The four factors start with the nature and purpose of the use -- most importantly, whether it's being used in a commercial or a non-profit manner. Ripping somebody off and making money from it is a higher crime than just ripping them off. If you're using something, you need a good reason to use to it.

The primary legal question at this stage is whether the copyright material is being used commercially. It may be a personal portfolio, but that portfolio has commercial application. Beware this legal trap; note the sharp distinction on this site between the mag and biz.

The second factor (you gotta love lawyers) is whether the copyright material in question actually deserves a copyright. Do I really owe Pat Riley money every time I say "threepeat?" (threepeat, threepeat, threepeat). A lot of the case law here is silly season stuff, and more proof of the old legal adage that hard cases make bad law.

In the web world, a lot of a designer's work will fall under the category of works for hire, which means it may be your work, but the client owns it. So the bottom line on factor two, as it applies to the web, is that most of what you're thinking about stealing will qualify for copyright protection.

A lot of the case law here has come from an avowed religion trying to legally block the free speech rights of former members. How's that for a legal can of worms -- combining freedom of religion and freedom of speech in addition to all the copyright stuff -- and I haven't even gotten to the question of damages.

In this relative amount test, it looks good that I used two out of several hundred pages in question, but it's not a hard and fast legal rule. Sometimes, large amounts can skate, and other times, tiny amounts can be nailed.

Much of the case law here involves deriviative works, musicians getting sampled into other musicians songs, stuff like that, which is beyond the scope of a quick web primer. Same applies for the question of trade secrets; to go back to the example of a church, suppose some sect is selling guaranteed access to Paradise, and someone blurts out the secret on behalf of the world. Makes me glad I'm not a judge.

The bottom line with all matters legal is the larger the amount of money, the more likely it will draw attention. And that's why so many of these cases land in the second category -- "no blood, no foul." If there's no harm done, why bother. The Cleveland Browns could care less that I put their helmet logo on my website; they are glad I'm going to buy their merchandise and buy a ticket when they arrive in Baltimore this fall.

To go back to the test case examples I used on the earlier screen, the economic impact of my use of those copyright images is zero. If anything, it's a link and a plug to my old company. My economic impact, in not being able to use the copyright images, is far higher, but there's a legal term for that and it's "tough noogies."

Which leads me to my final point.

There's an old joke that says a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged and that a liberal is a conservative who's been thrown in jail. The key to remember in copyright is that it works both ways. Today it might be you wanting to use somebody's stuff. Tomorrow it might be somebody wanting to use some of yours.