Understanding Fair Use vs. Copyright Infringement: A Clear Guide for U.S. Citizens

Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Navigating the world of creative works, from blog posts and photographs to music and software, often involves questions about who can use what and under what circumstances. Two key legal concepts govern this landscape in the United States: copyright and fair use.

Understanding the difference between copyright protection and copyright infringement, and knowing when fair use might apply, is crucial for creators, educators, businesses, and the general public. The stakes are real—copyright infringement can result in damages ranging from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of dollars per work, plus attorney fees and court costs.

Yet copyright law also recognizes that absolute control over creative works could stifle the very creativity it aims to protect. Fair use provides essential breathing room, allowing limited use of copyrighted material for purposes like criticism, education, and parody without permission.

This balance between protecting creators and promoting public discourse shapes countless daily interactions with copyrighted content. Every time someone quotes a book in a review, shows a film clip in a classroom, or creates a parody video, these legal principles come into play.

Understanding Copyright

Copyright is a fundamental concept in intellectual property law, designed to protect and promote creativity. But it’s more complex than many people realize, with automatic protections, specific requirements, and significant economic implications.

What is Copyright?

Copyright is a form of legal protection provided by the laws of the United States (specifically Title 17 of the U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship.” This protection is grounded in the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the power “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” (Article I, Section 8).

For a work to be protected by copyright, it must meet two fundamental criteria:

Originality: The work must be independently created by a human author and possess at least a minimal degree of creativity. This standard doesn’t require novelty or artistic merit, just a “spark” of creativity.

Fixation: The work must be “fixed in a tangible medium of expression.” This means it must be captured in a sufficiently permanent form—such as written down, recorded, or saved to a computer file—so that it can be perceived, reproduced, or communicated for more than a fleeting moment. The medium can be one “now known or later developed.”

The moment an original work is created and fixed in a tangible form, it is automatically protected by copyright. This protection applies to both published and unpublished works.

Copyright protects a wide array of creative expressions. Title 17 of the U.S. Code specifies eight broad categories of “works of authorship” that can be copyrighted:

• Literary works (e.g., books, articles, poems, computer programs, website text)
• Musical works, including any accompanying words
• Dramatic works, including any accompanying music
• Pantomimes and choreographic works
• Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works (e.g., photographs, paintings, drawings, maps, charts, architectural blueprints)
• Motion pictures and other audiovisual works (e.g., movies, television shows, online videos)
• Sound recordings (the actual fixation of sounds, separate from the underlying musical composition)
• Architectural works (the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium, including the building itself)

It’s equally important to understand what copyright does not protect. Copyright law explicitly excludes protection for “any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied.”

Facts themselves are also not copyrightable. While copyright protects the specific expression of an idea or fact (e.g., the way a historian describes an event in a book), it does not protect the underlying idea or fact itself. This is known as the idea/expression dichotomy, a core principle ensuring that copyright fosters creativity without monopolizing fundamental building blocks of knowledge and communication.

Similarly, names, titles, short phrases, and slogans are generally not protected by copyright, though they might be protectable under trademark law if they identify the source of goods or services.

Who Owns Copyright?

Generally, the copyright in a work of authorship initially belongs to the author or authors who created the work. Once an original work is fixed in a tangible medium, the creator is the author and the owner.

However, there’s a significant exception known as “works made for hire.” Under U.S. copyright law, if a work is created by an employee within the scope of their employment, the employer, not the employee, is considered the author and owns the copyright.

The “work made for hire” doctrine can also apply to certain types of specially commissioned works created by independent contractors, but this usually requires a written agreement signed by both parties stating that the work will be considered a work made for hire. Companies and organizations can therefore be copyright owners through this doctrine.

Copyright ownership can also be transferred from one party to another through a written agreement.

Exclusive Rights of the Copyright Holder

Copyright grants the owner a “bundle of rights”—a set of exclusive rights to control how their work is used. These rights, outlined in Section 106 of the Copyright Act, allow the copyright owner to do, or to authorize others to do, the following:

• Reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords (e.g., making physical copies like photocopies or CDs, or digital copies like downloads or server copies)
• Prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work (e.g., creating a movie based on a book, translating a novel, or making a new arrangement of a song)
• Distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending (e.g., selling books, distributing software, or streaming music)
• Perform the copyrighted work publicly (applies to literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works; e.g., staging a play, broadcasting a movie, or playing music in a club)
• Display the copyrighted work publicly (applies to literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including individual images of a motion picture; e.g., showing a painting in a gallery, projecting slides, or displaying a photograph online)
• Perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission (specifically for sound recordings, e.g., internet radio streaming)

These exclusive rights are cumulative and can be subdivided, owned, and enforced separately. Unauthorized exercise of any of these rights by someone other than the copyright owner (and without permission or a valid legal exception like fair use) constitutes copyright infringement.

