7 ms·

I don’t understand all the mock outrage; memes are already illegal in most cases at any size and copyrights are currently being enforced with takedowns in some

by dahart 7y ago

I don’t understand all the mock outrage; memes are already illegal in most cases at any size and copyrights are currently being enforced with takedowns in some cases. It seem like the title & text is trying to be intentionally inflammatory. It’s already illegal to use someone else’s image without permission, unless you’re covered by fair use (which memes are not automatically). Memes just happen to not be very enforceable by anyone who’s not a large corporation. The text seems to suggest that Germany is proposing an exemption to copyright infringement when the images are small enough. Isn’t that a good thing, and more freedom than internet memers have right now?

t0astbread 7y ago
The recent tonal shift regarding online expression and copyright in the EU certainly doesn't suggest that the intention here was to increase internet users' rights.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
falcolas 7y ago
> Isn’t that a good thing, and more freedom than internet memers have right now? Maybe? 128 pixels is a vanishingly small amount as display pixel density continues to rise. That's under an inch on many displays. Not to mention, while no fair use defense is automatic (fair use is a defense against copyright lawsuits in court), memes feel like they easily and cleanly fall under "parody", and perhaps "critique" categories.
- dahart 7y ago
  I'd guess that small (or just large & blurry) is the idea -- to make the criteria for the exception depend on having the quality be less than the original. Still, small and legal is better than illegal? > memes feel like they easily and cleanly fall under "parody", and perhaps "critique" categories. I feel like the problem with that claim is the parody and/or critique is very commonly not related to the subject of the image in any way. It seems strange to claim I should be able to fairly use a copyrighted picture of a famous person in order to comment on memes, or vegetables, or (super commonly) as a completely random funny backdrop to a saying. The ideas behind the parody and critique exceptions in fair use is that you can use a picture of Patrick Stewart to make comments about Patrick Stewart's acting or something he said in an interview, not that you can use a copyrighted picture of Patrick Stewart to comment on use of fonts on the internet, just because he happens to have a pose that makes the saying seem funny. When I Google "memes" right now and look at images, I see an entire page of copyrighted images, and only one of them (out of 26 images on the first page) has text relevant to the image. The other 25 are not making a parody of the person(s) in the image, or critique something even remotely relevant to the image.
dredmorbius 7y ago
Memes would almost always seem to fall well into Fair Use protections, under both US and wider Berne law.
- Mindwipe 7y ago
  I would say that's highly questionnable under Berne, and are fairly untested under US Fair Use protections. As most of them are stills, and use the entire still, there's no defence of a partial use of the work. Under Berne the key test would be if it was prejudicial to the copyright owner's economic rights, and it would be hard to argue the image had no economic value if it was being used in a popular meme. I do think the parent's comment that memes could be actionable in a great many situations in most jurisdictions but rarely get such in practice has merit.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    >Under Berne the key test would be if it was prejudicial to the copyright owner's economic rights, and it would be hard to argue the image had no economic value if it was being used in a popular meme. Isn't that backwards though? Doesn't the Berne Convention say that exemptions to reproduction of copyrighted works can't be prejudiced against the economic interests of the original author? Memes don't really infringe on the original works. Seeing an image of Peter Parker with some text on it doesn't really compete with the Spiderman movie, does it?
    - dahart 7y ago
      > Memes don't really infringe on the original works. Seeing an image of Peter Parker with some text on it doesn't really compete with the Spiderman movie, does it? That is faulty, incorrect logic, and the law (both US copyright and the Berne convention) does not agree with you. You don't have the right to decide what is in the interests of the Marvel franchise, Marvel does. Images of Peter Parker are being actively used for ancillary marketing purposes, and they can easily show that infringing use of their copyrighted image is diluting their brand and/or causing some financial harm. BTW I'm not worried about Marvel, I'm more worried about the many smaller independent businesses, and individual creators, that lose control of their work and have no practical legal recourse.
Mirioron 7y ago
The reason people are outraged is because in practice memes were permitted. These new rules create more enforcement, which means that in practice people will likely have less freedom.
- dahart 7y ago
  No, memes have not been “permitted”. Something is not legal just because you don’t get caught or sued. Memes that try to use frames from movies have been handed takedown notices. Other memes just haven’t been handed takedowns because the owner isn’t making enough money to make a legal defense worthwhile. It’s not ethical to claim it’s permitted just because someone can’t defend it.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    >No, memes have not been “permitted”. Something is not legal just because you don’t get caught or sued. All that matters is whether this happens much in the real world or not. The world's most draconian laws mean absolutely nothing if they're not enforced. >Memes that try to use frames from movies have been handed takedown notices. And the banana you ate contained radioactive isotopes, but you didn't hold off from eating it because of that. Something that's a rare occurrence doesn't change how people behave. >It’s not ethical to claim it’s permitted just because someone can’t defend it. I believe that our current copyright system itself is unethical. There is absolutely no point at which "copyright needs to extend 70 years beyond the author's death" and "copyright laws exist to further the advancement of science and culture" intersect. I'd even argue that these copyright laws are what hinder the advancement of science and culture. Memes don't mean much if they don't get shared and if sharing them is something people will get in trouble over then they just won't share memes. Also, I'd like to point out that this copyright system has also created a variety of companies and people who abuse the system for monetary gain, yet there's essentially no recourse to be had.

