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?"
Well at least parody is still legal in the US. Is anyone else surprised how repressive Australia and the UK can be?
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
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 : )
Parody is the get-out-of-jail-free card of copyright law, because in order for parody to be possible, you have to be able to copy the original work, at least to a point.
There is a tremendous amount of precedent and even law directed against this sort of copyright abuse, and, in the states at least, I'd expect it to be laughed out of anything but the most local and parochial courtroom.
Typical that it's big business pulling this crap...Energy company to boot. I hope they get slapped with all the legal fees, because that's clearly what this is about...Forcing the parody site to pay legal fees to win a case that they can easily win.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
"Is this a misuse of copyright law in order to stifle dissent?"
If it is, it totally failed! I'd have -never- heard of this if they hadn't done this. Now it's got more publicity than the little website could have handled, had it been up. (Does this count as a pre-slashdotting? ie: Site goes down before it's on slashdot.)
Before, should I happen to see something about this in passing, I'd have said 'Pfft. Activists.' and carried on. Now I -know- the mining industry wants this hushed. Suddenly, it seems a little more interesting and probable.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
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.
I don't know. Why do you always answer rhetorical questions? Are you stupid or something?
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
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.
Yeah, as everyone knows, Mining brings you Masonry and Bronze Working, which in turn gets you Metal Casting, Iron Working, Compass and Machinery. There's nothing about 'Life' in there at all.
It is also typical of the new customer service model; "Your satisfaction guaranteed, or we'll sue you". Companies instead of answering the public or ignoring parody aggressively attack it. It's a step up from Mob tactics, but a short step.
Garry AKA -Phoenix- Rising Above the Flames
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
It's called "satire." (And parody, of course.) I haven't liked it historically--although I do remember a fun article in a british pamphlet from a while back about duelling. "Please, sir, show up at half-past ten in front of the convenience store so that we might stick swords in each other." Something like that... In any event, Colbert is the more recent example. The Colbert Report satirizes O'Reilly, and O'Reilly would certainly shut Colbert down if he could. Satire and Parody is one of the few parts of the constitution that has actually remained pretty powerful--that particular application of free speech laws. This is something that the U.S. does right.
Yeah... it's more of a British prison island, right?
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
After all, I would have thought that people opposed to mining would have avoided products that were built using mined materials.
Doubtlessly, you would have, if you view everything in black-and-white terms.
However, more thoughtful people realize that these things are a balance. Mining raw materials can be done responsibly and at moderate levels (far below current levels). But we won't get there if the mining industry just pretends there's no problem.
And this particular criticism was directed at coal mining. Everybody can certainly express their disapproval of coal mining by choosing products and energy providers that don't rely on it as much as possible. Note that some traditionally strong coal mining countries are giving up all coal mining over the next decade.
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.
The discussion here has immediately moved into the area of parody fair use. A quick comparison of the sites in question reveals nothing that even approaches being a copy or derivative work. The text and artwork are original. Unless Australian law allows a phrase such as "brought to you by mining" to be copyrighted, this whole fair use tangent is beside the point.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Stop tacking these 3rd grade essay questions on the end of each post!
:)
It's not like Slashdot had no discussion happening before you started doing that, you know
Computer aren't built of coal, dumbass.
Perhaps not... but I believe in Australia they are, in fact, powered by coal.
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
Grandma: [singing] How many roads must a man walk down before you can
call him a man?
Homer: Seven!
Lisa: No, Dad, it's a rhetorical question.
Homer: Rhetorical, eh? Eight!
Lisa: Dad, do you even know what "rhetorical" means?
Homer: [incredulous] Do I know what "rhetorical" means?!
http://www.skullsecurity.org/blog/
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
Guess what? Parody is well established under Australian law, too, but this happened regardless. The issue is far more to do with misapplication of the statute to enforce your will on a much smaller entity, not an (I know, blasphemy here) inherent flaw in (at least this aspect of) copyright law itself.
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.
Translated for my /. brethren...
Ack, this is an example of NOT having a life. My mistake. Now, excuse me, I have to go farm some more Fel Iron. ;)
Cheers,
Fozzy
"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
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'.