Duration of Copyright

Copyright protection does not last forever; it is for a “limited Time,” as stated in the Constitution. The duration of copyright depends on when the work was created and by whom.

• For works created on or after January 1, 1978, copyright protection generally lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years after the author’s death
• If the work is a “joint work” created by two or more authors, the term lasts for 70 years after the death of the last surviving author
• For “works made for hire,” and for anonymous or pseudonymous works (unless the author’s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the copyright term is 95 years from the year of its first publication or 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first

Works created before 1978 have different, more complex rules for duration, some of which involve renewal requirements. Once the copyright term expires, the work enters the “public domain,” meaning it is free for anyone to use without permission.

Copyright Registration

Copyright protection is automatic once an original work is fixed in a tangible medium. Registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is generally voluntary and not required for a work to be copyrighted.

However, registration offers several significant legal advantages:

Prerequisite for Infringement Lawsuits: For works of U.S. origin, registration (or a formal refusal of registration by the Copyright Office) is necessary before an infringement lawsuit can be filed in federal court. This is a critical procedural step for enforcing one’s rights.

Evidence of Validity: If registration is made before or within five years of publication, it establishes prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate of registration.

Statutory Damages and Attorneys’ Fees: To be eligible for statutory damages (pre-set monetary awards that don’t require proof of actual financial harm) and attorneys’ fees in an infringement lawsuit, the work must generally be registered before the infringement occurs or within three months of the work’s publication. This can be a powerful tool, as actual damages can sometimes be difficult to prove or may be minimal, while statutory damages can be substantial, especially for willful infringement.

Public Record: Registration creates a public record of the copyright claim, which can help deter infringement and make it easier for those seeking to license the work to find the copyright owner.

The U.S. Copyright Office processes hundreds of thousands of copyright claims each year. While protection is automatic, the benefits of registration, particularly for enforcement, provide a strong incentive for creators to register their works.

The Role of the U.S. Copyright Office

The U.S. Copyright Office, part of the Library of Congress, plays a central role in the nation’s copyright system. Its mission is to promote creativity and free expression by administering the nation’s copyright laws and providing impartial, expert advice on copyright law and policy.

Key functions of the Copyright Office include:

• Administering Copyright Law: This includes examining applications and deposits for copyright registration to determine their acceptability under the law
• Registration and Recordation: The Office registers copyright claims and records documents related to copyright ownership, such as transfers. These records form an important archive of America’s cultural heritage
• Providing Information to the Public: The Copyright Office offers extensive resources, including its website, circulars, FAQs, and educational programs, to help the public understand copyright law
• Advising Congress and Government: The Register of Copyrights is the principal advisor to Congress on national and international copyright matters, assisting in the development of copyright policy and legislation. The Office also provides counsel to courts and executive branch agencies
• Administering Statutory Licenses: The Office manages certain statutory licensing provisions, helping to distribute royalties as required by law
• Supporting the Library of Congress: Copyright deposits (copies of works submitted with registration applications) are made available to the Library of Congress for its collections

The Copyright Office serves as a vital hub for both creators seeking to protect their works and users seeking to understand their rights and responsibilities under copyright law. Its dual role in administering the law and advising on policy helps maintain the balance copyright strives to achieve.

Copyright Infringement

When someone uses a copyrighted work without the copyright owner’s permission and without a valid legal defense, it’s called copyright infringement. Understanding what constitutes infringement is crucial for avoiding potentially severe legal consequences.

Defining Copyright Infringement

As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. Essentially, it’s the unauthorized exercise of one or more of the exclusive rights granted to copyright holders under Section 106 of the Copyright Act.

It is important to understand that copyright infringement is largely a matter of strict liability. This means that intent to infringe is not required to be found liable for infringement. If someone performs an act that falls within the copyright owner’s exclusive rights without permission, and no defense like fair use applies, they have infringed, regardless of whether they knew the work was copyrighted or intended to cause harm.

However, the infringer’s intent (e.g., whether the infringement was “innocent” or “willful”) can significantly affect the types and amounts of damages awarded. “Willful” infringement, meaning the infringer knew their actions constituted infringement or acted with reckless disregard, can lead to much higher statutory damages and even criminal penalties.

