The question Are the title and author of a song protected by copyright? is written as "I am doing X, is that legal". The actual question is a basic principle of copyright law, and in no way requires giving specific legal advice, and indeed does not depend on even the level of detail given in the question.
Nevertheless, this question has attracted three close votes on the grounds of asking for specific legal advice, and one suggestion by an experienced user that it be rewritten to be more generic. It seems to me that users should know better than to VTC on a question of this sort, and some are all too ready to VTC on any question that lists details in the first person. I think this misunderstands the policy, and does not help the site or its users.
Is it appropriate to close, or vote to close, questions phrased in an 'I did X is that legal?" or 'I want do do/plan to do X, will there be legal problems?" sort of way? Do such questions need to be edited to make them acceptable? If so, should users edit them rather than using a VTC? When the actual legal issue is clear, does the first-person phrasing matter?
(Note, the link now goes to a revised version of the question. Look at the revision history for the original version.)
An additional example: Is this copyright or am I allowed to have this in my math textbook?
Again a poster has describe a proposed activity and asks if it is legal. Again the answer is basic law, with no lawyer needed for a good answer. Again the poster has not asked "what should I do?" but rather "is this illegal?". Two users have so far VTC this as a RSLA. Again I disagree. I hope for addition discussion of this new example.
What legal rights does ownership of music grant me? has accumulated 2 close voters so far. It is written in the first person, but does not ask any version of "what should I do?" nor ask the risks or chances of a court verdict. It asks what right the law and a specific widely used TOS statement. It seems to me clearly on topic, and I have posted an answer. But some vote to close apparent;ly largely because of the first person form.
Further instance, 4 May 2021
Reusing copyrighted content (science/EU) has at the moment two close votes as a RSLA. It makes no "what should, I do?" request. It does not ask for an assessment of the risk of any particular course. It simply asks if copyright law applies in particular circumstances. It is stated in the first person,but can easily be edited to be put in the third person, which i will probably do shortly. But it is not an RSLA even as it stands. The only "advice" it asks is if certain actions would constitute copyright infringement, actions which, even if they did constitute infringement, are highly unlikely to form the basis of any lawsuit or legal proceeding. No legal action seems to be pending or contemplated. I do not see why anyone has voted to close this.
Two Further instances, 3 March 2022
In Can I issue my own 'fines' the OP describes clearly hypothetical conduct, and asks how the law would view such conduct. The OP does not ask whet the hypothetical people involved should do. The question is purely what law applies in a rather unlikely but possible case. I think this is exactly the sort of question for which this site is designed. But it has in two hours attracted two close votes on the grounds of it begin a RSLA.
How can a person legally create a site to download an app and profit from the site? has actually been closed as a RSLA. As I write, it has three votes to reopen, one of them mine. It does ask how a person can get copyright permission for a certain kind of site (the basic answer is "Ask the copyright owner(s) for permission"). It does not ask what the person described should do, it only asks what the law permits or requires. IMO this is not quite as clear a case as the one just above, but is still quite clearly not a RSLA in my view. Why did users vote to close it?
Further Instance 18 March 2033
UK: is it legal to display a flag in front of a store? now has four voted for closure as a request for legal advice, although it simply asks if particular acts, in a particular jurisdiction, are legal or not.
Further instance. 8 April 2022
Does obscuring personally identifiable and directory information avoid potential FERPA violations? has recenrtly been posted, and an experienced user here has called for its closure as a RSLA.
Further instance. 30 May 2022
What does HIPAA say about a third party reviewing protected health information and related records? This question was closed by the single vote of a moderator. As I write, it has two reopen votes from experienced users. Note that it has been edited since it was closed, so to see the version which was closed, use the revision history.
In my opinion, the initial version of this question was not an RSLA. it did use the first person, and it did include the words "What do I need to do", but the question was clearly what did the person need to do to comply with the legal requirements, in other words it was asking what the law required. That is exactly the primary on-topic question here. While I dis edit this to make it more =clearly not an RSLA, I am of the strong opinion that it should not have been closed in the first place.
Further instance. 24 June 2022
Is it necessary to be certified before opening a photography studio? This question was closed by the single vote of a moderator. As I write, it has three reopen votes. It was a simple request to know what the legal requirements are in a particular country for a particular activity. Nothing in the question asked "what should I do?" or anything similar. The mod, when asked to retract the solo close vote, wrote that it seemed likely that the poster would act on any answer given, so it constituted legal advice. Nonsense!