Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Law Used to Shut Down Site
driptray writes "The Sydney Morning Herald reports that an Australian mining industry group has used copyright laws to close a website that parodied a coal industry ad campaign. A group known as Rising Tide created the website using the slogan "Rising sea levels: brought to you by mining" in response to the mining industry's slogan of "Life: brought to you by mining". The mining industry claimed that the "content and layout" of the parody site infringed copyright, but when Rising Tide removed the copyrighted photos and changed the layout, the mining industry still lodged a complaint. Is this a misuse of copyright law in order to stifle dissent?"
Something like this would probably be okay in the United States as a fair use parody.
Parody: Copyright Issues
______________________________________________
Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law, it can be protected under the fair use doctrine, which is codified in 17 USC 107. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works." That commentary function provides some justification for use of the older work. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
Other notable US court decisions involving parody include Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin (Affirming the right of Alice Randall to publish a parody of Gone with the Wind called The Wind Done Gone, which told the same story from the point of view of Scarlett O'Hara's slaves),
((Then again, that's in the US. Not sure about Australia))
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
It can work just the same way in the US. It would be the marketing company cracking down on you for using their layout, their format, their slogan (albeit twisted), not the company you're parodying.
Pretty well established Supreme Court decisions on the matter. Both the copyright and libel angles of parody have been smacked down by the US Supreme Court. So unless they come up with a new angle, it's unlikely this would fly far in the US.
Yes and no. The site-host has to respond to the Takedown notice within 24 hours. They will always take the site down first and then restore it later if there's no issue. From the hoster's point of view that's the best course of action - they can't get legal advice on every single takedown request they get. But it does mean the process is open to abuse by copyright holders. This is a good example of that.
The flipside to this is that, under Australian Copyright law, using copyrighted material for the purposees of satire is OK. It's great that this is getting so much attention. The satirists are within their rights and it makes the (enourmously powerful) mining lobby look like a bunch of wankers with no sense of humour. And in Australia it's almost sinful if you can't cope with having the piss taken out of you.
From wikipedia: The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works."
Sounds like you could use layout, and graphics to me. Ive been thinking of starting a parody website. I thought I would be invincible legally here in the US.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
It has to be clear that the site is a parody, and not the actual site. If a typical user could not tell the site is a parody, then it is on shaky ground. My guess is the original site very closely aped teh original, having done that they are given far less leeway on subsequent go-rounds. So you can mock their slogan if the rest of the site is different, but if layout, graphics, are identical while teh slogan is similar, it will get shutdown in the US too. Parody i snot the "get out of jail free" card some folks think it is.
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
Parent:
I don't know about you, but my vote is on the grandparent being aware that AUS is not part of the US, and that the legal code is different. Because, after all, he explicitly stated it for your benefit.
That said, Australian copyright law uses the concept of fair dealing, which is different than fair use in the US. From what I understand, it's less forgiving than fair use.
And that said, the US and Australia entered into agreement in 2004 (AUSFTA) that standardized the definitions of infringing behaviors between the two countries as part of the IP section of the treaty. What I'm not sure of is whether the standards apply only for international copyright issues, or purely domestic issues such as this one.
Generally, FTA treaties require that the agreeing nations, when standards are established, use those standards for purely domestic issues as well as international issues, since to do otherwise could create a difference in the business climate in the nations who've signed on to the Free Trade Agreement.
An example of this is the US anti-internet-gambling law, which is being disputed in the WTO since the US now has different standards for domestic and international gambling sites.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Hah! Good one!
In case it went over anyone's head, I think he was punning on this
grandparent
Australia is not a part of the US and has managed to avoid becoming subject to many US laws.The author of that comment clearly needs to read up on the concept of English Common Law which is used in courts in the United States, Australia, Canada, South Africa and many other countries associated with the English legal system. In fact, this common law is in practice and frequently used in arguments in the European Economic Community.
I thought I would provide a link to the text of the AUSFTA but I disagree that this trade agreement redefines the concept of fair dealing as used under Australian law. Unless the mining operation or the source of the parody is in the other signatory country, this agreement cannot be seen as in force. So I suppose the defendant ought to have had his or her lawyer refer more to the common law practice as it was developed in the United States under the Fair Use doctrine and see if the Australian courts would agree with that standard.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
it's unlikely this would fly far in the US.
w ins_pric.html
It might fly far enough to keep you in court for four years. In 2000, Ralph Nader's presidential campaign created a parody of the MasterCard "priceless" ads, which had been parodied in several other places previously without a peep from MasterCard. When the Nader ads came out, however, the company atttempted to block stop them from airing, though this was denied. (Interestingly, with the rather small campaign warchest Nader had, the ads probably got more notice than they ever would have if they just aired.) They also sued the Nader campaign and eventually lost... in 2004.
Here is a random assortment of links about the story:
http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/2004/03/nader_
http://www.commondreams.org/views/091300-102.htm
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets002050.shtml
I'm just sayin'.
Correct, from what I can see. IAAL, and what's more IAAAL (I am an Australian lawyer).
It's a shame that they don't fight this. The courts in Australia are generally reasonably sympathetic to the victims of unmeritorious litigation, and wouldn't hesitate to give summary judgment and a significant costs order if it came down to it. The mining industry's lawyers would be well aware of this and would probably settle the thing out of court.
Meanwhile, the whole 'presumption of infringement' attitude encouraged by our laws with respect to ISPs is just pathetic.
Read Pynchon.
Actually, your very wrong.
/ cr1969242/sch10.html
r 200412004n405376/sch1.html
r 200412004n405376/s2.html
We didn't roll over and die on this, we tried arguing it, but the lawyers said 'It doesn't matter if we are wrong or right, you have to abide by this law :
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg
Which REQUIRES, that we pull the site, IRRESPECTIVE of ANYTHING. We just have to get a notice as per the regulations. I asked the solicitor exactly what was copyright, and she said ALL OF IT. as per the notice to us. This is just plain false. I pointed out the source code was different, she then pulled the statement about the above law.
Now, I don't know if you know, but the Mining companies in just NSW are a 21 billion dollar business. That's a lot of money to have hanging over a collective that does web-hosting voluntarily. These lawyers were ready to make sure we paid for not fullfilling our legal requirements. We tried fighting this, and came up against a money wall. a 21 billion dollar money wall.
And for those that think this can't happen in the US, your very wrong. We have the Australian-US Free Trade Agreement to thank for section 20j (the takedown clause):
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg/ca
notice this:
COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 2004 (No. 1) 2004 No. 405 - REG 2
Commencement
These Regulations commence on the commencement of item 191 of Schedule 9
to the US Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act 2004 .
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg/ca