Common Examples of Copyright Infringement

Copyright infringement can take many forms, especially in the digital age where copying and distributing content is easier than ever. This ease of access often creates a disconnect between what is technically possible and what is legally permissible. The fact that content is readily available online does not mean it is free to use without consequence.

Here are some common activities that would likely constitute copyright infringement if done without permission from the copyright owner:

• Downloading music or movies from unauthorized file-sharing websites or services
• Copying and pasting substantial portions of text from a website, book, or article into one’s own document, website, or publication without permission
• Using a photograph, illustration, or other image found online on a personal or company website, social media post, or marketing material without obtaining a license or permission
• Incorporating copyrighted music (e.g., popular songs) into videos created for online platforms like YouTube or TikTok without proper licenses
• Publicly performing copyrighted music in a business establishment (like a restaurant or store) without securing public performance licenses from performing rights organizations (e.g., ASCAP, BMI, SESAC)
• Creating and selling merchandise (such as t-shirts, posters, or mugs) that features copyrighted characters, logos, or artwork
• Uploading an entire movie, TV show episode, or a substantial portion of it to a video-sharing platform without authorization
• Scanning and distributing copies of textbooks, academic articles, or sheet music to others when such sharing is not authorized by the copyright holder or a specific educational exception
• Recording a film in a movie theater with a camera or smartphone
• Modifying a copyrighted image (e.g., altering it in Photoshop) and then using or displaying it publicly without permission
• Copying and using computer software in violation of its license agreement

These examples illustrate the breadth of activities that can infringe on a copyright owner’s exclusive rights. The digital environment, in particular, presents numerous opportunities for infringement, often unintentional, due to the ease with which content can be copied, shared, and modified.

Proving Copyright Infringement

If a copyright owner believes their rights have been infringed, they can sue the alleged infringer in federal court. To win a copyright infringement lawsuit, the plaintiff (the copyright owner) typically must prove two main things:

Ownership of a Valid Copyright: The plaintiff must demonstrate that they are the rightful owner of a valid copyright in the work that was allegedly infringed. This often involves presenting a certificate of copyright registration from the U.S. Copyright Office, which, if obtained within five years of publication, provides prima facie evidence of copyright validity.

Copying of Original Elements of the Work by the Defendant: The plaintiff must show that the defendant actually copied protected elements of their copyrighted work.

Direct Evidence: This could be an admission by the defendant or testimony from a witness who saw the defendant copy the work. However, direct evidence is rare.

Circumstantial Evidence (Access and Substantial Similarity): More commonly, copying is proven circumstantially. This requires showing:

• Access: The defendant had a reasonable opportunity to view or hear the copyrighted work before creating their allegedly infringing work
• Substantial Similarity: The defendant’s work is “substantially similar” to the protected elements of the plaintiff’s copyrighted work. This is often the most contested part of an infringement case. Courts assess whether an ordinary observer, comparing the two works, would conclude that one was copied from the other. The analysis looks at the overall look and feel, as well as specific copied elements, but it’s not a purely quantitative assessment. The subjective nature of “substantial similarity” means that predicting the outcome of such a claim can be challenging, underscoring the importance of caution when drawing inspiration from existing works

Striking Similarity: In some cases, if the similarity between the two works is so striking that there is no plausible explanation other than copying (e.g., identical errors or highly unique, arbitrary elements), courts may infer copying even with weaker proof of access.

It’s crucial to remember that copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. Therefore, the “substantial similarity” must be to the copyrightable expression in the plaintiff’s work, not just to shared ideas, themes, or facts.

Penalties for Copyright Infringement

Copyright infringement can lead to significant legal consequences for the infringer. The remedies available to a copyright owner in a successful infringement lawsuit are designed to compensate the owner for the harm caused and to deter future infringement. These penalties can include:

Injunctions: A court can issue an order (an injunction) requiring the infringer to stop their infringing activities, such as ceasing the reproduction, distribution, or display of the copyrighted work.

Impoundment and Destruction: During the legal action, a court may order the impoundment (seizure) of all allegedly infringing copies and any articles used to make those copies. As part of a final judgment, the court can order the destruction or other reasonable disposition of these items.

Monetary Damages: The copyright owner can elect to recover either:

Actual Damages and the Infringer’s Profits: This includes the financial losses suffered by the copyright owner as a result of the infringement, plus any profits the infringer made that are attributable to the infringement and not already accounted for in the actual damages.

