Is it illegal to infringe copyright if your boss or your client ordered you to do it? The first possible scenario is this: suppose you work in a company, and you need to install some software for a client. The software needs to be purchased, but the boss tells you to just download it for free illegally (infringing copyright). You tell your boss that of course that's illegal and it's not the best way to do the job, but they tell you: &quot;I know, but who cares, just download it for free&quot;. If you did it, who would be responsible for the illegal download in this situation? If you are responsible, how should you deal with such a situation? The second possible scenario is this: suppose you are a freelance software developer, and your client asks you to install a thing for them. They give you a link to an unofficial website where you can download the stuff for free (illegally). You tell them it's illegal, and the stuff should be purchased. They tell you: &quot;Who cares, I'm not going to spend any money for purchasing it, your job is just to do exactly what I've told you, that is, just install it, and that's it&quot;. Again who would be responsible and how should you deal with this situation? Of course here there's always the option to not accept the job since you are a freelancer, but I also wonder if there are other options in theory. For example, maybe the client could download the software illegally themself, and then only give it to you for the installation? Location of the scenarios: any States of United States or any Member States of the European Union, but only one jurisdiction at a time.
There are two parts to copyright liability: civil and criminal. TL;DR: both cases are criminal offences, and it is illegal to break the law even when you are paid to do it. In the USA criminal copyright infringement requires a deliberate act to infringe copyright for commercial gain. Both of the scenarios meet these requirements. In the UK (and probably the rest of Europe) criminal copyright infringement includes possess in the course of a business an article which is, and which you know or have reason to believe is an infringing copy of a copyright work with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright. Again, both these scenarios meet this requirement. In the first scenario you are acting as an employee, so you don't have any personal civil liability for damages; that goes to your employer. However you still have, at least in theory, criminal liability. In the second scenario you are your own employer and so have both civil and criminal liability. Your client will share some liability as they have provided inducement to break the law. The best way of dealing with the first scenario is to point out to the boss that he is ordering you to commit a crime. Cite the law in your jurisdiction and the penalties for breaking it. Do this by email so that you have evidence of having told him, and take a printed copy of the email home with you just in case (if your boss isn't above criminal copyright infringement he may also not be above tampering with evidence). If you are in a big company then a CC to HR might also be indicated. If the boss is the company owner then you are in a stickier situation; your best option is probably to perpetuate the evidence as above and start looking for an employer who doesn't break the law. The second scenario is simpler: just refuse to do it.
Both Bob and Charles are liable for infringement in the US. The fact that Charles had no idea that Bob was an infringer is not a defense, but it mitigates the statutory damages consequences for him. Either party can negotiate with Alice after the fact for a license, and Alice can grant either party but not the other permission to copy. The terms of the license that Alice gives Bob could either allow CCo reposting, or some more restrictive redistribution right. If the license requires a notice prohibiting further redistribution and Bob omits that notification, Bob will have breached the terms of the license in omitting the notification, so we're back to square 1. If Alice fails to specify a no-redistribution notification condition on Bob's reposting, Alice may have granted an implied license to the world, a matter which has to be determined by the courts.
Bringing fair use into this sounds iffy if you are partnering -- that is a commercial relationship which should be defined. If they did send you a file with their logo for a specific purpose, you can assume that you are allowed to use it for that specific purpose. If they did not send you the file, you can assume that they did not give you permission, or they would have included the file ...
Making a profit does not make the act illegal: it is illegal without there being any profit. The act of copying without permission is what makes the act illegal. Profit might maybe enter into the matter if you are talking about the "fair use" defense, since certain kinds of works can be partially copied for certain purposes. You could quote a few lines from a novel in a review, for instance. The judgment of whether a given act of copying without permission is allowed under fair use is complex and involves a balancing act. Profit becomes relevant in that a non-profit use favors fair use and a for-profit use disfavors it. Wholesale copying of works of art as you describe is illegal (is infringement). However... "illegal" is a pretty broad concept. If you infringe on my intellectual property, you almost certainly will not suffer any consequences unless I sue you. Taking "illegal" to mean "in violation of the law", infringing copyright is illegal because it violates the law, but I have to make a federal case out of your infringement – I have to sue you. As it happens, it can also be a crime to infringe copyright, and in that case, the government and not the copyright holder pursues the matter. If a person knowingly infringes copyright, he might be prosecuted, thus the Megaupload case which in the US is realized in the indictment US v. Dotcom. Moreover, profit motive is a required element for criminal infringement. (Also note that you don't have to actually make a profit for the profit element to be present). You cannot sue a person unless they have harmed you, so if you know that Smith copied Jones' work you can't sue Smith for harming Jones. (This is what they call "standing"). You might sue Smith, but not for infringement itself. If they sold you an illegal infringing copy, then you could sue. Or, their infringement could diminish the value of your legal copy. This website gives a multi-nation overview of criminal copyright infringement laws.
It would seem that your song is a derived work. You took the original work and found words that sound the same. If the original work had used different words, your work would have ended up differently. So you have a derived work. Same as making a translation; if the original was different, then the translation would be different, so the translation is a derived work. I was asked "How is this not straight up infringement". But it is. Not only copying is an exclusive right of the copyright holder, but also the creation of derivative works.
Your question mixes up two different aspects of intellectual property. From a copyright point of view, it is perfectly legal to reproduce the features of a one piece of software in another. The functionlity of the software is not copyright (although the detailed look and feel of the user interface might be). However you ask if you, as an employee, can do this by &quot;looking into the code of software X&quot;. Presumably by doing this learn something of the organisation and algorithms used. Even if you avoid direct copying, you are likely to have learned trade secrets of your employer, and publishing these is at least a civil tort in the US, and in some states a crime.
The question is a bit sparse on relevant details, but yes, a EULA is binding, even when you agree in the course of employment. It may not be you who is bound, though. In case 1, you install a program at word to do something, the EULA says "don't copy any of these files", you see a cool file and decide "Neat, I'm taking a copy home. I can do this because I installed the program at work and am not bound by the EULA". Wrong. Case 2: you are installing software on behalf of a customer. It's not you that is bound by the EULA, it's the customer. Case 3: you work for the company that develops the software and holds the copyright, either fixing bugs or testing the security of the system by trying to crack it. In that case, you have special permission from the copyright holder that overrides whatever restrictions would normally from from the EULA. I don't know if that covers the kind of case you are concerned with. To reduce the matter to a simple sentence, just because you agree to something in the course of a job does not mean that the agreement is invalid.
If it is open source code, then usually the requirement is that you produce the source code for the software that you release. Exactly for the software that you release. For example if you took open source software X, and added feature Y, and distributed the combined software outside your company, anyone can request the source code for X including Y. Handing them the source code for X only wouldn't meet the open source requirements. Now all this is not illegal, but it means the copyright holder of X could sue you for copyright infringement. They will do that if they have enough reasons to do so. So let's say you are continuously developing your software and occasional hand out your compiled software. Say you built versions 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 of the software, you gave versions 100 and 103 to customers, and anyone asking for the source code is given the source code for the latest, slightly improved version 104. The copyright holder of X might sue you but: 1. They wouldn't know you are doing this. 2. A judge might side with you and decide that newer, improved source code is good enough (I don't know this, but it seems not unreasonable). 3. The copyright holder might decide that they don't want to sue you for this because you are close enough to meeting the requirements.