6 ms·

Parody copyright laws set to come into effect in the UK

94 points by GotAnyMegadeth 12y ago

lotsofmangos 12y ago
John Cleese will now fine you a herring for whistling any tracks by the Beatles.
zzmp 12y ago
"Owners of the copyrighted works will only be able to sue if the parody conveys a discriminatory message. "It would then be down to a judge to decide if the parody is funny." Can't wait to see that lawsuit...
- scrabble 12y ago
  As soon as I read that statement I felt like the whole thing is going to be ridiculous. Time to appeal for a better sense of humor.
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  When I read the title, I though that the law was a parody, and somehow got into effect... Now that I've read it, I know that my first interpretation was correct.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    That first interpretation may have always been correct, at least with much of copyright law. When you google mickey mouse law and get the US copyright extension act, you gotta figure there is some high stakes satire going on somewhere.
- DrJokepu 12y ago
  I think it's a misunderstanding, it only has to "constitute an expression of humour or mockery". It seems to me that this means that it doesn't have to be actually funny as long as it was genuinely intended to be funny.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- dribnet 12y ago
  Note that in the US, protections are broad and being funny doesn't matter. Legal precedent clearly states that "First Amendment protections do not apply only to those who speak clearly, whose jokes are funny, and whose parodies succeed" [1] We have 2 Live Crew to thank for firmly establishing this majority opinion in US Supreme Court 20 years ago. [1] http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/campbell.html http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/campbell.h...
- ZoFreX 12y ago
  To be fair, many of our judges have excellent senses of humour. Unlike the US we don't have a constitution, at times I feel like our batty old judges are all we have to protect us.
tikhonj 12y ago
Generally, this seems to be a good law. To my understanding, it's on par with the protections we already have in the US. It's interesting how the law singles out "discriminatory": >If a parody conveys a discriminatory message (for example, by replacing the original characters with people wearing veils and people of colour), the holders of the rights to the work parodied have, in principle, a legitimate interest in ensuring that their work is not associated with such a message. Why is that the only case where right holders have a "legitimate interest" like this? There are lots of other cases where somebody should have a similar case by a similar standard: obscenity, sex, violence, religion or anything else counter to a group's core beliefs. The law should be consistent one way or another, but it isn't. A few decades ago, sex would have been the one issue singled out. And before that? Probably anti-religious messaging. Or maybe just communism, although that was more of an American concern. Point being, it really brings to mind the idea of "moral fashion" from "What You Can't Say"[1]. As time goes on, I'm seeing the ideas from that essay illustrated more and more, especially because we seem to be in a transitionary period between two different fashions. It's a bit disconcerting, honestly; it feels like things aren't really changing, just the names and details. [1]: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
- nathan_long 12y ago
  > There are lots of other cases where somebody should have a similar case by a similar standard: obscenity, sex, violence, religion or anything else counter to a group's core beliefs. Just what I came here to say. If I wrote a children's song and someone parodied it with sexual content, I'd be miffed. On the other hand, if original authors could define what's offensive, they could object to each parody individually on made-up grounds. It's probably better to totally separate the questions of "can you make a parody" and "can you publish a work with content X, whether or not it's a parody" (with the answer being "yes, we believe in free speech" in all but a very few cases).
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    The UK is a bit more nuanced with free speech than the US, it can be illegal to make an offensive joke on twitter for example.
quarterto 12y ago
Phew, for a second there I thought this was going to be banning parody. No idea it was already.
atmosx 12y ago
If copyright owners start using this law to sue everyone they see fit, the law will last 12 months tops IMHO or it will destroy both parody and satire as we know it in the UK.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Do not despair. Parody and satire are safe in this fair land for as long as we have the great British public around to angrily misunderstand everything.
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  This law does literally the opposite of what you are talking about.
  - atmosx 12y ago
    Then, I got this entire thing wrong, which is a good thing.
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      We were living in your nightmare future world already and you didn't even notice. Just think of all the parody we've been missing up until now.
- ZoFreX 12y ago
  Read article, then type!
menzoic 12y ago
@SouthPark
rglover 12y ago
The most successful use of this in the US has been https://twitter.com/dumbstarbucks https://twitter.com/dumbstarbucks. Pretty great.
ape4 12y ago
What if the derived work is funny and discriminatory.
- dnautics 12y ago
  We must protect the UK from the likes of Key and Peele!
- vertex-four 12y ago
  It ends up at the European Court of Human Rights in the end, most probably.
aluhut 12y ago
Cassette Boy, who is known for his online mash-up parodies of shows Not so many years ago, that sentence would look very weird. I love the times we live in.
hotgoldminer 12y ago
I read the title to mean someone proposed the law as parody only to see it come into effect. Such a jaded and cynical world!