Statutory Damages: If the copyright was registered before the infringement began (or within three months of publication for published works), the copyright owner can choose to receive statutory damages instead of actual damages and profits. These are amounts set by law, and the court has discretion in determining the specific amount within a certain range.

• For general infringement, statutory damages can range from $750 to $30,000 per work infringed
• If the infringer proves they were an “innocent infringer” (i.e., they were not aware and had no reason to believe their acts constituted infringement), the court may reduce statutory damages to as low as $200 per work
• If the copyright owner proves the infringement was “willful” (i.e., the infringer knew their actions were infringing or acted with reckless disregard), the court can increase statutory damages up to $150,000 per work infringed. This dramatic increase underscores the serious view the law takes of deliberate infringement

Court Costs and Attorneys’ Fees: The court has the discretion to award full court costs to the prevailing party and may also award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in certain circumstances. The ability to recover attorney’s fees is often tied to timely copyright registration.

Criminal Penalties: In cases of willful copyright infringement undertaken for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or involving reproduction or distribution of copyrighted works with a retail value of more than $1,000 during a 180-day period, the federal government may bring criminal charges. Penalties can include:

• Imprisonment: Up to five years for a first offense, and potentially more for repeat offenses or large-scale operations
• Fines: Up to $250,000 per offense for individuals, and higher for organizations

The significant potential penalties, especially the enhanced statutory damages for willful infringement and the possibility of criminal prosecution, serve as strong deterrents against copyright violation. The requirement of copyright registration for eligibility for statutory damages and attorney’s fees also highlights the practical importance for creators to register their works with the U.S. Copyright Office.

For smaller copyright disputes, the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) offers a voluntary, less expensive, and more streamlined alternative to federal court. The CCB can hear certain types of copyright disputes involving claims up to a total of $30,000. It can award monetary damages (statutory damages up to $15,000 per work infringed, or actual damages and profits, capped at $30,000 total per case). While the CCB cannot issue formal injunctions, it can include a requirement in its determination that a party abide by an agreement to cease certain conduct.

Fair Use: The Balancing Act

While copyright law grants exclusive rights to creators, it also recognizes that rigid adherence to these rights could stifle the very creativity and dissemination of information that copyright is meant to encourage. Fair use is a crucial legal doctrine that provides this necessary balance.

What is Fair Use?

Fair use is a legal doctrine found in Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act that permits the limited use of copyrighted material without obtaining permission from the copyright owner. It is designed to promote freedom of expression and access to information by allowing uses for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.

Fair use acts as a “safety valve” within copyright law, ensuring that copyright protection doesn’t become an impediment to the creation of new works, public discourse, education, and the overall progress of knowledge. It acknowledges that some uses of copyrighted material can benefit society in ways that outweigh the copyright holder’s interest in absolute control over their work in that specific instance.

It is critical to understand that fair use is not a simple, clear-cut rule. It is a flexible, judge-created doctrine that has been codified into the Copyright Act. Its application is highly fact-specific and determined on a case-by-case basis by courts. There are no definitive rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or a particular percentage of a work. What might be considered fair use in one context could be infringement in another.

Importantly, fair use is an affirmative defense to a claim of copyright infringement. This means that if a copyright owner sues someone for infringement, the person claiming fair use has the burden of proving that their use meets the criteria. This inherent subjectivity and the case-by-case nature of the analysis mean that relying on fair use always carries some level of risk.

To help navigate this uncertainty, the U.S. Copyright Office provides a Fair Use Index, which is a searchable database of court opinions that can offer insights into how courts have previously interpreted fair use in various situations.

The Four Factors of Fair Use

Section 107 of the Copyright Act sets out four factors that courts must consider and weigh together when determining whether a particular use of a copyrighted work is “fair.” No single factor is decisive; instead, they are all part of a balancing test, and the outcome depends on the specific facts of each case.

Factor 1: The Purpose and Character of the Use

This factor examines how and why the copyrighted work is being used. Key considerations include:

Commercial Nature vs. Nonprofit Educational Purposes: Courts are generally more likely to find fair use if the purpose is nonprofit and educational, rather than commercial. However, a commercial use is not automatically unfair, nor is a nonprofit educational use automatically fair. The more transformative a commercial use is, the less its commercial nature will weigh against fair use, as established in cases like Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (the 2 Live Crew parody case). Conversely, a non-transformative use, even if for a non-profit, might not be fair if it harms the market for the original.

