3. Rossco – Outside Broadcast Original Image by Rossco CC BY SA http://pool.abc.net.au/media/outside-broadcast
4. Seldom Party - Raise Your Hands Original work by Seldom Party CC BY http://pool.abc.net.au/media/raise-your-hand
5. AgedMusic – Raise Your Hands Original Work by Aged Music CC BY http://pool.abc.net.au/media/seldom-party-raise-your-hand-remix
6. AgedMusic - Jobs Original by AgedMusic CC BY NC http://pool.abc.net.au/media/sweet-jobs-sport-video-fishhead
7. The ABC Release Process Archives Rights Management Commercial ABC Open Archives CC BY NC
8. Reuse Copyright Splits into 2 areas: Moral responsibilities Copyright Provisions Mukumbura CC BY NC SA http://www.flickr.com/photos/mukumbura/3050601544/
9. Moral Responsibility You should credit the original author They have the choice to be credited Toddwshaffer BY NC http://www.flickr.com/photos/toddwshaffer/3656399145/
10. Copyright Provisions 1. Fair Dealing (Australia) 2. Incidental Use: eg magazine cover (not featured material) 3. Extract of Reasonable Use: public speech, education literature 4. Insubstantial Use: it can’t be the heart of the original work
11. Fair Dealing Provision 3 provisions: Reporting of News Review and Criticism Parody and Satire Mang78 CC BY NC http://www.flickr.com/photos/mang78/486341679/
12. Parody and Satire Can’t be funny for funny sake It must comment on a societal issue M.J Vanz CC BY NC http://www.flickr.com/photos/mvjantzen/5117003682/
13. Parody “… is an imitation of a work and will therefore often include parts of the original copyright material – for comic effect and ridicule” (ABC 2011)
14. Satire “… often involves attacking an idea or attitude, an institution or a social practice through irony, derision or wit” (ABC 2011)
15. Vague and Grey Area No concrete precedence Always a case by case scenario
16. Pool and the ABC’s Position Consider the profile of the person being remixed Can you get permission? Does it have a legal defense Risk Management
17. Case Study – Main$treaM Copyright Defamatory Obscenity
18. Case Study - Main$treaM “Cockcheek Part 1” Original work by Main$treaM CC BY http://pool.abc.net.au/media/cockcheek-part-1 Legal decision: “Not OK because too highly obscene.”
19. Case Study - Main$treaM “Max Prophet$ Toyota” Original work by Main$tream CC http://pool.abc.net.au/media/max-prophet-toyota Legal decision: “OK, it’s not obscene, not copyright, and it’s parody.”
Defamatory is more complicated. Firstly we have to establish if the usual person could identify the person being defamed. If yes, we need to establish what imputations there are, i.e. homophobic tendencies, paedophilia, etc. For each imputation, we need to establish if there is a defence. Typical defences are honest opinion, expressed as one’s view, or truth. Honest Opinion needs to have a base to relate it to and not just a rant – i.e. John Laws was caught in the Cash for Comments scandal but there is no evidence to suggest he is a paedophile (unless the artists knows a truth – which becomes complicated again).