back to article The BNP can rip off your works for ‘parodies’ – but only if it's not racist

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled on who can use copyrighted work in a parody, and said it’s fair game – as long as it’s not, er, sexist or racist. Traditionally, authors have been able to use moral rights to disassociate their work from a derivative. But this latest interpretation of the EU’s parody …

  1. Spoonsinger
    Windows

    Vote UKIP!

    errmm, sorry wrong website :-)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Vote UKIP!

      Rejoice, in an EU-free Britain, the right to parody will be restored!

      Unless of course, it's a UKIP leaflet you're parodying... then the freedom-loving libertarians at UKIP will set their masonic chums in the local rozzas onto you to force you to delete your heretical utterings

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-complaint-prompts-police-to-question-blogger-9358634.html

    2. edge_e
      Happy

      Re: Vote UKIP!

      Touche

      1. Frankee Llonnygog

        Re: Vote UKIP!

        douché

  2. Frankee Llonnygog

    I cant reconcile these two statements by the author

    The CJEU ruling acknowledged that authors have “a legitimate interest in ensuring that the work protected by copyright is not associated with such a message.”

    What the court seemed concerned about in the current case was the image of people represented in the parody – not the rights of the author.

  3. ukgnome

    But the good news is......

    Oh hang on there isn't good news. The likes of Britain First will be on this ruling and peddling hate in a comedic hey it's a parody way.

    1. Lamont Cranston

      Re: But the good news is......

      Isn't that the opposite of what this ruling says?

    2. dotdavid

      Re: But the good news is......

      I'm sure I can ignore parody Britain First posts in much the same way as I currently ignore other Britain First posts.

      IMHO this news is therefore neither good nor bad according to your example.

  4. graeme leggett Silver badge

    The protection comes across as an exception from the ability to interpret someone else's work if the "parody" is used in a manner that may be an offence.

    But then I'm not a lawyer, so what would I know...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      IANAL

      Actually not cause an offence - parody nearly always does, that is what it is for.

      If I understand correctly this means that the parody exemption does not apply if it is used in a manner that _IS_ an offence. That is from the realm of bleeding obvious, do not see why it ended up being referred "upstairs" in the first place.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Those silly EU Courts

    Do they specifically go out of their way to only hire loons who flunked out of Law School?

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So what happens if you're satirising sexism by pretending to be outrageously sexist? Or racist by being racist? Or any other -ist?

    1. Irony Deficient

      the dangers of being too clever by half

      moiety, I suppose that if legislatures and judiciaries couldn’t distinguish between an -ism and a satirized -ism, one could avoid creating derivative satire and create original satire instead, such as Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.

    2. frank ly

      The truly sad part is that many people can't recognise a parody and really do make an association between the original creator and the scene expressed in the parody. Hence the concerns of the original creators.

  7. Pen-y-gors

    Billy's safe (I think)

    The point is that the work can only be lifted for "caricature, parody and pastiche" - they can't just use it as a soundtrack for a broadcast. They've got to be making an amusing point.

    1. MyffyW Silver badge

      Billy's safe (I think)

      That's a relief. The Bard of Barking is, after all, best parodied by Bill Bailey.

      "I used to buy my chips, from an oppressive chipshop regime."

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_uEbGJtnY

  8. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    An interesting interpretation

    Generally parody allows you fair use of the material you are parodying

    So you can rewrite a Billy Brag song to take the piss out of My Bragg - like Weird Al's parody of Nirvana.

    But you can't use Mr Bragg's work to parody something else and claim your copyright violation is parody - like Weird Al using Gangsta paradise to parody the Amish

    The intention is that for example, BP can't stop you protesting against BP by claiming that your use of their logo or pictures of one of their oil spills on your banner is copyright. But it doesn't allow you to use scenes from star wars for free in your attack of BP.

    1. User McUser

      Re: An interesting interpretation

      Claiming the parody exception for Intellectual Property A when it is used to parody Intellectual Property B is a separate issue.

      What this ruling is saying, assuming I understood the article correctly, is that you can't parody Intellectual Property A *if* the resulting work is racist or sexist. Eg: If you parodied "Smells like Teen Spirit" as "Smells like [Your Favorite Racist Term Here] Spirit" the racism/sexism voids the exception and you can be sued.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: An interesting interpretation

        Yes I was commenting on the first paragraph about facists using Billy Bragg

      2. dan1980

        Re: An interesting interpretation

        There are two issues around parodies - one is what works qualify as parodies and the other is what parodies receive protection from copyright.

        In the US, parodies must actually comment on the original work. Other countries have different definitions but the point to this decision is, I believe, is to say that even if your work qualifies as a parody, it will be denied protection from copyright if it is used to promote racism, sexism and other bad values.

        Of course, the question - as raised in the article - is who decides what values are bad enough?

  9. The_Idiot

    So what happens if...

    ... I (not that I would, of course, or ever have) write a parody, utilising a main character of a rodent-like creature called, for example, Mikhail Moss, with a canine friend called Gawfy and another called Plato?

    I'd be safe, in Europe at least?

    I'm guessing not...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So what happens if...

      OK, as long as Gawfy wears pants and Plato doesn't.

    2. Mister_C

      Re: So what happens if...

      You'd probably be Donald Ducked

  10. Tom 35

    Someone still upset

    About that Hitler subtitle parody maybe?

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon
      Coat

      Re: Someone still upset

      Which one?

      1. Tom 35

        Re: Someone still upset

        This one.

        Defending your digital rights? Then you're a Nazi, says the Open Rights Group

        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/01/defend_your_digital_rights_you_must_be_a_nazi_then/

        Someone got all bent over a Downfall parody, and not because they are past the best buy date.

  11. P. Lee
    Coat

    Ah Zo!

    Velcomman esteemed members of zee Reichst^H^H^H^HEuropean Parliament. Now zat vee haff brought to heel zee fun created by uncontrolled parody, vee shall move on to deal viz zee menace ov zee unregulated use ov irony.

  12. Vic

    Equality.

    So the BNP can parody Billy Bragg.

    And Billy Bragg can parody the BNP.

    Preventing the first necessarily prevents the second.

    Is there anyone that would really want that? I think we're pretty much spot-on with what we've got.

    Vic.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like