The clause of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to enact copyright laws indicates that the purpose of the given power is to " promote the progress of science and the useful arts " by allowing authors to secure the exclusive rights in their works for " limited times ."
"Copyright infringement" means exercising one of the copyright holder's exclusive rights without permission.
These exclusive rights include copying (or "reproducing") the work, distributing it, publicly performing or displaying it, and making "derivative works" such as abridgments or translations.
For instance, making a thousand copies of a video and selling them would almost certainly infringe the copyright holder's rights to reproduce and distribute the work.
Under certain circumstances, people who contribute to or are responsible for the infringements may also be held liable — this is called secondary or derivative liability .
This factor considers whether the use helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public.
The defendant must show how a use either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new.
The more transformative the use, the more likely it is to be fair, whereas if defendant merely reproduces plaintiff's work without putting it to a transformative use, the less likely this use will be held to be fair.
Further, the more commercial defendant's use, the less likely such use will be fair.
The more creative, and less purely factual, the copyrighted work, the stronger its protection.
In order to prevent the private ownership of work that rightfully belongs in the public domain, facts and ideas are separate from copyright—only their particular expression or fixation merits such protection.
Second, if a copyrighted work is unpublished, it will be harder to establish that defendant's use of it was fair.
While some argue that legal protection of unpublished works should come from the law of privacy rather than the law of copyright, Congress amended the Fair Use doctrine to explicitly note, "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
FACTOR 3: THE AMOUNT AND SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE PORTION DEFENDANT USED
In general, the less of the copyrighted work that is used, the more likely the use will be considered fair. If, however, the defendant copied nearly all of, or the heart of, the copyrighted work, his or her use is less likely to be considered fair.
Cease and desist letters can be used to assert any sort of legal right, and are often used for copyright, trademark, and related "Intellectual Property" claims.
People may think they have been sued when they receive a cease and desist letter. This isn't the case. The letter may threaten a lawsuit, but it is not the same as a complaint that is filed when an actual lawsuit begins.
A variation on the cease and desist letter is the "Section 512 takedown notice", named after Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA").
A § 512 takedown notice is sent, not directly to an individual, but to her Internet service provider (ISP), which is defined broadly in the DMCA to include search engines, website hosting services, caching services, and companies that simply provide access to the Internet.
In some instances, the organization or individual targeted by the § 512 takedown notice may also receive a copy, either from the ISP or directly from the sender.
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work — and derivative works based upon it — but only if they give credit the way you request.
Example : Jane publishes her photograph with an Attribution license, because she wants the world to use her pictures provided they give her credit. Bob finds her photograph online and wants to display it on the front page of his website. Bob puts Jane’s picture on his site, and clearly indicates Jane’s authorship.
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it.
Example : Sara licenses a recording of her song with a No Derivative Works license. Joe would like to cut Sara’s track and mix it with his own to produce an entirely new song. Joe cannot do this without Sara’s permission (unless his song amounts to fair use).
You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.
Example : Gus’s online photo is licensed under the Noncommercial and Share Alike terms. Camille is an amateur collage artist, and she takes Gus’s photo and puts it into one of her collages. This Share Alike language requires Camille to make her collage available on a Noncommercial plus Share Alike license. It makes her offer her work back to the world on the same terms Gus gave her.