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?"

Comments

well..

[mastershake_phd]

Well at least parody is still legal in the US. Is anyone else surprised how repressive Australia and the UK can be?

Re:well..

[digitig]

It may well be legal in Australia, too; this looks like an ISP that rolls over and dies whenever a complaint is lodged. Nowhere does it say that the Minerals Council demonstrated a copyright infringement, it just says that they complained and the host took the site down. It hasn't gone to court, and it looks to me as if the Minerals Council is just hoping that Rising Tide won't have the resources to mount an effective legal challenge. I understand that such things happen in the USA, too.

Re:well..

[axxs]

Actually, your very wrong.

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/ cr1969242/sch10.html

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/car 200412004n405376/sch1.html

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/car 200412004n405376/s2.html

From Wikipedia:

[popo]

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))

Stifle?

[Aladrin]

"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.

Re:Is it?

[Mr. Underbridge]

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.

Takedown

[Any Web Loco]

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.

Re:Why do I always answer rhetorical question?

[Russ Nelson]

I don't know. Why do you always answer rhetorical questions? Are you stupid or something?

Fair dealing includes parody in Australia.

[zestyping]

According to the Australian Copyright Council:

A person can make a "fair dealing" with copyright material for any of the following purposes:

• research or study;
• criticism or review;
• parody or satire;
• reporting news; or
• professional advice by a lawyer, patent attorney or trade marks attorney.

The above is quoted from their Information Sheet on Fair Dealing. The third page of that document has more detail on "Fair dealing for parody or satire" and draws a distinction between parody and satire:

A parody is an imitation of a work, and may include parts of the original. In some cases, a parody may not be effective unless parts of the original are included. It seems that the purpose of a true parody is to make some comment on the imitated work or on its creator.

The purpose of satire, on the other hand, is to draw attention to characteristics or actions - such as vice or folly - by using certain forms of expression - such as irony, sarcasm and ridicule. It seems that both elements are required: the object to which attention is drawn (vice or folly etc) and the manner in which it is done (irony, ridicule etc). It is not clear, for example, that a work which uses irony or ridicule about something other than something like vice or folly would be satire.

[...]

It is not so clear that use of a copyright work for satiric purposes would be as likely to be "reasonable" in all the circumstances. This is because, unlike parody, the object of satire is generally not the copyright material itself or its creator(s). The copyright material used may enhance a work that has a satirical purpose, but is unlikely to be necessary for the for the satirical purpose.

Re:A little OT...

[Minwee]

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.

Re:Australia is not a part of the US

[hansamurai]

Yeah... it's more of a British prison island, right?

Re:Is it?

[ePhil_One]

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.

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.

No Copying, Thus No Fair Use Needed

[skywire]

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.

Ahhghhhh!

[cascadingstylesheet]

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 :)

Re:Is it?

[Headcase88]

"It has to be clear that the site is a parody, and not the actual site."

If someone can't tell the difference after reading a small sample of each site, then apparently the mining industry needs to hire better PR representatives.