Can a person be held liable for copyright infringement for sharing a meme on social media? This has been a topic of debate in recent years, as memes often include images or videos that are copyrighted. Some argue that sharing a meme constitutes fair use, as it is typically used for comedic or satirical purposes. However, others argue that sharing a meme is no different from sharing any other copyrighted material and that the person who shares it should be held liable for infringement. The answer to this question is still unclear and continues to be debated in courts around the world. What is international law on it?
Can a person be held liable for copyright infringement for sharing a meme on social media? Yes, unless some other exception applies. There is no specific exemption from copyright law for sharing a meme on social media. Generally speaking, since sharing a meme on social media involves publishing the entire work to everyone in the world with Internet access, &quot;fair use&quot; is not a very strong defense to a copyright infringement claim in this context. A more viable defense is the doctrine of &quot;implied license&quot; which is the idea that the original person to post a meme on the Internet did so with the implied intent that it be shared widely without a further grant of permission. For this reason, copyright disputes rarely arise from the sharing of a meme on social media. But if the original person to post a meme on the Internet did so without permission of the owner of the copyright to the meme, it is an infringement of the copyright of the meme to share it on social media. This is true even if sharing the meme on social media is merely an innocent infringement made in the good faith belief that it was being shared with the permission of the copyright owner. A claim of innocent infringement status for someone infringing a copyright by sharing a meme on social media is supported by Terms of Service for social media sites that turn over copyright to posted material to the social media provider (with an express right to share it on the site) in cases where the material is provided by the author of or owner of the meme for copyright purposes. Also, another Terms of Service states that users promise not to post copyright infringing materials on the site without permission to do so. Both of these terms of service provisions are ubiquitous on social media sites. But, innocent infringers are still subject to lawsuits for money damages for copyright infringement, just not with all of the same remedies as in cases of intentional copyright infringement. Social media sites themselves are immune from copyright infringement liability under Section 230 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) under U.S. law (where most social media firms are based), however, so long as they comply with takedown notices in the manner provided by the DMCA. Usually, if a copyright infringing meme is taken down by a social media site, the copyright owner will not pursue other users of the site who innocently infringed their copyright by sharing a meme posted by someone else, although the law does not require them to do so. What is international law on it? Copyright law primarily arises under the domestic laws of a country. There are some treaties such as the Berne Convention that seek to standardize copyright law internationally, which many, but not all countries, have adopted. But, in every case, analysis of the specific instance of sharing a meme on social media is not specifically addressed by international treaties, in part, because the practice did not exist when the vast majority of these treaties were entered into by the countries that are parties to them. Facebook, for example, didn't come into existence until October 28, 2003, and the widespread practice of sharing memes on social media is more recent than that.
Yes, you may The layout of the board and its appearance are not protected by copyright, because they are not expressions or any other type of copyrightable content. Even if they were (say if some protested art was displayed on the board) you are displaying this for instructional purposes, and not harming any market for the board, so fair use is likely to apply (in the U.S.). The device could be protected by patent, but you are not copying or imitating the board, nor showing anyone how to do so, so that would not apply. You are not selling or advertising the board, nor knock-offs of it, so trademark protection would not apply, even if a protected trademark is visible on th board. Just in case, be sure to make clear that your video is not authorized or endorsed by the maker of the board.
To do so I used some images and Gifs which may be under copyright but since I don't earn money for myself and there is no company backing me I was hoping that there is some protection for private persons like me who just want to showcase the project. Sorry. If your website is public facing (i.e. not password protected and available only to family and close friends), you need to follow copyright law. There is no exception to copyright just because a project is run by an individual for non-commercial purposes. I am also insecure about the GDPR regulations since I give users the ability to create an account and try it out. Your profile says you're in the EU. Then you need to comply with the GDPR. Is there any way to protect me against greedy lawyers and companies? Could I write something like: "This website is a peace of art" and save myself with arguments like "artistic freedom" or "free speech"? Nope. A controversial website run by Peter Sunde had at one point a "free speech" disclaimer (similar to the one you propose) posted. However, Sunde did never use this defense in court: Finnish court slaps Peter Sunde with €350k fine. If he had shown up in court, I am pretty sure the court would have told him that such a disclaimer has no legal merit. The only protection that will make you completely safe is to adhere to the law.
