
Parody copyright laws set to come into effect in the UK - GotAnyMegadeth
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29408121
======
tikhonj
Generally, this seems to be a good law. To my understanding, it's on par with
the protections we already have in the US.

It's interesting how the law singles out "discriminatory":

> _If a parody conveys a discriminatory message (for example, by replacing the
> original characters with people wearing veils and people of colour), the
> holders of the rights to the work parodied have, in principle, a legitimate
> interest in ensuring that their work is not associated with such a message._

Why is that the only case where right holders have a "legitimate interest"
like this? There are lots of other cases where somebody _should_ have a
similar case by a similar standard: obscenity, sex, violence, religion or
anything else counter to a group's core beliefs. The law should be consistent
one way or another, but it isn't.

A few decades ago, sex would have been the one issue singled out. And before
that? Probably anti-religious messaging. Or maybe just communism, although
that was more of an American concern.

Point being, it really brings to mind the idea of "moral fashion" from "What
You Can't Say"[1]. As time goes on, I'm seeing the ideas from that essay
illustrated more and more, especially because we seem to be in a transitionary
period between two different fashions. It's a bit disconcerting, honestly; it
feels like things aren't really changing, just the names and details.

[1]: [http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)

~~~
nathan_long
> There are lots of other cases where somebody should have a similar case by a
> similar standard: obscenity, sex, violence, religion or anything else
> counter to a group's core beliefs.

Just what I came here to say. If I wrote a children's song and someone
parodied it with sexual content, I'd be miffed.

On the other hand, if original authors could define what's offensive, they
could object to each parody individually on made-up grounds.

It's probably better to totally separate the questions of "can you make a
parody" and "can you publish a work with content X, whether or not it's a
parody" (with the answer being "yes, we believe in free speech" in all but a
very few cases).

~~~
jiggy2011
The UK is a bit more nuanced with free speech than the US, it can be illegal
to make an offensive joke on twitter for example.

~~~
bshimmin
"Nuanced" is a good word for this. It feels like there has been a gradual
shift over the last few years - and the Twitter rulings (of which another just
today) exemplify this - towards less freedom, supported by vague ideas like
"incitement" to "terrorism" and "racial hatred".

For anyone old enough to remember the wild west of Usenet a decade or two ago,
the sort of stuff we see people being imprisoned for posting on Twitter now
seems extremely tame. But hey, celebrities didn't really get into Usenet too
much...

~~~
ZoFreX
There is nothing new or special about the Twitter rulings in the UK. Whether
you agree with it or not, if you wrote similar messages to someone via letter
20 years ago you could get in trouble. Simply changing the medium hasn't
changed the legal ramifications.

~~~
bshimmin
Aside from the fact that there have been actual changes to the law (mentioned
in my "vague ideas" clause), what's changed is that people used to post
obscene and threatening things on usenet, and whenever the police were
involved, nothing ever came of it. With Twitter in the UK, in 2014, people now
go to prison for posting such things.

Of course Twitter is more popular than Usenet ever was, but I'm not sure
whether that's more the point than a gradual erosion of freedom of speech in
the UK which I personally think we've seen.

------
zzmp
"Owners of the copyrighted works will only be able to sue if the parody
conveys a discriminatory message.

"It would then be down to a judge to decide if the parody is funny."

Can't wait to see that lawsuit...

~~~
marcosdumay
When I read the title, I though that the law was a parody, and somehow got
into effect...

Now that I've read it, I know that my first interpretation was correct.

~~~
lotsofmangos
That first interpretation may have always been correct, at least with much of
copyright law. When you google mickey mouse law and get the US copyright
extension act, you gotta figure there is some high stakes satire going on
somewhere.

------
quarterto
Phew, for a second there I thought this was going to be _banning_ parody. No
idea it was already.

------
rglover
The most successful use of this in the US has been
[https://twitter.com/dumbstarbucks](https://twitter.com/dumbstarbucks). Pretty
great.

------
ape4
What if the derived work is funny and discriminatory.

~~~
dnautics
We must protect the UK from the likes of Key and Peele!

------
aluhut
_Cassette Boy, who is known for his online mash-up parodies of shows_

Not so many years ago, that sentence would look very weird. I love the times
we live in.

------
hotgoldminer
I read the title to mean someone proposed the law as parody only to see it
come into effect. Such a jaded and cynical world!

------
lotsofmangos
John Cleese will now fine you a herring for whistling any tracks by the
Beatles.

------
menzoic
@SouthPark

------
atmosx
If copyright owners start using this law to sue everyone they see fit, the law
will last 12 months tops IMHO or it will destroy both parody and satire as we
know it in the UK.

~~~
matthewmacleod
This law does literally the opposite of what you are talking about.

~~~
atmosx
Then, I got this entire thing wrong, which is a good thing.

~~~
lotsofmangos
We were living in your nightmare future world already and you didn't even
notice. Just think of all the parody we've been missing up until now.