Transformative Use: This is a very significant consideration in modern fair use analysis. A use is transformative if it “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do[es] not substitute for the original use of the work.” It alters the original with new expression, meaning, or message. Examples include using quotes in a critical review, creating a parody, or using an image in a lecture to illustrate a point in a new context.

Merely reproducing a work in a different format without adding new purpose or meaning is less likely to be considered transformative. The Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith case illustrated that even a visually different work might not be deemed transformative if its commercial purpose (like licensing for a magazine cover) is too similar to that of the original photograph, thus potentially supplanting the original’s market.

Favored Purposes: The statute explicitly lists criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research as examples of purposes that may qualify as fair use. Using a work for one of these purposes generally weighs in favor of fair use, but it is not an automatic pass; the other factors must still be considered.

Bad Faith: Obtaining the copyrighted work through deceptive means or acting in bad faith generally weighs against a finding of fair use.

Factor 2: The Nature of the Copyrighted Work

This factor analyzes the characteristics of the original copyrighted work being used.

Factual vs. Creative: Using material from factual works (e.g., biographies, technical articles, news reports) is generally more likely to be considered fair use than using material from highly creative or imaginative works (e.g., novels, poems, musical compositions, feature films, paintings). This is because copyright protection for factual works is considered “thinner”; while the specific expression of facts is protected, the facts themselves are not. Creative works, being at the core of copyright’s purpose to encourage original expression, receive stronger protection.

Published vs. Unpublished: The use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair use. Copyright owners generally have the right to control the first public appearance of their work. The Supreme Court case Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, which involved the unauthorized publication of excerpts from President Ford’s unpublished memoirs, is a key precedent illustrating this principle; the “scoop” value of publishing the excerpts before official release weighed heavily against fair use.

Factor 3: The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used

This factor considers both the quantity and the quality (or importance) of the portion of the copyrighted work that was used, in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.

Quantity: As a general rule, using only a small amount of a copyrighted work is more likely to be fair than using a large amount. However, there’s no magic number, specific word count, or percentage that automatically qualifies as fair use.

Substantiality (The “Heart of the Work”): Even if the amount used is quantitatively small, it may weigh against fair use if it constitutes the “heart” or the most qualitatively significant part of the original work. For instance, copying the most memorable melody from a song or the critical spoiler from a movie, even if brief, could be problematic. The Harper & Row case also exemplified this, where the 300 words taken from President Ford’s memoirs were considered the most vital part.

Entire Work: While less common, using an entire work can sometimes be fair, particularly if the work is very short and its full use is necessary for a transformative purpose (e.g., displaying a full photograph in a critical art review, or a thumbnail image in search engine results for identification). The amount taken should be reasonable in relation to the purpose of the use. For example, a parody might need to use more of the original to effectively “conjure up” the work being parodied.

Factor 4: The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market For or Value of the Copyrighted Work

This factor, often considered the most significant by courts, examines whether the unlicensed use harms the current or future market for the original copyrighted work or its derivatives.

Market Substitution: A key question is whether the use acts as a direct substitute for the original work, thereby reducing sales, diminishing its value, or usurping a market the copyright owner would typically exploit. If the use fulfills the demand for the original, it’s less likely to be fair.

Widespread Harm: Courts also consider whether the use, if it were to become widespread, could cause substantial harm to the potential market for the original work.

Transformative Uses and Market Harm: Transformative uses are less likely to cause market harm because they typically serve different purposes or appeal to different audiences than the original work.

Harm from Criticism: It’s important to note that market harm resulting from negative criticism (e.g., a bad review that causes people not to buy a book or see a movie) is generally not the type of harm this factor is concerned with. The harm must stem from the infringing use itself acting as a substitute, not from the critical message conveyed.

Potential Markets: This factor considers not only existing markets but also potential or future markets that the copyright owner might reasonably develop for their work, including licensing for derivative works. The Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith case touched upon this, where Warhol’s print was seen as competing in a licensing market that the original photographer might have otherwise served.

Fair Use in Action: Examples and Case Insights

Understanding how these four factors are applied in real-world scenarios can provide further clarity. The U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index is a valuable resource for exploring how courts have ruled in various cases.

Many uses that serve a strong public interest, such as facilitating education, fostering debate, enabling new forms of creativity, or ensuring an informed public, tend to fare better in a fair use analysis, especially if they are transformative and do not disproportionately harm the original creator’s market.

Fair use is also not a static concept; it evolves as technology and societal practices change, as seen in cases involving VCRs, search engines, and software APIs. However, fundamental copyright principles, like preventing market harm from non-transformative commercial uses, remain robust.

