You are all quite welcome.

Quote - I believe you're wrong on the fraud aspect, gate.  Far as I know, the purchaser of infringing content can't be held responsible for its use within the terms of use/license agreement which comes with the product.

Such a use is almost certainly not willful infringement, but the person who uses copyrighted material thinking they had a license, when they didn't, can still be liable for actual damages to the holder of copyright. Copyright infringement, at heart, is a tort of strict liability. (What lawyers call "mens rea" and what normal people call "intent" or "motive" is not required, save the intent to actually use the material.) They won't get damage multipliers and they probably won't get costs and fees, but the holder of copyright can get damages.

Example, although this is based on the right of publicity, not copyright: Model signs contract with agency giving it the right to release his right of publicity to clients under certain conditions. Model poses for product label photograph. Agency signs release to Manufacturer which gives more release than Agency had to give. Manufacturer uses Model's likeness on product label for many years before Model, completely by accident, finds out about it, and sues. Manufacturer claims defense of release. Result: Release was not valid because party who signed it had no authority to do so. Model wins.

This really happened and the model was awarded millions of dollars in damages. There's a lot more to it than this and I've oversimplified the reason that the release was no good, but that's the jist of it. Same thing can happen in copyright.

Again, not legal advice, consult a lawyer with respect to any actual and specific questions.

Quote - "As it stands, in the US, you need to register a work before you can sue."

My understanding is a little different.  You can sue in either case, it is what you can sue for that is different.

If it is registered, you can sue for damages.  If it is not registered, you can only sue to stop distribution/publication/sales of existing copies, but no monitary damages.

Close, but not quite right.

You cannot bring a suit in a US court for copyright infringement unless the copyright has been registered with the US Copyright Office. Period, end of sentence, full stop. The court will throw out your suit. (Although "without prejudice," which means you can register the copyright, and then refile your suit.) Fun fact: I once had a client who was sued in state court for breach of contract. The court ruled that what the plaintiff was really suing for was copyright infringement and threw out his suit because state courts don't have any jurisdiction over copyright infringement. He moved to a Federal court. The Feds asked him if he had the copyright registration. He said, "No, and I can't get it due to StMarc's client's dastardly doings." The court said, "That's a shame, Mr. Plaintiff. Case dismissed."

Edited to Add: Moriador is quite correct that the question of whether a copyright created in another country, and otherwise in compliance with that country's laws, is required to be registrered in the US before suit for an act of infringement that took place in the US is not definititvely settled. It won't be until the SCOTUS rules on the question, if it ever does. But, and this is not legal advice, in my opinion the general rule should be that a wise person will register before filing suit, even for a Berne/Paris-style copyright. There is a procedure to expedite the issuance of  the certificate if you are in need of it to file a suit against an infringer.

*Also, Moriador wonders about whether somebody could file a copyright application on someone else's art, effectively "stealing" the copyright. Yes, they can, it happens all the time. We have procedures for dealing with it which are outside the scope of this post. It is essentially what the plaintiff alleged happened in the case I referred to above. The court didn't buy his argument.

The distinction you make is a real one, but it doesn't do what you think it does. You can always sue for an injunction to stop the infringer doing what they're doing, and you can always sue for actual damages. What it controls is whether you can sue for statutory damages. These damages are set by law and form a minimum level of damages which do not depend on the actual damages (lost revenue, profits, etc) suffered by you. It can also control whether you are eligible for damage multipliers: wilfully infringing a registered copyright can lead to awards of up to TRIPLE damages plus costs and fees, which is a LOT of money. Minimum statutory damages are $750 per work, and maximum is $150,000.

Quote - Well I'd just like to know how many of the members who have responded here are copyrite attorneys?  On what authority or fact are the answers based upon?  I'd love to see some text or links directing the OP to these rules.  Far as I can tell, the only person making any "reasonable" sense is Gate...

Hi there. I'm new to the forums (and to Poser... I'm learning to use it to illustrate/make covers for my fictional works.) And I am in fact a licensed attorney who's been practicing intellectual property law for more than fifteen years. (I have a regular law license and a license from the USPTO.)

I have to tell you that if you had to pick one person on this discussion so far not to listen to, it would be Gate. Insomuch as I can follow what they say at all, it's usually misleading, inaccurate or flat out incorrect.

While I am a licensed attorney, nothing I say here is meant as legal advice nor should it be interpreted as such. You should always consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction and familiar with the relevant law before making legal decisions. And yes, I have to say that, and yes, I mean it.

That being said, the best rule of thumb is this:

if it's not yours, don't mess with it.

Good advice, as has been pointed out, when dealing with the company breakroom, good advice when playing on the playground, and good advice when dealing with intellectual property.

"Ah," I hear the cries arise. "What about... Fair Use!" dun dun dun

The first and foremost thing to remember about the Fair Use defense is that it is... a defense. When you have to assert a defense, it means things are already going south on you. Try not to put yourself in positions that have to be defended, and you will lead a more tranquil life.

The second thing to remember about Fair Use is that it is what lawyers call a question of fact. That means the law does not specifically define what is or isn't a Fair Use: the law defines the various factors which help the finder of fact (usually a jury or a judge) determine whether the particular use in question is a Fair Use.

This cannot be overemphasized: There is no, I repeat no*,* bright-line, quantifiable test as to whether something is a Fair Use.

Personal/Commercial use is not an automatic win. Making a profit or not is not an automatic win. Changing some arbitrary (and subjective) "percentage" of the original artwork is not an automatic win. There are no automatic wins. Period, end of sentence, full stop. The only way to be sure you will not be held liable for infringing a copyright is not to infringe it in the first place.

The international treaties which govern copyright are, as has been pointed out, quite complex. When the protections of a copyright issued in one country apply to uses in another country is a very complicated question and one which can't be addressed in a short forum post. However, anyone who lives in a country subject to the Berne/Paris copyright conventions, which is most of the people reading this post, should act on the assumption that copyrights from other countries are valid against any potential infringing use they might want to make, absent specifically looking up the copyright on the original work and seeing if some specific reason exists why it wouldn't. (As was pointed out one common reason is differing copyright terms.)

I hope that this provides some basic principles which people can use when considering these matters. I'll be happy to answer questions if I can, reminding you that I can't and won't give specific legal advice.

M