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 Intellectual Property laws still apply to them. Grasping the legal ramifications is paramount for social media managers, to safeguard them from potential complications.
Twee soorten memes
Als het gaat om het gebruik van memes voor het promoten van inhoud, zijn er twee soorten die je moet overwegen: Eigen/Gedeelde memes en memes van derden.
Eigen/Gedeelde memes are those created by the marketing department, where they own or share the intellectual eigendom (IP) rights to the meme. (e.g., look at the recent Barbie film campaign with Oppenheimer aka ‘Barbenheimer’ - hoewel ik ervan uitga dat beide studio's meewerken en mogelijk licenties verlenen om de hype uit te buiten, aangezien de campagnes van elke film ongelooflijk goed gecoördineerd zijn.)
Memes van derden 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.
De risico's van memes van derden
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 deze Twitter-post) don’t encroach upon or contest the commercieel 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 en de memes
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).
De eerste post, met Zeki Amdouni's transfer naar de club, vertoont een griezelige gelijkenis met een gijzelingsvideo, waarin een scène uit de Teletubbies is verwerkt. Dit bericht heeft een indrukwekkende 11,4 miljoen views gekregen (op het moment van publicatie van het artikel).
Ook de tweede post-met de aankondiging van James Trafford's overgang naar de club-toont hem in een ietwat verlegen pose, gebruikmakend van een scène uit Back to the Future. Ook deze post heeft veel impact gehad en is 1,4 miljoen keer bekeken (vanaf de datum van het artikel).
Potentiële verplichtingen
De ernst van de situatie wordt duidelijk als we kijken naar de twee posts met inhoud van de Teletubbies (eigendom van BBC) en Back to the Future (eigendom van Robert Zemeckis en Bob Gale). Deze posts versterken op strategische wijze de aanwezigheid van Burnley (geschat op 150 miljoen pond) 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.
Burnley komt daardoor in aanmerking voor juridische gevolgen, waaronder een mogelijke schadevergoeding aan de BBC of Robert Zemeckis en Bob Gale. In combinatie met dergelijke repercussies is het noodzakelijk om de betwiste inhoud onmiddellijk te verwijderen van de sociale mediaplatforms van Burnley.
Theoretisch gezien bestaat de mogelijkheid dat Burnley de voorwaarden van Twitter (of “X”) en Instagram heeft geschonden. Door intellectueel eigendom te gebruiken op platforms waar ze geen rechten of licenties voor gebruik hebben, ontstaat het risico dat Burnley's zakelijke account wordt geschorst als gevolg van deze overtredingen.
Belang van naleving
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 regelgeving 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 support you.
Neem contact met ons op:
Mansour Mansour: Bedrijven & Commercial Solicitor │ M.Mansour@rfblegal.co.uk │ 020 3995 7798
Extra info
- Nieuws Auteur:Mansour Mansour
