Crisis Memes: The Importance of Templatability to Internet Culture and Freedom of Expression

I don't always loot, but when I do it's cuz I need some basmati rice

Rintel, S. (2013). Crisis Memes: The Importance of Templatability to Internet Culture and Freedom of ExpressionAustralasian Journal of Popular Culture, 2(2): 253-271. DOI: 10.1386/ajpc.2.2.253_1

Abstract:

Crisis memes are the ghoulish and satirical posts that spread through social media concurrently with serious journalistic reportage. They are folk productions that respond to challenging events based on thematic and structural templates of popular online image macros. This article explores how templatability is relevant to the underpinnings, development, structure and value of crisis memes. The combination of frivolity and ghoulishness that is typical of crisis memes may be criticized for not being reasoned discourse, reinforcing cultural divides and making use of copyrighted content without permission and in ways that the copyright holder may not wish. However, the value of crisis memes lies not in their content but rather their place as a public voice that sidesteps the constraints of traditional media and as an illustration of freedom of expression that may be threatened by increasingly restrictive copyright regimes.

Related:

Strategies for keeping on the right side of copyright issues with Pinterest

Karen Benton, an Australian abstract artist, asked me for my opinion about strategies for keeping on the right side of protecting your copyright and avoiding violating others’ copyright when it comes to the content-sharing service Pinterest.

I am not a lawyer, nor an expert on copyright law, so this post does not constitute legal advice. These are my lay opinions. Note also that this pertains primarily to Australian law. I have based some of my ideas on the following post: Cox, R., & Kearney, P. (April 02, 2012). Pinterest and copyright: To pin or not to pin? [updated]. Minter Ellison Intellect blog. If any lawyers would like to comment on this, I’d love to hear from you.

(A) Protecting your copyright

When it comes to protecting your copyright, you need to consider what evidence you would take to court to argue that you had provided users with clear indications about their rights to use or not use your materials.

The Minter Ellison post suggests that there are at least three scenarios:

(1) Having a “Pin It” link on your website might imply that you are providing users with tacit rights to pin and repin your images on Pinterest. That does not necessarily destroy your copyright in terms of recognition of creation, although it might limit your ability argue that you specifically reserve to display (and hence potentially monetize) your materials to the exclusion of all others.

(2) On the other hand, having “No Pin” code and text on your site might constitute a relatively clear attempt to directly and explicitly indicate to users that you are protecting your copyright and exclusive rights to display (and hence potentially monetize) your materials.

(3) If you have no indication either way I think the basic copyright rules (see B below) would apply, but it might come down to who has the better lawyers.

Note that any such argument would stand as part of any larger indication/lack of indication about copyright on your website. So a © symbol and statement on every page, especially on every image, might change the overall copyright reading, as might the use of any Creative Commons licensing.

My recommendation (note: not legal advice!)

Decide to deliberately use (1) or (2), and also use a complimentary general copyright statement.

 (B) Considering others’ copyright

The basic sense of copyright is that it is automatically granted to the author upon creation of an original work. This means that authors can explicitly or may implicitly *give away* copyright. Explicitly giving away copyright involves displaying a license such as “public domain” or one of the Creative Commons sharing licences. Implicitly giving away copyright involves placing your material in a place where others have free access, not displaying any kind of ownership/license, and not contesting the use of material by others. Whatever implicitly more free rules of sharing people might want to claim about Pinterest and other social media services, I think the basic sense of copyright remains in place if a creator decide to contest the use of materials by others.

So it would seem that unless material specifically provides for the right to free use by others, or the website the material is on is arguably in the public domain or implies free use by others, then copyright still stands.

The rubber hits the road when money is involved. When you make money using the materials of others without some form of authorisation then you are open to litigation. So, private users pinning images in their own collections or shared collections are probably fine because they aren’t making money. But if a business uses the images of others, there maybe trouble.

When it comes to selling products, it may be that if you take your own image of a product then you can use that image even if you don’t own the rights to the ‘look’ of the product itself. It gets trickier when the product itself is image-based, especially a painting, since the value of the image of the painting could be said to be close to the value of the painting itself.