Education

Educational uses are explicitly mentioned in Section 107 as a purpose favoring fair use. This can include:

• Making limited copies of excerpts for classroom discussion
• Displaying images or playing short audio/video clips to illustrate a lesson
• Students quoting sources in papers or presentations

The “face-to-face teaching exemption” (17 U.S.C. § 110(1)) also allows certain activities in a nonprofit educational institution, provided the copy used was lawfully made. For distance education, the Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization (TEACH) Act provides specific guidelines for using copyrighted materials online.

However, educational purpose alone does not guarantee fair use. Copying that is excessive or that directly supplants the market for educational materials (e.g., making copies of an entire textbook or substantial portions of a workbook for students to avoid purchasing them) is generally not considered fair use. The Cambridge University Press v. Patton case (often called the Georgia State e-reserves case) highlighted the complexity here, with courts emphasizing a flexible, case-by-case analysis rather than strict percentage limits for educational copying, weighing the scholarly nature of the work against the potential market impact for licenses.

Parody & Satire

Parody, which imitates a well-known work for comic effect or social commentary by targeting the original work itself, often qualifies as fair use. A parody typically needs to “conjure up” enough of the original to be recognizable but must also transform it by adding criticism or humor.

The Supreme Court case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., involving 2 Live Crew’s parody of Roy Orbison’s “Oh, Pretty Woman,” affirmed that a commercial parody can be fair use, placing strong emphasis on its transformative value. The Court noted that a parodist may need to use the “heart” of the original for the parody to be effective.

Satire, which uses a copyrighted work to comment on something else (like society in general, or a different topic) rather than critiquing the work itself, may receive less fair use protection if it extensively copies the original without a clear transformative purpose directed at that original. The line can be blurry, but the more the use directly comments on or critiques the borrowed work, the stronger the parody argument.

Criticism and Commentary

Using portions of a copyrighted work to review, critique, analyze, or discuss it is a core purpose of fair use. This is essential for academic scholarship, book reviews, film criticism, and general public discourse. The amount used should be reasonable and relevant to the commentary being made.

For example, in Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., the courts found that Google’s creation of a searchable database of millions of books and the display of “snippets” in search results was a transformative fair use, as it enabled new forms of research and helped users discover books without providing a market substitute for the original works.

Similarly, the use of a seven-second clip from The Ed Sullivan Show in the musical Jersey Boys was deemed fair use because it served as an important historical reference, transforming the clip’s original entertainment purpose.

News Reporting

Journalists often rely on fair use to incorporate copyrighted materials (such as photographs, video footage, or quoted text) into their reports, especially when the copyrighted material itself is the subject of the news or is essential to understanding a current event.

The use should ideally be transformative, providing context, analysis, or new information, rather than merely re-broadcasting the material for its original entertainment or informational value. For instance, a news report might briefly quote from a book or show a short film clip when reporting on that work or an event related to it.

However, extensive use of entertaining footage from an event, rather than for informational purposes, might weigh against fair use, as seen in Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Passport Video.

Other Transformative Uses

Fair use has also been applied in various other contexts where technology or artistic practices create new, transformative uses of copyrighted works.

Technology: The landmark case Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (the “Betamax case”) established that private, non-commercial “time-shifting” (recording television programs on a VCR to watch later) was a fair use. More recently, in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., the Supreme Court found that Google’s use of some of Oracle’s Java SE API code in the Android operating system was fair use, emphasizing the transformative purpose of creating a new software platform and the public benefits derived from interoperability and innovation in software development.

Art/Photography: The application of fair use in visual arts can be complex. In Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, the Supreme Court ruled that the Warhol Foundation’s commercial licensing of one of Warhol’s Prince silkscreen prints (based on a photograph by Goldsmith) to a magazine was not fair use. The Court found that the purpose of Warhol’s work in this specific licensing context was too similar to Goldsmith’s original photograph (i.e., a portrait of Prince for magazine publication) and thus competed directly with her market, even though Warhol’s work was visually distinct.

This case underscored the importance of the first and fourth fair use factors, particularly the commercial nature of the use and its effect on the potential market for the original.

Common Misconceptions About Copyright and Fair Use

Many misunderstandings circulate about copyright and fair use, often stemming from attempts to find simple rules for complex legal principles or from the ease of accessing and sharing content online. Addressing these myths is crucial for fostering respect for copyright and making informed decisions about using others’ works.

Myth 1: “If I only use a small amount, it’s always fair use.”

