I think where you're getting wrapped around the axle is that you are imagining co-owners as being able to exercise the full rights of ownership independent of each other, and this is not the case. In this situation, there is usually a contract that exists that will define the rights of each co-owner, how decisions about the property are made, how disputes will be resolved, etc.

When I worked at the DMV, one thing I learned very early when working with vehicle titles (i.e. deeds of ownership, but for vehicles) with multiple names on them is to pay careful attention to the conjunction between the names.

"Alice and Bob" is a different kind of ownership to "Alice or Bob". And meant that, to do anything with the title, you needed consent from everyone involved. Or, on the other hand, meant that any person on the title could do basically anything they wanted with it with only their own consent.

The conjunction was set up at the time the title was issued, and by filling out the application with a particular conjunction selected, you were giving your consent to play by the rules of that conjunction. So, by signing a form with an "or" conjunction between you and someone else, you are implicitly giving permission to the other person to give your consent for you. If that isn't what you want, that's what "and" is for.

Point being, in systems where robust rules are needed, they can be made. This is really just the basis of how all rules and agreements are created. The abstract concept of "ownership" is no different. It can be whatever you define it to mean.

Non toxic is more or less a much lesser version of food grade, but really, its not the same. It means that there are no known toxins in it, but it hasn't been treated, packaged, or intended as food at all. As such things like resistance to growing bacteria/mold on it aren't taken into account. There's also not really any regulation around what constitutes non-toxic.

Basically while you probably don't have to call poison control for your kid munching on play-doh, you also probably don't have to call them if they eat a spoonful of dirt.

It's not a good idea at all to let them do it, and can lead to digestive problems, but it also isn't like they ate like... Windex or something which would need immediate medical care.

No, they aren't the same thing. "Food grade" is a regulated term while "non toxic" is basically unregulated. Because "food grade" is regulated it also doesn't make much sense to pay for the testing and verification required to make it conform to those standards when it isn't supposed to be eaten.

Yeah intellectual property agreements are a lot more complex than real property agreements because real property agreements deal with something tangible. There's a "thing". A house. A car. A book. A piece of land. There's a tangible, identifiable, physical thing in place here. And those contracts are really "who gets to do things with the thing" and break down a lot easier.

Intellectual property gets way more complicated because you're involved in the sale of an idea.

So I own my phone more than you own my phone when there is greater chance that a local court will rule that I own my phone?

Hipgnosis is something I never heard of prior to your comment. Thanks, I'll check it out.

I had a hunch that the answer would be, "It's not entirely black and white", but felt like asking anyway, because I'm not at all operating in the field of law myself. Thanks for explaining and confirming.

to add tothis a prenup also provides tighter conditions on what terms lead to the contract being executed in the event of a divorce and if effectively prevents " no fault divorce"

ie: if one of the pertner is commiting adultery and this can be proven to court standards theoffending party wavers their right in said prenup if the partner decides ot file for divorce over it. aka: they get nothing if there was some sort of asset distribution.

also worth noting that if you want a prenup to hold it court it should be done well in advance, it should involve both parties lawyers and witnesses and even go as far as recording the signing meeting: this is to defuse any claims of " signed under duress" as this will VOID the prenup.(and yes you might argue this is paranoid, but you wouldnt be looking to get a prenup if you didnt have anythnig to lose so cover your bases.)

For most common cases affect is a verb and effect is a noun, for help memorizing use “RAVEN” Remember Affect Verb Effect Noun.

Alright, nevermind then

My issue is with the concept of partial ownership. It makes no sense to me. Do the legal definitions occasionally apply to a co-owner and occasionally not apply to a co-owner? Or rather, the legal definitions hold absolutely but rather pertain to a more abstract interpretation of the original property?

Very true, and a big example of this happening are company shares being exchanged literally millions of times every trading day of stock markets worldwide.

Much of the key legal rights fall within having a majority of control. E.g. if you own 51% of a company then you would typically have a controlling share of it, opening possibilities of rights more significant to the remaining minority co-owners.

