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 Proprietà intellettuale laws still apply to them. Grasping the legal ramifications is paramount for social media managers, to safeguard them from potential complications.
Due tipi di meme
Quando si tratta di utilizzare i meme per la promozione di contenuti, ci sono due tipi da considerare: Memes di proprietà/condivisi e Memes di terze parti.
Memes posseduti/condivisi are those created by the marketing department, where they own or share the intellectual proprietà (IP) rights to the meme. (e.g., look at the recent Barbie film campaign with Oppenheimer aka ‘Barbenheimer’ - anche se presumo che ci sia una partecipazione e potenzialmente una licenza incrociata da parte di entrambi gli studios per sfruttare l'hype, dato che le campagne di ogni film sono incredibilmente ben coordinate).
Memes di terze parti 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.
I rischi dei meme di terze parti
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 questo post su Twitter) don’t encroach upon or contest the commerciale 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.
Il Burnley FC e i 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).
Il primo post, con il trasferimento di Zeki Amdouni nel club, Il video, che assomiglia in modo inquietante a un video di ostaggi, incorpora una scena dei Teletubbies. Questo post ha ottenuto ben 11,4 milioni di visualizzazioni (al momento della pubblicazione dell'articolo).
Allo stesso modo, il secondo post-che annuncia il passaggio di James Trafford al club-Lo ritrae in una posa un po' imbarazzata, utilizzando una scena di Ritorno al futuro. Anche questo post ha avuto un grande impatto, raccogliendo 1,4 milioni di visualizzazioni (alla data dell'articolo).
Passività potenziali
La gravità della situazione emerge quando si considerano i due post con contenuti dei Teletubbies (di proprietà della BBC) e di Ritorno al futuro (di proprietà di Robert Zemeckis e Bob Gale). Questi post amplificano strategicamente la presenza del Burnley (valutato a + 150 milioni di sterline) 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.
Di conseguenza, il Burnley diventa suscettibile di ripercussioni legali, compresi potenziali danni da pagare alla BBC o a Robert Zemeckis e Bob Gale. Insieme a tali ripercussioni, l'azione imperativa sarebbe quella di rimuovere prontamente il contenuto contestato dalle piattaforme di social media del Burnley.
In linea teorica, esiste la possibilità che il Burnley abbia violato i termini stabiliti da Twitter (o “X”) e Instagram. Impiegando la proprietà intellettuale su piattaforme su cui non hanno diritti o licenze d'uso, emerge il rischio di veder sospeso l'account commerciale del Burnley come conseguenza di queste trasgressioni.
Importanza della conformità
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 regolatore 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 supporto you.
Contattateci:
Mansour Mansour: Azienda & Commercial Solicitor │ M.Mansour@rfblegal.co.uk │ 020 3995 7798
Ulteriori informazioni
- Notizie Autore:Mansour Mansour