Reality: This is false. While the amount used is one of the four factors, using even a tiny portion of a work can be copyright infringement if that portion is considered the “heart of the work” (the most critical or recognizable part) or if the other fair use factors weigh against the use.

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court found in Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises that quoting just 300 words from President Ford’s unpublished memoirs was infringement because those words were central to the book’s value. There are no specific, legally defined quantitative limits like “100 words” or “30 seconds” that automatically qualify as fair use.

Myth 2: “If I’m not making money from it (i.e., it’s for a non-profit or educational purpose), it’s automatically fair use.”

Reality: This is also false. A non-profit or educational purpose is a factor that favors a finding of fair use (Factor 1), but it is not a free pass. All four factors must be considered and balanced. A non-profit use can still be deemed infringing if it’s not transformative, uses too much of the original, or significantly harms the market for the original work (e.g., distributing free copies of a textbook that would otherwise be purchased by students).

Myth 3: “If I give credit or attribution to the original author/source, I can use the work.”

Reality: False. Giving attribution is ethically important and essential for avoiding plagiarism, but it is not a substitute for obtaining permission or having a valid fair use justification. Copyright infringement is about the unauthorized use of one of the copyright holder’s exclusive rights, regardless of whether credit is given.

Myth 4: “If a work doesn’t have a copyright notice (e.g., © symbol, year, and name), it’s not protected by copyright, or it’s in the public domain.”

Reality: This is false for most works created today. For works published in the United States on or after March 1, 1989, the use of a copyright notice is optional. Copyright protection is automatic as soon as an original work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. The absence of a notice does not mean the work is unprotected or free to use.

Myth 5: “If I change the work by a certain percentage (e.g., 10%, 20%, or 30%), it becomes a new work and is no longer infringement / it’s fair use.”

Reality: False. There is no “magic percentage” of alteration that automatically avoids infringement or qualifies a use as fair. The changes must be qualitatively significant and transformative, adding new meaning, message, or purpose, rather than just making superficial alterations to disguise copying. If the new work is still substantially similar to the original in its protected expression and serves the same fundamental purpose, it can still be infringing.

Myth 6: “Everything found on the internet is in the public domain and free to use.”

Reality: This is a very common and dangerous misconception. The vast majority of content on the internet—including text, images, music, and videos—is protected by copyright, even if it is freely accessible to view or download. “Publicly accessible” does not mean “public domain.” Public domain status is determined by factors like the age of the work or whether the creator explicitly dedicated it to the public domain, not by its online availability.

Myth 7: “I bought a copy of the work (e.g., a book, CD, DVD, digital download), so I own the copyright and can make copies or share it freely.”

Reality: False. When one buys a physical copy (like a book or DVD) or a digital file, they own that particular copy, not the underlying copyright. Ownership of a copy grants certain rights (like the right to sell or lend that specific physical copy under the “first sale doctrine”), but it does not grant the right to reproduce the work, distribute additional copies, perform it publicly, or create derivative works, unless such use qualifies as fair use or permission is obtained from the copyright owner.

These myths often arise from an attempt to find simple, bright-line rules in an area of law that is intentionally flexible and context-dependent. The ease of digital copying and the vast amount of information (and misinformation) online also contribute to their persistence. It is vital to rely on authoritative sources and careful analysis rather than “internet folklore” when making decisions about using copyrighted material.

Best Practices for Using Copyrighted Material and Avoiding Infringement

Navigating copyright law can seem daunting, but by understanding the basics and adopting good practices, individuals and organizations can respect creators’ rights while still benefiting from the wealth of available information and creative works. A proactive approach to copyright compliance is generally far less costly and stressful than dealing with an infringement claim after the fact.

When in Doubt, Seek Permission

The most straightforward and legally safest way to use someone else’s copyrighted work is to obtain permission (often called a license) from the copyright owner before using it.

Identifying the Copyright Owner: Look for a copyright notice on the work (e.g., © 2024 Jane Doe). Contact the author, publisher, or creator directly. For published works, the publisher often handles permissions. If ownership is unclear, the U.S. Copyright Office can conduct a search of its records for a fee, or individuals can search the online records themselves for works registered since 1978.

Requesting Permission: Clearly state what work you want to use, how you want to use it (e.g., specific portion, purpose, duration, distribution), and request written permission. Templates for permission requests are available online.

Licensing Organizations: For certain types of works, like music, organizations such as ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC handle public performance licenses. The Copyright Clearance Center facilitates licensing for many text-based works.

