? Will it take a long time?
Spouse owned the property before we were married, and we did the warrantee deed while married.

My mom died and left me a house (a co-op if that matters) it has a lien on it for more then the house is worth. I've called real estate lawyers but none of them want to take me on. I think I just want to get rid of it but I want to talk to a lawyer before I do. Does anyone know what I should look for? Thanks in advance.

I'd like to know if there's any civil/federal protections against genders/LGBT by police before you see a judge.

For example, "women must sit on this side of the room, because men are attracted to them" - is there a case to be made that this practice is discriminatory?

Is this a crime I can report? Could I report him for medical neglect?

Edit: She was sick with pneumonia, and I think covid, and was mostly alright when she was taken to the hospital when she was driving erratically. She had very good days at the nursing home rehab, then got taken to the hospital when her condition got worse. My dad reported to me that he told the hospital to not treat her for her illness.

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?