Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Copyright Law Used to Shut Down Site

Posted by Hemos on from the bad-usage dept.

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?"

7 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Is it? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  2. Takedown by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Fair dealing includes parody in Australia. by zestyping · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

  4. No Copying, Thus No Fair Use Needed by skywire · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  5. Ahhghhhh! by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 :)

  6. Re:well.. by digitig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  7. Re:well.. by axxs · · Score: 5, Informative

    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