Rely on Works in the Public Domain

Works in the public domain are not protected by copyright and are free for anyone to use without permission or payment. This includes:

• Works for which the copyright term has expired
• Works created by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties
• Works that were never eligible for copyright protection (e.g., ideas, facts)
• Works that creators have explicitly dedicated to the public domain

Determining if a work is in the public domain can be complex, as copyright duration rules have changed over time. Resources like Cornell University’s “Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States” chart can be helpful. The U.S. Copyright Office also provides circulars such as Circular 15a, “Duration of Copyright,” and Circular 22, “How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work” (available at https://www.copyright.gov/circs/).

Utilize Creative Commons and Openly Licensed Material

Many creators choose to share their work under open licenses, such as those offered by Creative Commons (CC). These licenses allow the public to use copyrighted works under certain conditions specified by the creator, without needing to ask for permission individually.

Common CC license conditions include:

• Attribution (BY): You must credit the original creator
• NonCommercial (NC): You can only use the work for non-commercial purposes
• NoDerivatives (ND): You can use the work as is, but cannot change or adapt it
• ShareAlike (SA): If you adapt the work, you must share your new creation under the same or a compatible license

Always check the specific CC license terms attached to a work before using it.

Conducting a Good-Faith Fair Use Analysis

If obtaining permission is not feasible or if the intended use seems to align with fair use principles, it is essential to conduct a thoughtful, good-faith analysis of all four fair use factors before using the work.

Use a Checklist: Many universities and libraries provide fair use checklists to guide this analysis (e.g., Columbia University’s checklist is well-regarded, and others are available). These tools help ensure all four factors are considered systematically.

Consult the Fair Use Index: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Fair Use Index provides summaries of court decisions and can offer insight into how courts have applied the factors in various situations.

Document Your Analysis: For significant uses or situations where there’s a higher risk, it’s advisable to document the fair use analysis, outlining the reasoning for concluding that the use is fair. This documentation can be valuable if the use is later challenged.

Remember, fair use is a defense, and its application is ultimately determined by courts. A careful, documented analysis demonstrates a good-faith effort to comply with the law.

Creating Original Content

The most effective way to avoid copyright infringement is to create entirely original content. When work is independently created and doesn’t copy from others’ protected expression, copyright concerns regarding infringement of others’ works are minimized.

By understanding these best practices, users can navigate the complexities of copyright law more confidently. The “ecosystem of permission”—encompassing direct licensing, public domain resources, and open licenses like Creative Commons—provides numerous avenues for legally accessing and building upon the vast world of creative works, thereby fostering the constitutional goal of promoting “the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”

The Digital Challenge and Future Considerations

The digital age has fundamentally transformed how we create, share, and consume copyrighted content. Social media platforms, streaming services, user-generated content sites, and artificial intelligence tools have created new challenges for both copyright holders and users.

Platform Responsibilities and Safe Harbors

Online platforms benefit from “safe harbor” provisions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which generally shield them from liability for user-uploaded infringing content, provided they follow specific procedures for removing content when notified by copyright holders.

This system has enabled the growth of platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and TikTok, where millions of users upload content daily. However, it has also led to ongoing tensions between creators seeking to protect their works and users who want to share and remix content.

Artificial Intelligence and Copyright

The rise of AI tools that can generate text, images, music, and other creative content based on training data raises new questions about copyright law. Issues include whether training AI systems on copyrighted works constitutes fair use, who owns the copyright in AI-generated works, and how to address AI systems that can produce content substantially similar to existing copyrighted works.

These questions are actively being litigated and debated, with implications for both creators and technology companies.

Educational Technology and Remote Learning

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of remote learning technologies, highlighting both the opportunities and challenges of using copyrighted content in digital educational environments. While the TEACH Act provides some guidance, many educational uses of copyrighted content online remain in legal gray areas.

Understanding the balance between copyright protection and fair use has never been more important for individuals, businesses, and institutions operating in the digital landscape. As technology continues to evolve, so too will the application of these fundamental principles, requiring ongoing attention to both legal developments and practical implications.

The key takeaway remains constant: copyright law seeks to balance the rights of creators with the needs of users and society. Fair use provides crucial flexibility within this framework, but it requires careful analysis and cannot be taken for granted. When in doubt, seeking permission, using public domain or openly licensed materials, or creating original content remains the safest path forward.

Whether you’re a student writing a research paper, a teacher preparing course materials, a content creator building an online presence, or a business developing marketing materials, understanding these principles empowers you to make informed decisions that respect both creators’ rights and your own needs for expression and communication.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.