Ownership of any proportion all revolves around what the greatest power is both willing and capable of enforcing towards the particular property, asset, or "thing". Different kinds of "things" get different rules and these rules can change at any time.

Good point. Which is why the mechanics of co-ownership agreements are so important, and so complicated, regardless of what thing they're owning. There are *so* many ways it can get screwed up and so many eventualities that might not be fully covered by any agreement.

Your definition is fine, it's just important to remember that ownership isn't just socially accepted, it's legally defined. And because it's legally defined, we use the law to place limits on what owners can and can't do with their property. This may be for either moral or practical reasons, but the limitations still exist.

>one co-owner, by themselves, isn't the legal entity that owns the property so they have no right to sell it.

But they can sell their ownership stake IN it, which can result in all sorts of weird and wacky legal shenanigans.

There's a license agreement negotiated. Existing rights are grandfathered in and remain as they are.

It would be a very inept negotiator who didn't carve out performance rights for the songwriter.

The leading company in this field is Hipgnosis founded by Nile Rogers (Chic etc) and a forgotten by me music entrepreneur. Their USP is that most musicians are not entrepreneurs and Hipgnosis buy the rights in exchange for a guaranteed income to the artist.

Hipgnosis are not a record company or music publishing house.

The difference between Hipgnosis and mafia finance is that Hipgnosis has earned the respect and trust of major artists.

There's a current trend in music of reheating old hits and remaking them based on TikTok trends that is the sort of thing Hipgnosis are all over. Promoting their artists and songs

Adding on for OP, the key with co-ownership is that the "legal person" involved in the ownership is a legal entity made up of *both* the co-owners. There's a contract underneath that lays out the terms of how the co-owners do things. If one co-owner tries to sell the property without the permission of the others 1) they've breached the ownership contract, and the other owners can retaliate and 2) the legal entity that owns the property (which is *all* the co-owners) hasn't agreed to sell it...one co-owner, by themselves, isn't the legal entity that owns the property so they have no right to sell it.

The key point about ownership is enforcement of such arbitrary relationship between one legal entity and property or another legal entity.

Legal entity instead of "person" matters because ownership is largely not just between a person (or people) and property. For example a company is often recognised a legal body in its own right also capable of ownership of property, and a sovereign state is also able to own property.

I could claim ownership of, let's say your phone. However I could not enforce this ownership because there is a greater power arbitrating that you own your phone. That power being the ratified law of your land acknowledging the process in which you legally purchased your phone. If I stole your phone though, and no law enforcement was able to recover it, then your ownership bond is broken as I could now enforce my own ownership. On the flip side such an arbitrating power can equally enforce against your ownership of your phone, for example if it should decide your phone is to be seized as evidence in crime. So you only own your phone if appropriate enforcement continuously upholds your ownership of it.

We could think way beyond. Can we claim ownership of the planet Saturn? Of course, but neither of us, or realistically any arbitrating power, have any chance of enforcing that claim making it worthless.

It all depends on exactly what they sold and what went into the contract.

In theory they could sell any combination of rights. They might be selling the entire catalog and all the rights that come with it, or it might just be a subset. For example, "You can play and sell any of my songs you like, but I reserve the right to perform any of them live whenever I want." Or "You have full rights to everything I've written up to now, but no claim at all on anything I do in the future."

Like any contract, it's almost infinitely negotiable.

This is 100% governed by the contract of sale. There's 0 way to answer that question because all the things you're asking are all negotiable aspects of the contract. Without having read the specific contracts in question there's no way to answer it.

The only real answer that can be given is "it depends on how the contract was worded"

[deleted]

That’s a good way to put it

She is being affected by the news. The news has had an effect on her.

I understand your post says you get what cold fusion is but in the nicest way, if you got what cold fusion was, you would know how it produces power. So I thought a good explanation of what cold fusion is AND how power is produced would do the trick