This week, this writer noticed that at least two legal blogs are warning about Memes.
For the purpose of this discussion, a meme is an image or short clip of video, to which a caption is added by someone other than the copyright owner of the image or short clip, and it is forwarded across social media by thousands with no regard to the copyrights of the copyright owner, or the moral rights of the subject of the image.
Meme enthusiasts would probably say that the use of the image is "transformative", or that the use is "fair", because the image is only half the work, and the text is the other half --which is not a definition of Fair Use-- or that it is commentary, or parody, or being used to disseminate news or opinion, or to educate.
Memes are like emoticons. They are a quick, convenient way for the inarticulate to spread someone else's expression of an opinion without having to think for themselves. To date, the re-tweeter has also been able to share the meme without any liability or responsibility. That may change, even if copyright law explicitly protects parody, criticism, and pastiche.
Legal blogger Georgia Shriane for Boyes Turner LLP (specializing in European Law and UK law) warns that meme law is coming....
Lexology link:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1191618e-8200-49db-b9d7-c89d494d5546&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-03-29&utm_term=
The original article can be found here:
https://www.boyesturner.com/article/article-13-meme-law-is-coming
Even if the meme is protected, if content platforms use automation to filter out copyrighted images, the bots may not perceive the difference between "a good meme" and copyright infringement. That's not all.
See also, from 2017, commentary on a weeping athlete, with a question about the consequences if this meme is used for commercial advertising
https://www.internetandtechnologylaw.com/unauthorized-meme-crying-jordon/#page=1
Also, see the commentary by Claire Jones of Novagraaf for when memes are used gratuitously, with the sole apparent purpose of tormenting a public figure:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/documents.lexology.com/78503cc7-93e3-470e-8a7d-37ffcbee9a56.pdf
Or read it on Lexology...
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c470fc1e-d61e-4f98-a3b3-d113233998db
The most ominous shot across the bows for meme sharers comes from legal blogger Jordyn Eisenpress writing for the law firm Frankfurt Kurnit Klein& Seltz PC "Popular Meme Account Sued For Copyright Infringement And Other Claims.
Read it on Lexology (but beware, gentle readers: there is a very vulgar word as part of the defendant's twitter handle.)
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=33280fc3-a77a-41c2-b429-f998d6f22556&utm_source=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium=html+email&utm_campaign=lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=lexology+daily+newsfeed+2019-03-28&utm_term=
Or find the very recent original here, (also including the shocking handle).
https://advertisinglaw.fkks.com/post/102fh6p/popular-meme-account-sued-for-copyright-infringement-and-other-claims
Apparently, meme enthusiasts in New York should take note, and be very careful going forward.
All the best,
Rowena Cherry
Showing posts with label meme. Show all posts
Showing posts with label meme. Show all posts
Saturday, March 30, 2019
Sunday, June 17, 2018
Dangerous Embedfellows And... Death Of The Meme?
Imagine you happen to be in the right place at the right time, and you snap the perfect photographic scoop of a famous person doing something newsworthy.
In your excitement, you share your photo with a few friends on Snapchat. You forget that, while once upon a time, Snapchat was a place where you could show a photo to chosen friends for a few seconds, and then the photo would vanish, now those friends can capture and keep those tantalizing shots.
Then, it dawns on you that you could probably sell or license that photo to a newspaper.
Too late. One of your erstwhile friends snags the sneak peek, and uploads it (thus infringing your copyright) to Twitter. Twitter does not warn your sneaky friend that he (or she) must have written permission from the copyright owner before they can legally upload a picture. Now, by virtue of Twitter's TOS, that thieving friend has given Twitter a limited license (albeit perhaps a license that friend had no right to give) to further publish and distribute that photo.
Then, a news network (perhaps even the last one on this planet to which you would willingly give free content, or perhaps your first choice for a juicy sale) embeds that valuable picture to illustrate a story, and they publish it. Now, your chance of selling that photo is gone forever.
Breitbart believes that, because they merely "embedded" a Twitter thingy, and didn't host your .jpg on their servers, they are free and clear of liability. Maybe not.
The inspiring predicament is discussed in real life detail by Jack A. Wheat blogging for the law firm McBrayer McGinnis Leslie & Kirkland PLLC in Court In Copyright Case: Don't Embed That Tweet!
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e278507a-6cfe-4bcd-8c5d-7e98399b36c0&utm_source=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium=html+email+-+body+-+general+section&utm_campaign=lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=lexology+daily+newsfeed+2018-06-11&utm_term=
Apparently, the court decision in favor of the photographer is being appealed. Eventually, it may go to SCOTUS.