by dahart 7y ago

t0astbread 7y ago

The recent tonal shift regarding online expression and copyright in the EU certainly doesn't suggest that the intention here was to increase internet users' rights.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

falcolas 7y ago

> Isn’t that a good thing, and more freedom than internet memers have right now? Maybe? 128 pixels is a vanishingly small amount as display pixel density continues to rise. That's under an inch on many displays. Not to mention, while no fair use defense is automatic (fair use is a defense against copyright lawsuits in court), memes feel like they easily and cleanly fall under "parody", and perhaps "critique" categories.

dahart 7y ago
I'd guess that small (or just large & blurry) is the idea -- to make the criteria for the exception depend on having the quality be less than the original. Still, small and legal is better than illegal? > memes feel like they easily and cleanly fall under "parody", and perhaps "critique" categories. I feel like the problem with that claim is the parody and/or critique is very commonly not related to the subject of the image in any way. It seems strange to claim I should be able to fairly use a copyrighted picture of a famous person in order to comment on memes, or vegetables, or (super commonly) as a completely random funny backdrop to a saying. The ideas behind the parody and critique exceptions in fair use is that you can use a picture of Patrick Stewart to make comments about Patrick Stewart's acting or something he said in an interview, not that you can use a copyrighted picture of Patrick Stewart to comment on use of fonts on the internet, just because he happens to have a pose that makes the saying seem funny. When I Google "memes" right now and look at images, I see an entire page of copyrighted images, and only one of them (out of 26 images on the first page) has text relevant to the image. The other 25 are not making a parody of the person(s) in the image, or critique something even remotely relevant to the image.

dredmorbius 7y ago

Memes would almost always seem to fall well into Fair Use protections, under both US and wider Berne law.

Mindwipe 7y ago
I would say that's highly questionnable under Berne, and are fairly untested under US Fair Use protections. As most of them are stills, and use the entire still, there's no defence of a partial use of the work. Under Berne the key test would be if it was prejudicial to the copyright owner's economic rights, and it would be hard to argue the image had no economic value if it was being used in a popular meme. I do think the parent's comment that memes could be actionable in a great many situations in most jurisdictions but rarely get such in practice has merit.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >Under Berne the key test would be if it was prejudicial to the copyright owner's economic rights, and it would be hard to argue the image had no economic value if it was being used in a popular meme. Isn't that backwards though? Doesn't the Berne Convention say that exemptions to reproduction of copyrighted works can't be prejudiced against the economic interests of the original author? Memes don't really infringe on the original works. Seeing an image of Peter Parker with some text on it doesn't really compete with the Spiderman movie, does it?
  - dahart 7y ago
    > Memes don't really infringe on the original works. Seeing an image of Peter Parker with some text on it doesn't really compete with the Spiderman movie, does it? That is faulty, incorrect logic, and the law (both US copyright and the Berne convention) does not agree with you. You don't have the right to decide what is in the interests of the Marvel franchise, Marvel does. Images of Peter Parker are being actively used for ancillary marketing purposes, and they can easily show that infringing use of their copyrighted image is diluting their brand and/or causing some financial harm. BTW I'm not worried about Marvel, I'm more worried about the many smaller independent businesses, and individual creators, that lose control of their work and have no practical legal recourse.

Mirioron 7y ago

The reason people are outraged is because in practice memes were permitted. These new rules create more enforcement, which means that in practice people will likely have less freedom.

dahart 7y ago
No, memes have not been “permitted”. Something is not legal just because you don’t get caught or sued. Memes that try to use frames from movies have been handed takedown notices. Other memes just haven’t been handed takedowns because the owner isn’t making enough money to make a legal defense worthwhile. It’s not ethical to claim it’s permitted just because someone can’t defend it.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >No, memes have not been “permitted”. Something is not legal just because you don’t get caught or sued. All that matters is whether this happens much in the real world or not. The world's most draconian laws mean absolutely nothing if they're not enforced. >Memes that try to use frames from movies have been handed takedown notices. And the banana you ate contained radioactive isotopes, but you didn't hold off from eating it because of that. Something that's a rare occurrence doesn't change how people behave. >It’s not ethical to claim it’s permitted just because someone can’t defend it. I believe that our current copyright system itself is unethical. There is absolutely no point at which "copyright needs to extend 70 years beyond the author's death" and "copyright laws exist to further the advancement of science and culture" intersect. I'd even argue that these copyright laws are what hinder the advancement of science and culture. Memes don't mean much if they don't get shared and if sharing them is something people will get in trouble over then they just won't share memes. Also, I'd like to point out that this copyright system has also created a variety of companies and people who abuse the system for monetary gain, yet there's essentially no recourse to be had.