It's not fair use. Fair use is when you do something that normally only the copyright holder can do. Playing a video game is the ordinary, intended use of the work. In the United States, ordinary use is not protected by copyright. 17 USC 106 sets out the rights protected by copyright. The include copying the work, producing derivative works, distributing the work, and so on. None of these are ordinary use. Someone could perhaps argue that you are creating a derivative work. I doubt that argument would work because you are not taking any protectable elements from the work. But if anyone did argue that, it would make sense to also argue that if that's so, your use would still be covered under fair use because it's transformative, does not substitute for the original work in any way, and takes very little of the work.
Copyright is held by the person who puts the content out there in fixed form. If A reads a prepared text and B talks extemporaneously, A has copyright to his fixed text. Whoever then records the debate holds copyright to B's talk (not a typo). If that person is B, A can point out that A's copyright was infringed, presumably leading B to an equitable arrangement that would avoid copyright violation litigation. However, if the recorder is A, then B is hosed. On the other hand, if neither party has a prepared text, then the guy who does the recording has all the rights. And if both parties have prepared texts, nobody gets to record without a copyright agreement.
You cannot safely rely on the US doctrine of Fair Use, except if the rights-holder sues you in US courts. In France, there are limited exceptions to the authors proprietary rights. Under Art. L-122-5, there are some relevant potential exceptions: 3ºa) analyses and short quotations justified by the critical, polemic, educational, scientific or informatory nature of the work in which they are incorporated... 4º. parody, pastiche and caricature, observing the rules of the genre. Your description of the intended use does not fit these criteria. Consulting with a copyright attorney is advised, if you don't want to obtain a license.
I presume from the fact that you mention &quot;fair use&quot; that you're interested in United States law. In that case, the answer is a clear-cut &quot;no&quot;. 17 USC 107: Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Let's look at your proposed use under these four factors: The purpose of use: Commercial use, selling these movie clips for direct profit. You're not making any sort of transformative use (such as critical commentary), you're just re-using them as is. Big strike against you. The nature of the copyrighted work: a work of fiction; your derivative is also an entertainment product. Another big strike. The portion used: I haven't seen the clips in question, but you mention &quot;famous scenes&quot;. That would work in your favor if you were using the clips for something like scholarship, but since you're not, the fact that these are the &quot;important parts&quot; works against you; the fact that they're small is irrelevant. The effect on the potential market for the copyrighted work: This is a huge strike against you: your clips are directly displacing licensed use of the movie clips. If I were a movie company and I caught you doing this, I'd bring out the big guns: I'd sue you for every penny you earned, plus substantial penalties, plus lawyer fees, plus everything else I could think of. And given the strength of the case against you, it's virtually certain you'd lose. You might be tempted to compare what you're doing to animated-gif &quot;image macros&quot;, but there's one major difference: the &quot;macros&quot; are generally used to compare a movie situation to an out-of-movie situation, making at least a gesture in the direction of transformative use and commentary. By pre-packinging your gifs, you're not commenting on anything. Your only option for making what you're doing legal is to go to the copyright owners and ask for permission.
First of all derivative works are not exactly "illegal". They are fully legal if the owner of the copyright in the original work has given permission. If no permission has been given, they may be copyright infringements. But they may fall under an exception to copyright. Under US law, the most common exception is "fair use". See this question and answer for more on fair use. But particularly relevant in this case is that a parody is usually a fair use, although as in every fair-use decision, there is pretty much no clear-cut, hard&amp;fast rule on what is and is not fair use. In the UK and much of the EU (or maybe all of it, I am not sure) there is a somewhat similar concept known as "fair dealing". It is also an exception to copyright. So it is possible that such works fall under fair use, fair dealing, or another exception to copyright, or that the rights-holder has given permission. Secondly, copyright infringement is a tort, not a crime, under most circumstances. It is enforced when, and only when, a copyright-holder chooses to take action, sending a take-down notice or copyright complaint, of filing suit for infringement. Some rights-holders choose as a matter of policy not to take such actions, thinking that such derivative works actually benefit them. That is their choice to make. Some rights-holders don't have the time or money to track down and take action against most infringements, and will only act if they think the derivative work will in some way cost them a lot of money or harm their reputation. Some rights-holders may just not have heard, yet, of specific possible infringing derivative works. As for Acta2, it has not yet been approved, the Wikipedia article linked in the questions says: In order for the text of the directive to become law in the EU, it must be approved by the European Council on 9 April 2019 The article also mentions significant continuing opposition. If it is approved, it is not clear, to me at least, how it will affect sites hosting such content, nor how it will interact with the copyright law of individual EU nations. If approved, it will no doubt take some time before enforcement is widespread. And of course it will only apply when EU law applies. If both site and author are outside the EU -- say if both are from the US -- it seems that it could not apply.