It gets even trickier when think of the combination of A and B. If a business wishes to be part of a community of businesses, using images from its own and other business sites, there could be a lot of trouble if someone decided to litigate.

My recommendation for B (note: not legal advice!)

If you’re a business, or connected to a business involving sales where you are using materials from other sources, seek permission in writing for on either a per-object or blanket basis. Don’t post without permission, even if you see a “Pin It” link on the other site.

Related posts:

Put a Pin(terest) in it

Australian Gift Guide interviewed me about Pinterest.

Excerpt:

“Dr Sean Rintel, lecturer in strategic communications at the University of Queensland, says the site’s popularity stems from our basic instincts. [...] “Lots of people collect images of fashion; they clip magazines and put them into various sorts of things like that, so this is just a new version of that kind of collecting behaviour. “The big benefit is that you can share this stuff with other people and so if you’ve got a need to share your collection with other people—either just because you’re interested in sharing it or you want people to look at it and give you some sort of suggestion—that’s when Pinterest becomes really useful.”

The Copyright Issue

“If you’re a business you’ve got to be sure you own the rights or have rights to whatever images you want to put up, so if you own a store you need to take your own photos or you need to check if your suppliers are giving you images you can use royalty free or for a small fee with their permission, because otherwise you might be in a difficult position copyright wise.”

Read the full article at:

Galvin, R. (2012, July). Put a pin in it. Australian Gift Guide, pp 44-45. (PDF)

Related articles:

Rintel, S. (2012, March 22). A new way to share – why Pinterest isn’t just another social network. The Conversation (Online).

Webcast: Protecting an uncensored Internet

State Library of Queensland panel: Protecting an uncensored Internet: the global response to SOPA legislation

SLQ SOPA Panel Podcast MP3 direct download [60Mb] via @SLQ

Date: Wednesday 1 February  2012

Speakers:

  • Dr Sean Rintel (UQ, social communication technology researcher)
  • Associate Professor Axel Bruns (QUT researcher in  social media mapping, citizen journalism and online publishing)
  • Dr Nic Suzor (QUT researcher in law and technology)

Facilitated by Mark Fallu (Griffith University).

Panel topic: In late January 2012, Internet companies such as Google, Wikipedia, Flickr and Mozilla Firefox shut down their sites in protest against the introduction of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA). Millions of internet users took to social media to pledge their disapproval for these laws which opponents claim will threaten free speech and innovation. The power of this public response caused the withdrawal of support from key politicians, defeating the legislation and sending it back to the drawing boards.

This expert panel explored at the legislation and explains why it was introduced, analysed the response from the Internet community and the bigger issues surrounding online piracy and Internet censorship.

Additional information:

My post: Creativity Versus Copyright: Lessons From The Reddit Zombie Apocalypse

My post: No “fair”, no “share”: The Trans-Pacific Partnership IP Chapter Wordle

The next most important treaty to be concerned with is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Nate Anderson at Ars Technica has just posted a very good article on why TPP is so worrying. You can also read the EFF’s TPP page, which includes a link to the leaked IP chapter.

TPP has some very worrying implications: Limited safe harbours, jurisdiction over buffered copies of files, increased copyright terms, incentives for ISPs to cooperate with authorities.

You can also read the DFAT page on TPP, which includes an email address for submitting a comment (by Feb 12, I think): tpp@dfat.gov.au

The terms “bitroots” and “bitroots activism” seem to have first appeared in print in Larry Downes’s Forbes article “Who Really Stopped SOPA, and Why?”.

Optus TV Now decision and the ongoing IP debate

In Dan Barrett’s report on the recent Optus TV decision (Optus TV Now – Now offering live sports (2 Minutes later). | White Noise), he mentioned that on a SOPA panel this week I discussed how the fashion industry manages to thrive despite rampant copying. I learned about this from Johanna Blakley’s brilliant TED talk “Lessons from fashion’s free culture“, which you should watch immediately!