4 ms·

>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

>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
  >You don't have the right to decide what is in the interests of the Marvel franchise, Marvel does. That doesn't sound right though. Wouldn't this mean that any time a large corporation used somebody's copyrighted works that they're stepping on a huge minefield, because it's now up to the individual to decide what is in their interests? I'm pretty sure that even US copyright law weights whether the potential copyright infringement creates an alternative product for the market. >and they can easily show that infringing use of their copyrighted image is diluting their brand and/or causing some financial harm. That's trademark law not copyright. It's a different matter, because trademarks have to be actively defended. >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. Then you're worried about the wrong thing. They will never have practical legal recourse as long as the legal system is based on spending a lot of money. We can't even get criminal law to work with this. What's the chance that we would get civil law to work with it?
Mindwipe 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? Most memes are full reproductions of photographs, not smaller sections of larger works like a still from a film. And I suspect Getty would argue pretty successfully that the online use would indeed compete with their licensing of the image on a website for their photographs for example.

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
>You don't have the right to decide what is in the interests of the Marvel franchise, Marvel does. That doesn't sound right though. Wouldn't this mean that any time a large corporation used somebody's copyrighted works that they're stepping on a huge minefield, because it's now up to the individual to decide what is in their interests? I'm pretty sure that even US copyright law weights whether the potential copyright infringement creates an alternative product for the market. >and they can easily show that infringing use of their copyrighted image is diluting their brand and/or causing some financial harm. That's trademark law not copyright. It's a different matter, because trademarks have to be actively defended. >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. Then you're worried about the wrong thing. They will never have practical legal recourse as long as the legal system is based on spending a lot of money. We can't even get criminal law to work with this. What's the chance that we would get civil law to work with it?

Mindwipe 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? Most memes are full reproductions of photographs, not smaller sections of larger works like a still from a film. And I suspect Getty would argue pretty successfully that the online use would indeed compete with their licensing of the image on a website for their photographs for example.