For our UK readers, the law is similar. If you did not take the photograph, beware sharing it. UK legal bloggers Jill Bainbridge and Nicola Rochon for Blake Morgan write a really helpful article titled Sharing photos online - the risks of Copyright Infringement.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c6ddedba-c1e8-48b1-a7ef-fd0ce7c595fa
Just because a social media platform makes it possible, nay easy, for you to upload someone else's stuff to their site does not mean that you should do so, or that you are legally on safe ground if you do so. It would not be hard for Facebook, Twitter, Google, Ebay, et alia to develop a pop-up before you physically could proceed to upload a photo: "Did you take this photo yourself?" Yes/No "Do you have written permission from the person who took the photo?" Yes/No.
There ought to be similar pop-ups on other user-generated-content reliant sites. "Did you write this e-book?" For instance. "Did you write all 100,000 ebooks on this DVD?"
Saquib Shah, writing for the Sun, warns UK readers (and the rest of the world) that Memes may be in mortal peril.
https://nypost.com/2018/06/08/revamped-eu-copyright-law-could-mean-the-death-of-memes/
The problem with memes is that they rely on often-copyrighted images or movie clips that are appropriated by busy internet users, "transformed" (not very much) by users who add text or other edits to communicate amusing social or political commentary.
Can people no longer communicate without disrespecting other creators' copyrights? Would it be respectful to that fine actor, DeNiro, to take his recent stage pose with fists at shoulder level and edit in a MAGA banner between his raised hands? Do actors who roll their eyes in one context necessarily welcome their eye roll being used as commentary on any topic?
Here is a link to the proposed EU law.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0593
It is perhaps a sad state of affairs if those who object to the proposals really believe that people cannot freely and clearly (and wittily) put their thoughts and opinions and knowledge into writing.... or emojis.
All the best,
Rowena Cherry
In your excitement, you share your photo with a few friends on Snapchat. You forget that, while once upon a time, Snapchat was a place where you could show a photo to chosen friends for a few seconds, and then the photo would vanish, now those friends can capture and keep those tantalizing shots.
Then, it dawns on you that you could probably sell or license that photo to a newspaper.
Too late. One of your erstwhile friends snags the sneak peek, and uploads it (thus infringing your copyright) to Twitter. Twitter does not warn your sneaky friend that he (or she) must have written permission from the copyright owner before they can legally upload a picture. Now, by virtue of Twitter's TOS, that thieving friend has given Twitter a limited license (albeit perhaps a license that friend had no right to give) to further publish and distribute that photo.
Then, a news network (perhaps even the last one on this planet to which you would willingly give free content, or perhaps your first choice for a juicy sale) embeds that valuable picture to illustrate a story, and they publish it. Now, your chance of selling that photo is gone forever.
Breitbart believes that, because they merely "embedded" a Twitter thingy, and didn't host your .jpg on their servers, they are free and clear of liability. Maybe not.
The inspiring predicament is discussed in real life detail by Jack A. Wheat blogging for the law firm McBrayer McGinnis Leslie & Kirkland PLLC in Court In Copyright Case: Don't Embed That Tweet!
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e278507a-6cfe-4bcd-8c5d-7e98399b36c0&utm_source=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium=html+email+-+body+-+general+section&utm_campaign=lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=lexology+daily+newsfeed+2018-06-11&utm_term=
Apparently, the court decision in favor of the photographer is being appealed. Eventually, it may go to SCOTUS.
For our UK readers, the law is similar. If you did not take the photograph, beware sharing it. UK legal bloggers Jill Bainbridge and Nicola Rochon for Blake Morgan write a really helpful article titled Sharing photos online - the risks of Copyright Infringement.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c6ddedba-c1e8-48b1-a7ef-fd0ce7c595fa
Just because a social media platform makes it possible, nay easy, for you to upload someone else's stuff to their site does not mean that you should do so, or that you are legally on safe ground if you do so. It would not be hard for Facebook, Twitter, Google, Ebay, et alia to develop a pop-up before you physically could proceed to upload a photo: "Did you take this photo yourself?" Yes/No "Do you have written permission from the person who took the photo?" Yes/No.
There ought to be similar pop-ups on other user-generated-content reliant sites. "Did you write this e-book?" For instance. "Did you write all 100,000 ebooks on this DVD?"
Saquib Shah, writing for the Sun, warns UK readers (and the rest of the world) that Memes may be in mortal peril.
https://nypost.com/2018/06/08/revamped-eu-copyright-law-could-mean-the-death-of-memes/
The problem with memes is that they rely on often-copyrighted images or movie clips that are appropriated by busy internet users, "transformed" (not very much) by users who add text or other edits to communicate amusing social or political commentary.
Can people no longer communicate without disrespecting other creators' copyrights? Would it be respectful to that fine actor, DeNiro, to take his recent stage pose with fists at shoulder level and edit in a MAGA banner between his raised hands? Do actors who roll their eyes in one context necessarily welcome their eye roll being used as commentary on any topic?
Here is a link to the proposed EU law.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0593
It is perhaps a sad state of affairs if those who object to the proposals really believe that people cannot freely and clearly (and wittily) put their thoughts and opinions and knowledge into writing.... or emojis.
All the best,
Rowena Cherry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
