- ‘American Dirt’ controversy inspires meme about Latinx stereotypes in literature Wednesday 9:02 PM
- What is the TikTok ‘flex challenge’? Wednesday 8:03 PM
- GoFundMe to send ‘Target Tori’ on vacation raises more than $30K Wednesday 6:54 PM
- Furries stop domestic assault in viral video Wednesday 6:10 PM
- Gritty under police investigation for allegedly punching a teen fan Wednesday 6:04 PM
- Twitter users throw animal parties with emoji in new meme Wednesday 5:21 PM
- Woman who went viral supporting Soleimani killing exposed as Libyan militia lobbyist Wednesday 5:01 PM
- Jeff Bezos subtweets Saudi prince following phone hack report Wednesday 3:29 PM
- ‘Yeah, good. OK’ Bernie Sanders meme is a new way to dismiss people Wednesday 3:10 PM
- ‘Vanderpump Rules’ recap: Petty displays of affection Wednesday 2:12 PM
- Makeup artist transforms into Timothée Chalamet on TikTok Wednesday 1:54 PM
- Iguanas are falling from trees—and people are selling them online for food Wednesday 1:02 PM
- 75,000 sign petition to fire Wendy Williams after ‘cleft lip’ comment about Joaquin Phoenix Wednesday 12:30 PM
- Kim Kardashian says Kylie Jenner’s setting spray is ‘cheap sh*t’ Wednesday 11:59 AM
- Trump continues to demand Apple unlock iPhones for the government Wednesday 11:46 AM
Outdated copyright law makes memes illegal in Australia
In Australia, your Facebook feed could double as your rap sheet.
Here are a few things you can’t do in Australia: Post a YouTube video of yourself in a homemade Super Mario Brothers costume, stream music from your iPhone during a funeral, or share just about any Internet meme on your Facebook wall.
That list—a truncation of the almost endless number of online activities made illegal under Australian copyright law—is a symbol of what happens when 20th-century laws are applied to 21st-century Internet remix culture.
The problem stems from the fact that Australia has a particularly narrow copyright law.
In many countries there’s a Fair Use clause in copyright laws. One of the purposes of these laws is to dictate how images, videos, audio, and text can be remixed on the Internet.
Here, for example, is how the U.S. defines “fair use,” according to Copyright.gov: “Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.” And that much, is true in Australia as well.
Section 107, however, also sets out four additional points of consideration when determining whether a particular use of media is considered fair.
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
As Copyright.gov points out, those arent perfect guidelines. And they are open to interpretation on a more case-by-case basis. The point of these guidelines is to articulate the spirit of the law, which is to defend authors and copyright owners from piracy and encourage creativity and innovation.
Unfortunately, according to Australia’s News.com.au, Australian copyright law lacks the aforementioned considerations. As a result, Internet memes incorporating content from protected material are subject to the law, even though they don’t make any money from it or otherwise take profits away from the owners.
In the following video, the Creationistas, a group taking aim at reforming Australian copyright law, offers a detailed explanation of the law’s troubling origins.
Obviously, the law was not intended to thwart Internet memes. It’s simply far behind the times, and it isn’t enforced very often. However, it could be, which means Australian Facebook user has done something for which they could be prosecuted.
The Creationistas have started a petition to reform the copyright law.
Photo by Roderigo Gianesi/Flickr
Joe Kloc is a former Daily Dot contributor who covered technology and policy. He's contributed to Newsweek and Mother Jones, discussed his reporting on air with WNYC, and written Weekly Reviews for Harper's Magazine.