John Cleese will now fine you a herring for whistling any tracks by the Beatles.

zzmp 12y ago

"Owners of the copyrighted works will only be able to sue if the parody conveys a discriminatory message. "It would then be down to a judge to decide if the parody is funny." Can't wait to see that lawsuit...

scrabble 12y ago
As soon as I read that statement I felt like the whole thing is going to be ridiculous. Time to appeal for a better sense of humor.
marcosdumay 12y ago
When I read the title, I though that the law was a parody, and somehow got into effect... Now that I've read it, I know that my first interpretation was correct.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  That first interpretation may have always been correct, at least with much of copyright law. When you google mickey mouse law and get the US copyright extension act, you gotta figure there is some high stakes satire going on somewhere.
DrJokepu 12y ago
I think it's a misunderstanding, it only has to "constitute an expression of humour or mockery". It seems to me that this means that it doesn't have to be actually funny as long as it was genuinely intended to be funny.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
dribnet 12y ago
Note that in the US, protections are broad and being funny doesn't matter. Legal precedent clearly states that "First Amendment protections do not apply only to those who speak clearly, whose jokes are funny, and whose parodies succeed" [1] We have 2 Live Crew to thank for firmly establishing this majority opinion in US Supreme Court 20 years ago. [1] http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/campbell.html http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/campbell.h...
ZoFreX 12y ago
To be fair, many of our judges have excellent senses of humour. Unlike the US we don't have a constitution, at times I feel like our batty old judges are all we have to protect us.

tikhonj 12y ago

Generally, this seems to be a good law. To my understanding, it's on par with the protections we already have in the US. It's interesting how the law singles out "discriminatory": >If a parody conveys a discriminatory message (for example, by replacing the original characters with people wearing veils and people of colour), the holders of the rights to the work parodied have, in principle, a legitimate interest in ensuring that their work is not associated with such a message. Why is that the only case where right holders have a "legitimate interest" like this? There are lots of other cases where somebody should have a similar case by a similar standard: obscenity, sex, violence, religion or anything else counter to a group's core beliefs. The law should be consistent one way or another, but it isn't. A few decades ago, sex would have been the one issue singled out. And before that? Probably anti-religious messaging. Or maybe just communism, although that was more of an American concern. Point being, it really brings to mind the idea of "moral fashion" from "What You Can't Say"[1]. As time goes on, I'm seeing the ideas from that essay illustrated more and more, especially because we seem to be in a transitionary period between two different fashions. It's a bit disconcerting, honestly; it feels like things aren't really changing, just the names and details. [1]: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

nathan_long 12y ago
> There are lots of other cases where somebody should have a similar case by a similar standard: obscenity, sex, violence, religion or anything else counter to a group's core beliefs. Just what I came here to say. If I wrote a children's song and someone parodied it with sexual content, I'd be miffed. On the other hand, if original authors could define what's offensive, they could object to each parody individually on made-up grounds. It's probably better to totally separate the questions of "can you make a parody" and "can you publish a work with content X, whether or not it's a parody" (with the answer being "yes, we believe in free speech" in all but a very few cases).
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  The UK is a bit more nuanced with free speech than the US, it can be illegal to make an offensive joke on twitter for example.

quarterto 12y ago

Phew, for a second there I thought this was going to be banning parody. No idea it was already.

atmosx 12y ago

If copyright owners start using this law to sue everyone they see fit, the law will last 12 months tops IMHO or it will destroy both parody and satire as we know it in the UK.

lotsofmangos 12y ago
Do not despair. Parody and satire are safe in this fair land for as long as we have the great British public around to angrily misunderstand everything.
matthewmacleod 12y ago
This law does literally the opposite of what you are talking about.
- atmosx 12y ago
  Then, I got this entire thing wrong, which is a good thing.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    We were living in your nightmare future world already and you didn't even notice. Just think of all the parody we've been missing up until now.
ZoFreX 12y ago
Read article, then type!

menzoic 12y ago

@SouthPark

rglover 12y ago

The most successful use of this in the US has been https://twitter.com/dumbstarbucks https://twitter.com/dumbstarbucks. Pretty great.

ape4 12y ago

What if the derived work is funny and discriminatory.

dnautics 12y ago
We must protect the UK from the likes of Key and Peele!
vertex-four 12y ago
It ends up at the European Court of Human Rights in the end, most probably.

aluhut 12y ago

Cassette Boy, who is known for his online mash-up parodies of shows Not so many years ago, that sentence would look very weird. I love the times we live in.

hotgoldminer 12y ago

I read the title to mean someone proposed the law as parody only to see it come into effect. Such a jaded and cynical world!