Promoting products or events through social media platforms presents a formidable challenge, particularly for social media managers operating within limited budgets. Amidst this challenge, memes emerge as a budget-friendly approach to skilfully communicate messages. Memes have a unique ability to cut through the noise of social media and resonate with people, making them a valuable tool for social media campaigns. Yet, even though memes might seem like mere ‘humorous images’ circulating freely in the digital realm, it’s vital to recognise that Geistiges Eigentum laws still apply to them. Grasping the legal ramifications is paramount for social media managers, to safeguard them from potential complications.
Zwei Arten von Memen
Wenn es darum geht, Memes für die Promotion von Inhalten zu verwenden, gibt es zwei Arten zu beachten: Eigene/gemeinsame Memes und Memes von Dritten.
Eigene/Freigegebene Memes are those created by the marketing department, where they own or share the intellectual Eigenschaft (IP) rights to the meme. (e.g., look at the recent Barbie film campaign with Oppenheimer aka ‘Barbenheimer’.’ - obwohl ich davon ausgehe, dass beide Studios sich beteiligen und möglicherweise gegenseitige Lizenzen vergeben, um den Hype auszunutzen, da die Kampagnen der beiden Filme unglaublich gut koordiniert sind)
Memes von Drittanbietern are memes that the marketing department does not own the IP rights to. They tend to be more commonly used because of the social currency they hold (be it an image or video clip) which helps propel or colour a message the brand is trying to tell.
Die Risiken von Memes von Drittanbietern
While Third-Party Memes can be effective, they come with potential legal risks, especially when they include copyrighted images or videos without the owner’s permission (breach of copyright).
There is a quiet social understanding (not a legal one!) that memes co-opted or employed by other brands (as exemplified in dieser Twitter-Beitrag) don’t encroach upon or contest the kommerziell rights of the intellectual property (IP) owner. Instead, these memes function as custodians of the IP owner’s copyrighted creation within the social fabric. However, the line between acceptable use and infringement is exceedingly delicate. This balance hinges on the intentions behind meme usage and the identities of both the meme users and the IP holders. Understandably, the owners of intellectual property are unlikely to litigate against a 14-year-old sharing a meme on Twitter, especially when compared to pursuing legal action against a business worth over £100M (*Cough* Burnley).
For absolute clarity, there isn’t a “de minimis” principle that grants free rein in using someone else’s IP, suggesting that using even 10 seconds or less of a song or video clip can potentially trigger legal consequences. While “Fair Dealing” offers some defence, it must align meticulously with specific exemptions pertaining to using another individual’s intellectual property assets. These exemptions, in essence, do not undermine IP owners’ exploitation of their assets or grant third parties the ability to profit from those assets. Hence, the law shows leniency towards certain scenarios, as outlined in s30 and s30A of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988. This leniency extends to instances like parody or satire (under s30A), where the use doesn’t compete with the original IP but rather employs it as a reference to convey a distinct point.
Burnley FC und die Meme
Recently, Burnley FC used memes to announce player transfers in a fun and attention-grabbing way. These posts, while undeniably cringe-worthy, have managed to spark considerable engagement. However, their unconventional approach has also cast a spotlight on potential copyright infringement concerns. The excitement of bringing new players is great and follows a recent tradition of cringey/bad-funny player announcements (*cough* Southampton and Besiktas *cough* but note, these examples fall into the Owned/Shared Meme category! Burnley sadly does not).
Die erste Stelle, über den Wechsel von Zeki Amdouni zum Verein, hat eine verblüffende Ähnlichkeit mit einem Geiselvideo, in dem eine Szene aus den Teletubbies vorkommt. Dieser Beitrag hat beeindruckende 11,4 Millionen Aufrufe (zum Zeitpunkt der Veröffentlichung des Artikels).
Ähnlich verhält es sich mit dem zweiten Post-Ankündigung des Wechsels von James Trafford zum Verein-fängt ihn in einer etwas verlegenen Pose ein und nutzt dabei eine Szene aus Zurück in die Zukunft. Auch dieser Beitrag war sehr erfolgreich und wurde 1,4 Millionen Mal aufgerufen (Stand: Datum des Artikels).
Potenzielle Verbindlichkeiten
Der Ernst der Lage wird deutlich, wenn man die beiden Beiträge betrachtet, die Inhalte der Teletubbies (Eigentum der BBC) und von Zurück in die Zukunft (Eigentum von Robert Zemeckis und Bob Gale) zeigen. Diese Beiträge verstärken strategisch die Präsenz von Burnley (geschätzt auf +£150M) as a prominent Premier League team across the expansive web landscape. This strategic propagation potentially yields indirect commercial advantages. Yet, here lies the core issue: Burnley, as a third party, harnesses the intellectual property (IP) belonging to others to communicate a message about player acquisitions or self-promotion. To be explicit, this usage constitutes a blatant breach of copyright.
Folglich kann Burnley rechtliche Konsequenzen ziehen, einschließlich möglicher Schadensersatzzahlungen an die BBC oder an Robert Zemeckis und Bob Gale. Im Zusammenhang mit solchen Konsequenzen wäre es zwingend erforderlich, den beanstandeten Inhalt unverzüglich von den Social-Media-Plattformen von Burnley zu entfernen.
Theoretisch besteht die Möglichkeit, dass Burnley gegen die von Twitter (oder “X”) und Instagram festgelegten Bedingungen verstoßen hat. Durch die Verwendung von geistigem Eigentum auf Plattformen, für die es keine Rechte oder Lizenzen für die Nutzung gibt, besteht das Risiko, dass Burnleys Geschäftskonto als Folge dieser Übertretungen gesperrt wird.
Bedeutung der Compliance
Although the chances of account suspension and receiving a cease-and-desist letter are slim, the consequences could be severe. Social media managers and marketing managers must exercise caution and obtain proper authorisation before using Third-Party IP in promotional content. In-house counsel’s guidance and client buy-in can also be valuable in avoiding legal complications.
In conclusion, memes can be a powerful tool for content promotion, but social media managers must tread carefully to avoid legal risks. Unsanctioned use of Third-Party IP can lead to copyright infringement claims, potential damages, and even account suspension. Being aware of these risks and obtaining proper permissions is essential for successful and compliant social media campaigns. Additionally, compliance with online advertising regulations and other relevant Regulierung considerations (I.e., Premier League/FA regulations that affect football clubs) is equally vital to ensure a smooth and risk-free promotion of businesses or organisations.
If you require assistance or advice with any of the issues mentioned in this article or any other commercial matters, our dedicated team is ready to Unterstützung you.
Kontaktieren Sie uns:
Mansour Mansour: Unternehmen & Commercial Solicitor │ M.Mansour@rfblegal.co.uk │ 020 3995 7798
Zusätzliche Informationen
- Nachrichten Autor:Mansour Mansour
